[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 109 (Friday, September 15, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Page S8625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S8625]]
                               WEN HO LEE

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on a 
number of matters. First, the situation with Dr. Wen Ho Lee has drawn 
national--really, international--attention, especially in light of 
President Clinton's statement yesterday that he was deeply troubled by 
the actions of the Department of Justice and the Department of Energy.
  The President put his finger on the critical question; that is, how 
could it be that on one day Dr. Wen Ho Lee was a major threat to 
national security, and on the next day the Government agreed to a plea 
bargain on one count, without jail time or without probation, allowing 
him to walk out free?
  The President was sharply critical, especially of the actions of the 
Attorney General, who had a rather extraordinary interview with the 
media yesterday. She was asked about the Wen Ho Lee case and she said 
that, had Dr. Lee cooperated with the Government, a result could have 
been achieved a long time before on the disclosure of what had happened 
with the tapes. But the problem with that answer is that the defense 
had offered the Government precisely what the Government finally got; 
that is, Dr. Lee's cooperation on what had happened to those downloaded 
materials. That offer had been made months ago, but the Government had 
never replied to that offer. So it is hardly an excuse for Attorney 
General Reno to say had Dr. Lee cooperated, the matter would have been 
resolved a long time ago.
  Then she was asked a question relating to any mistakes or anything 
that was done wrong in the handling of Dr. Wen Ho Lee's case. She said 
she was going to have to review the record to answer that question--
which is really extraordinary, since she is the Attorney General and 
this matter was under her direct, personal supervision. That is a fact 
we know because in August of 1997, FBI Director Louis Freeh sent one of 
his top deputies, Assistant Director John Lewis, to Attorney General 
Reno personally to ask for authorization to submit to the court an 
application for a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act. At that time, the FBI had provided a statement of probable cause 
which was more than sufficient to have the warrant issued.
  Attorney General Reno then referred that request to a man named 
Daniel Seikaly in the Department of Justice, a man who had no prior 
experience with warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act. The wrong standard was applied.
  This has all been documented in a report submitted by the Judiciary 
subcommittee, which I chair, on oversight of the Department of Justice. 
And ultimately notwithstanding the request from the Director of the FBI 
through a top deputy to the Attorney General personally, that request 
for a FISA warrant was refused. Attorney General Reno doesn't have to 
study the matter further to acknowledge that mistake.
  Then the FBI let the case languish until December of 1998 without any 
active investigation. It was only when the Cox committee was about to 
publish its report, as rumored in late December, 1998, and as it came 
to pass in early January, sharply critical of the way the Wen Ho Lee 
case was handled, that a polygraph was ordered by the Department of 
Energy. The polygraph was not taken by the FBI, but taken by an outside 
contractor, Wackenhut. That was done on December 23, 1997. And the 
initial report was that Dr. Lee had passed the polygraph, had not been 
deceptive--grounds for discontinuing the investigation.
  It was only several weeks later when the FBI got the tapes and 
reviewed them and found that the Wackenhut conclusion was not accurate; 
that there was not exoneration of Dr. Lee.
  Then it appears that, finally, when the Department of Justice was 
thoroughly embarrassed, they really threw the book at Dr. Lee by 
holding him in detention in really extraordinary circumstances, in leg 
irons. I have seen prisoners held in leg irons. I witnessed that in 
Pennsylvania's correctional institution when I was district attorney. 
Do you know the reason you hold somebody in leg irons? Because they are 
so violent they threaten risk of bodily injury or worse to the guards 
who have to deal with them. What possible justification was there for 
treating Dr. Lee in that manner? And the restrictions which the 
Government imposed on Dr. Lee? There has been comment, unattributed 
sources, to law enforcement officials, that what was really in mind 
here was to coerce a guilty plea from Dr. Lee. The Government 
apparently thought he was guilty and they were thoroughly embarrassed 
with the way they had botched the case. What other explanation is there 
for the way Dr. Lee was treated?
  These are fundamental questions which our subcommittee will look 
into, on oversight of this matter.
  There are two aspects of this matter, really. One aspect is what, if 
anything, did Dr. Lee do to endanger national security? In the 
application for a search warrant, the Government laid out a long list 
of reasons stating probable cause for the issuance of that search 
warrant. Matters that had gone back as early as 1982 involving a great 
many suspicious activities, so that when the warrant was not issued, 
notwithstanding the request directly to Attorney General Reno, and when 
the investigation was, in effect, dropped--really languishing, but in 
effect dropped for some 15 months--we do not know, on this state of the 
record, what the quality of the evidence was which led to the 
indictments.
  It is not a sufficient answer, any of them which have been given, 
because the issue of national security is of the utmost importance.
  The subcommittee has in final stages a report on Dr. Peter Lee, who 
confessed to giving the People's Republic of China key information on 
nuclear secrets and also on detecting our submarines. That case was 
another comedy of errors, except it wasn't so funny--``comedy of 
errors'' I think is the wrong words--horrendous errors, where there was 
miscommunication between the Justice Department in Washington and the 
assistant district attorney who was trying the case. Dr. Peter Lee 
finally walked out with probation, notwithstanding the very serious 
charges brought against him.
  Beyond the issue of national security, there is the question as to 
the treatment of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, his constitutional rights, and whether 
he was fairly treated. There have been calls for Attorney General 
Reno's resignation, and the resignation of Secretary of Energy 
Richardson. I was asked about that earlier today on television and I 
declined to call for those resignations. I think it is too often that 
Members go to the klieg lights and make those demands.
  I was then asked what would be effective, what could be done. And I 
was asked whether the President ought to fire the Attorney General.
  Based on what the President has said, and the very troubled record 
which Attorney General Reno has had with Waco and with her decisions on 
independent counsels, that is something which would be meaningful, if 
the President really is concerned.

                          ____________________