"He's not the decider for the United States Senate"

At a hearing Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee effectively rejected an offer from the White House by authorizing subpoenas for Karl Rove and others.

Editor's note: Following are excerpts from Thursday's hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. During the hearing, the committee voted to authorize committee chair Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., to issue subpoenas to White House political advisor Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and others. Speaking in these excerpts are Leahy, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

Read more: Politics, Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, News, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, Primary sources

March 23, 2007 | LEAHY: I want to get to one important matter held over from our last meeting. I want to vote on the authorization of subpoenas for Mr. Rove, Ms. Miers and Mr. Kelley.

If there is not a objection, those in favor of having those subpoenas say aye.

SPECTER: Mr. Chairman?

LEAHY: Senator Specter?

SPECTER: Before you move to that order of business, there are some comments which I would like to make.

LEAHY: Certainly.

SPECTER: I can count the votes, as I said last week, on the subpoena issue as to members of the Department of Justice. And with respect to the subpoenas for the White House officials, again, I can count the votes and understand that they will be approved.

But it is my urging that we not move forward to have a confrontation with the president on this issue. And I say that because of the importance of getting at the underlying facts so that we can deal with a very serious problem which confronts the administration of both criminal and civil justice in the federal courts.

We have 93 U.S. attorneys in the country. And they have been asked to resign. And every U.S. attorney has to be subject to a chilling effect from what has gone on in Washington, as to whether the U.S. attorneys who were asked to resign -- whether that was done properly or improperly. ...

We have had a proposal by the president. And I would like to see us move -- as I've talked to you, Mr. Chairman, on a number of occasions -- to see if we can't make a counterproposal which will be acceptable.

Frankly, it looks difficult, with Tony Snow quoted in this morning's paper as saying that the offer is off the table since it hasn't been accepted. ...

I would prefer to see an open session. I think the American people are very concerned about what's gone on. I think that people have a right to know. And I would like to see an open session.

I don't want to be in concrete on anything. I want to try to get it resolved. There are precedents for having a closed session.

As to the issue of a transcript, I think it is indispensable that there be a transcript so that we know what has been said. If we don't, then senators will walk out of the room and in perfectly good faith will have different versions as to what occurred. And that is highly undesirable.

With respect to an oath, here, again, that would be nice, but I do not think indispensable. And the reason I say that is because the penalty for false information under 18 USC 1001 is five years; the same as it is for perjury. There have been a lot of successful prosecutions for giving false information. And we can proceed on that basis with the same leverage that we could with an oath.

...

LEAHY: You know, I find much to agree with, as I often do, with the senator from Pennsylvania. ...

I also take the president and Mr. Snow at their word.

They said it was a take-it-or-leave-it offer. The president said they'd have to be -- whatever testimony there was, it would have to be limited and one time only, behind closed doors, no transcript, limited number of people there.

That is not what the American people want. I have suggested there be a regular hearing, where both Republicans and Democrats ask questions, under oath; the American public make up their mind.

The president has said it can only be, and the only thing he would accept -- and Mr. Snow said this again yesterday -- the only thing they would accept -- they would not consider anything else -- the only thing they would accept is if the Senate did exactly what they told them to, which would be closed door, limited number of people, limited agenda, no oath and no transcript, so nobody knows exactly what happened.

He said that is the only thing that would be acceptable to them. So there's really nothing to look for for a compromise, because that is not acceptable to me.

I want it open. I want people to notice it. I want both Republicans and Democrats to be able to ask questions. I have had enough of these closed-door meetings. We've had them up here, where they come up and tell you one thing one day. Two days later, in the press, we find -- oops, that wasn't what the real story was. And then they call up and say, "Oh, yes, I guess we left some key things out or we were misleading; could we have another one of those private meetings?"

I'm tired of that.

...

SPECTER: Two questions, Senator Leahy.

Question number one is: Will this investigation be best served by finding out what we can now, as opposed to litigation which will take more than two years? And question number two, related to question number one: If we don't like what we get, we can always issue a subpoena and move with the subpoena if we don't like what we get.

LEAHY: That's not...

SPECTER: Why not take what we can get, in the interest of finding out...

LEAHY: No. What we're told we can get is nothing, nothing, nothing. We're told that we can have a closed-door meeting with no transcript, not under oath, limited number of people, and the White House will determine what the agenda is. That, to me, is nothing.

Next page: Specter: "I have my independence from the president, thank you"