Congressional Budget For The United States Government For Fiscal Year 2008

Floor Speech

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 -- (Senate - March 20, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to respond to the President's remarks he made about a half hour ago about the problems we are facing with the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

The President had a press conference, basically, where he said he wanted to cooperate and he wanted the information to come out. That is good news because that is what we all want. This is such a serious issue. The integrity of the U.S. attorneys, the integrity of the Justice Department has been hurt, and we must restore it.

It is good to see the President understands we have to do something, we must restore integrity to what is the foundation of this country, the rule of law, without fear or favor. So when the President began to speak, I felt quite good. But when we learned of what he has proposed, it can only be called very disappointing because while he has made an offer that appears to be cooperative, when you look at it closely--you do not even have to look at it that closely--the cooperation is minimal.

Let me show you why. The President has said we could interview--his words, we could interview--some of his high-level staff. However, the interview will be held in private, not in public. There will be no oath or sworn testimony. There will not even be a transcript.

The interview will be as if it occurred in a darkened room, and then there is no record of what happened. If at these interviews the statement of, say, Karl Rove or Harriet Miers contradicts statements given before, there is nothing that can be done about it. We cannot get to the bottom, we cannot get to the truth. What is the objection to having a transcript if there is nothing to hide, nothing wrong with the transcript? What is the objection to an oath? If there is nothing to hide and everyone is telling the truth, there should be no objection to an oath. What is the objection to having this discussion in public? Because if we want to restore the integrity of the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Justice Department, that cannot be done by someone whispering to someone else in a back and darkened room. It must be done in public.

Any lawyer will tell you that the offer made by the President is not going to get the truth. No transcript, no oath, no public testimony--what are we hiding? The bottom line is, if the President wants the truth to come out, then he would have testimony given in a far more full and open way. It seems as if the President wants to appear to be cooperative but not really cooperate. So we will have to go back and come up with a better plan because this plan does not work.

The President has said he will give us memos, but the only memos we will get are memos we have already received, With only a few exceptions because the President has said any memos within the White House are off limits. If Aide A sends an e-mail to Counsel B, and it says, ``Let's fire U.S. Attorney C because they are doing an investigation we don't like, but find another justification, another reason,'' and then the counsel writes to the Justice Department, ``We are firing that U.S. attorney because they are not working hard enough on,'' say, ``immigration cases,'' we will have no way to get at the first memo, and the truth will not come out.

So, Mr. President, give us all the memos, not just some. Give us all the memos related to this issue, not just the ones that won't help us with the case.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 3 minutes, charged against our side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SCHUMER. If we really want to get to the bottom of this issue, there is a much better way to do it--one without politics, one without partisanship, but one that gets at the truth--in public, under oath, with a transcript, and with all the memos being made public.

I think the President has an obligation to tell the American people why he is against a transcript, why he is against an oath, why he is against testimony in public. If our mutual goal is to get at the truth, there is no good justification to not allow those things.

There is precedent. It is not unusual for Presidential advisers to testify
under oath in public before congressional committees or subcommittees. Take President Bush's immediate predecessor, President Clinton. Advisers who held the very same positions that are now held by Karl Rove and Harriet Miers in their time, and their deputies, testified. Harold Ickes testified. Bruce Lindsey testified. John Podesta testified. Beth Nolan testified. Those are people who had the exact same positions as Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and their aides. They testified under oath, in public, with a transcript. If it was good enough for President Clinton and previous Presidents and their aides, why isn't it good enough for this President? Why do we have to have a narrow, constricted standard that seems almost designed not to bring out the truth?

So the Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Senator Leahy, will follow this investigation where it leads. We have an obligation far above party, far above partisanship to our country and its system of justice to get to the bottom of this situation. We will not be deterred. We will continue to focus. And the truth will come out. We owe it to the U.S. attorneys who were dismissed for reasons that still have not adequately been explained, with their careers and reputations damaged. We owe it to all the other U.S. attorneys who are now under a cloud because of what has been done. We owe it to our system of justice.

Mr. President, please let us have a full, complete investigation, not a limited one almost designed so the truth does not come out.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source