[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 136 (Tuesday, September 30, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12154-S12159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I came to the Chamber this morning
because I thought we would be on the DC appropriations bill and was
prepared to offer a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to that bill
concerning the appointment of special counsel to conduct a fair,
thorough, and independent investigation into a national security
breach.
I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress concerning the appointment
of a special counsel to conduct a fair, thorough, and independent
investigation into a national security breach)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF A
SPECIAL COUNSEL TO CONDUCT A FAIR, THOROUGH,
AND INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO A NATIONAL
SECURITY BREACH.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the national security of the United States is dependent
on our intelligence operatives being able to operate
undercover and without fear of having their identities
disclosed by the United States Government;
(2) recent reports have indicated that administration or
White House officials may have deliberately leaked the
identity of a covert CIA agent to the media;
(3) the unauthorized disclosure of a covert CIA agent's
identity is a Federal felony; and
(4) the Attorney General has the power to appoint a special
counsel of integrity and stature who may conduct an
investigation into the leak without the appearance of any
conflict of interest.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Attorney General of the United States should appoint a
special counsel of the highest integrity and statute to
conduct a fair, independent, and thorough investigation of
the leak and ensure that all individuals found to be
responsible for this heinous deed are punished to the fullest
extent permitted by law.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now I am told the bill has been delayed
because this amendment was going to be offered. I am going to talk
about the amendment and have a dialog with my colleague from
California.
On July 23, I believe it was, when I read the Novak column that named
high administration sources as revealing the wife of Ambassador Wilson,
Ms. Plame, as an agent--I hasten to add, I don't know if she is a
covert agent. That is classified. But that is what was in the paper--I
was outraged. I didn't know who had leaked the information. No idea. I
am not an expert on the internecine rivalries among the various
agencies, but the fact it was done just boiled my blood. So I wrote the
FBI and asked Mr. Mueller to undertake an investigation of this act.
The act, make no mistake about it, is a very serious act. In fact, it
is a crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Why is it a crime? Why have this body and the other body made this a
crime? For obvious reasons. Our covert agents put their lives at risk
for us every day. They are soldiers just like our brave young men and
women in Iraq and around the globe. And in the post-9/11 world, the
world of terrorism, they are among our most important soldiers because
we have learned intelligence is key. When the name of an agent is
revealed, it is like putting a gun to that agent's head. You are
jeopardizing their life; in many cases, you are jeopardizing the lives
of the contacts they have built up over the decades, and you are
jeopardizing the security of America. So the seriousness of this crime
is obvious.
When, in addition, we learned that it was done in all likelihood for
a frivolous, nasty reason--namely, that somebody was angry at
Ambassador Wilson for speaking the truth, at least as he saw it--I
tended to agree with him. I don't think anybody disputes it. In fact,
the administration has admitted, the yellow cake sale from Niger to
Iraq and the documents were, in fact, forged and the President was
incorrect to use them in his State of the Union Address. This was a way
of getting back at him through his wife or perhaps to cower him to make
sure he didn't speak any further. Nasty. Not just nasty, it was like
kneecapping.
In fact, John Dean, who has been through this, just wrote an article
in something called TruthOut Editorial. The title is ``The Bush
Administration''--that is assuming it was done by the administration,
but that is what all the reports are--``Adopts a Worse-than-Nixonian
Tactic: The Deadly Serious Crime of Naming CIA Operatives.''
I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Dean's article be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From TruthOut, Aug. 15, 2003]
The Bush Administration Adopts a Worse-Than-Nixonian Tactic: The Deadly
Serious Crime of Naming CIA Operatives
(By John W. Dean)
On July 14, in his syndicated column, Chicago Sun-Times
journalist Robert Novak reported that Valerie Plame Wilson--
the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, and mother
of three-year-old twins--was a covert CIA agent. (She had
been known to her friends as an ``energy analyst at a private
firm.'')
Why was Novak able to learn this highly secret information?
It turns our that he didn't have to dig for it. Rather, he
has said, the ``two senior Administration officials'' he had
cited as sources sought him out, eager to let him know. And
in journalism, that phrase is a term of art reserved for a
vice president, cabinet officers, and top White House
officials.
On July 17, Time magazine published the same story,
attributing it to ``government officials.'' And on July 22,
Newsday's Washington Bureau confirmed ``that Valerie Plame .
. . works at the agency [CIA] on weapons of mass destruction
issues in an undercover capacity.'' More specifically,
according to a ``senior intelligence official,'' Newsday
reported, she worked in the ``Directorate of Operations [as
an] undercover officer.''
In other words, Wilson is/was a spy involved in the
clandestine collection of foreign intelligence, covert
operations and espionage. She is/was part of a elite corps,
the best and brightest, and among those willing to take great
risk for their country. Now she has herself been placed at
great--and needless--risk.
Why is the Administration so avidly leaking this
information? The answer is clear. Former ambassador Wilson is
famous, lately, for telling the truth about the Bush
Administration's bogus claim that Niger uranium had gone to
Saddam Hussein. And the Bush Administration is punishing
Wilson by targeting his wife. It is also sending a message to
others who might dare to defy it, and reveal the truth.
No doubt the CIA, and Mrs. Wilson, have many years, and
much effort, invested in her career and skills. Her future,
if not her safety, are now in jeopardy.
After reading Novak's column, The Nation's Washington
Editor, David Corn, asked, ``Did senior Bush officials blow
the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in
a field of vital importance to national security--and break
the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic
and intimidate others?''
The answer is plainly yes. Now the question is, will they
get away with it?
Bits and pieces of information have emerged, but the story
is far from complete. Nonetheless, what has surfaced is
repulsive. If I thought I had seen dirty political tricks as
nasty and vile as they could get at the Nixon White House, I
was wrong. The American Prospect's observation that ``we are
very much into Nixon territory here'' with this story is an
understatement.
Indeed, this is arguably worse. Nixon never set up a hit on
one of his enemies' wives.
leaking the name of a cia agent is a crime
On July 22, Ambassador Wilson appeared on the Today show.
Katie Couric asked him about his wife: ``How damaging would
this be to your wife's work?''
Wilson--who, not surprisingly, has refused to confirm or
deny that his wife was a CIA operative--answered Katie
``hypothetically.'' He explained, ``it would be damaging not
just to her career, since she's been married to me, but since
they mentioned her by her maiden name, to her entire career.
So it would be her entire network that she may have
established, any operations, any programs or projects she was
working on. It's a--it's a breach of national security. My
understanding is it may, in fact, be a violation of American
law.''
And, indeed, it is.
The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Identities
and Protection Act of 1982 may both apply. Given the scant
facts, it is difficult to know which might be more
applicable. But as Senator Schumer (D.NY) said, in calling
for an FBI investigation, if the reported facts are true,
there has been a crime. The only question is: Whodunit?
the espionage act of 1917
The Reagan Administration effectively used the Espionage
Act of 1917 to prosecute
[[Page S12155]]
a leak--to the horror of the news media. It was a case that
instituted to make a point, and establish the law, and it did
just that in spades.
In July 1984, Samuel Morrison--the grandson of the eminent
naval historian with the same name--leaked three classified
photos to Jane's Defense Weekly. The photos were of the
Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which
had been taken by a U.S. spy satellite.
Although the photos compromised no national security
secrets, and were not given to enemy agents, the Reagan
Administration prosecuted the leak. That raised the question:
Must the leaker have an evil purpose to be prosecuted?
The Administration argued that the answer was no. As with
Britain's Official Secrets Acts, the leak of classified
material alone was enough to trigger imprisonment for up to
ten years and fines. And the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit agreed. It held that such a leak might
be prompted by ``the most laudable motives, or any motive at
all,'' and it would still be a crime. As a result, Morrison
went to jail.
The Espionage Act, though thrice amended since then,
continues to criminalize leaks of classified information,
regardless of the reason for the leak. Accordingly, the ``two
senior administration officials'' who leaked the classified
information of Mrs. Wilson's work at the CIA to Robert Novak
(and, it seems, others) have committed a federal crime.
the intelligence identities and protection act
Another applicable criminal statute is the Intelligence
Identities Act, enacted in 1982. The law has been employed in
the past. For instance, a low-level CIA clerk was convicted
for sharing the identify of CIA employees with her boyfriend,
when she was stationed in Ghana. She pled guilty and received
a two-year jail sentence. (Others have also been charged with
violations, but have pleaded to unrelated counts of the
indictment.)
The Act reaches outsiders who engage in ``a pattern of
activities'' intended to reveal the identities of covert
operatives (assuming such identities are not public
information, which is virtually always the case).
But so far, there is no evidence that any journalist has
engaged in such a pattern. Accepting Administration leaks--
even repeatedly--should not count as a violation, for First
Amendment reasons.
The Act primarily reaches insiders with classified
intelligence, those privy to the identity of covert agents.
It addresses two kinds of insiders.
First, there are those with direct access to the classified
information about the ``covert agents'' who leak it. These
insiders--including persons in the CIA--may serve up to ten
years in jail for leaking this information.
Second, there are those who are authorized to have
classified information and learn it, and then leak it. These
insiders--including persons in, say, the White House or
Defense Department--can be sentenced to up to five years in
jail for such leaks.
The statute also has additional requirements before the
leak of the identity of a ``covert agent'' is deemed
criminal. But it appears they are all satisfied here.
First, the lead must be to a person ``not authorized to
receive classified information.'' Any journalist--including
Novak and Time--plainly fits.
Second, the insider must know that the information being
disclosed identifies a ``covert agent.'' In this case, that's
obvious, since Novak was told this fact.
Third, the insider must know that the U.S. government is
``taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's
intelligence relationship to the United States.'' For persons
with Top Secret security clearances, that's a no-brainer:
They have been briefed, and have signed pledges of secrecy,
and it is widely known by senior officials that the CIA goes
to great effort to keep the names of its agents secret.
A final requirement relates to the ``covert agent''
herself. She must either be serving outside the United
States, or have served outside the United States in the last
five years. It seems very likely that Mrs. Wilson fulfills
the latter condition--but the specific facts on this point
have not yet been reported.
how the law protects covert agents' identities
What is not in doubt, is that Mrs. Wilson's identity was
classified, and no one in the government had the right to
reveal it.
Virtually all the names of covert agents in the CIA are
classified, and the CIA goes to some effort to keep them
classified. They refuse all Freedom of Information Act
requests, they refuse (and courts uphold) to provide such
information in discovery connected to lawsuits.
Broadly speaking, covert agents (and their informants) fall
under the State Secrets privilege. A Federal statute requires
that ``the Director of Central Intelligence shall be
responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods
from unauthorized disclosure.'' It is not, in other words, an
option for the CIA to decide to reveal an agent's activities.
And of course, there are many good reasons for this--
relating not only to the agent, but also to national
security. As CIA Director Turner explained in a lawsuit in
1982, shortly after the Intelligence Identities Act became
law, ``In the case of persons acting in the employ of CIA,
once their identity is discerned further damage will likely
result from the exposure of other intelligence collection
efforts for which they were used.''
The White House's Unusual Stonewalling About an Obvious Leak
In the past, Bush and Cheney have gone ballistic when
national security information leaked. But this leak--though
it came from ``two senior administration officials''--has
been different. And that, in itself, speaks volumes.
On July 22, White House press secretary Scott McClellan was
asked about the Novak column. Offering only a murky, non-
answer, he claimed that neither ``this President or this
White House operates'' in such a fashion. He added, ``there
is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or
that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to
that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House
would have given authority to take such a step.''
So was McClellan saying that Novak was lying--and his
sources were not, in fact, ``two senior administration
officials''? McClellan dodged, kept repeating his mantra, and
refused to respond.
Later, McClellan was asked, ``Would the President support
an investigation into the blowing of the cover of an
undercover CIA operative?'' Again, he refused to acknowledge
``that there might be some truth to the matter you're
bringing up.'' When pressed further, he said he would have to
look into ``whether or not that characterization is accurate
when you're talking about someone's cover.''
McClellan's statement that he would have to look into the
matter was disingenuous at best. This ten-day old column by
Novak had not escaped the attention of the White House.
Indeed, when the equation was first raised, McClellan
immediately responded, ``Thank you for bringing it up.''
As David Corn has pointed out, what McClellan did not say,
is even more telling than what he said. He did not say he was
trying to get to the bottom of the story and determine if it
had any basis in fact. He did not say the president would not
tolerate such activities, and was demanding to know what had
happened.
Indeed, as Corn points out, McClellan's remarks ``hardly
covered a message from Bush to his underlings: don't you dare
pull crap like this.'' Indeed, they could even be seen as
sending a message that such crimes will be overlooked.
Frankly, I am astounded that the President of the United
States--whose father was once Director of the CIA--did not
see fit to have his Press Secretary address this story with
hard facts. Nor has he apparently called for an
investigation--or even given Ambassador and Mrs. Wilson a
Secret Service detail, to let the world know they will be
protected.
This is the most vicious leak I have seen in over 40 years
of government-watching. Failure to act to address it will
reek of a cover-up or, at minimum, approval of the leak's
occurrence--and an invitation to similar revenge upon
Administration critics.
congressional calls for investigation should be heeded
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) was the first to react. On July
22, he delivered a lengthy speech about how the Bush
Administration was using friendly reporters to attack its
enemies. He knew this well, because he was one of those being
so attacked.
``Sadly, what we have here,'' Durbin told his colleagues,
``is a continuing pattern by this White House. If any Member
of this Senate--Democrat or Republican--takes to the floor,
questions this White House policy, raises any questions about
the gathering of intelligence information, or the use of it,
be prepared for the worst. This White House is going to turn
on you and attack you.''
After Senator Durbin set forth the evidence that showed the
charges of the White House against him were false, he turned
to the attacks on Ambassador and Mrs. Wilson. He announced
that he was asking the chairman and ranking member of the
Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate this ``extremely
serious matter.''
``In [the Administration's] effort to seek political
revenge against Ambassador Wilson,'' Durbin said, ``they are
now attacking him and his wife, and doing it in a fashion
that is not only unacceptable, it may be criminal. And that,
frankly, is as serious as it gets in this town.''
The House Intelligence Committee is also going to
investigate the Wilson leak. ``What happened is very
dangerous to a person who may be a CIA operative,''
Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL), a member of the Committee,
said. And the committee's chairman, Porter Goss (R-FL), a
former CIA agent himself, said an investigation ``could be
part of a wider'' look that his committee is taking at WMD
issues.
In a July 24 letter to FBI Director William Mueller,
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) demanded a criminal
investigation of the leak. Schumer's letter stated, ``If the
facts that have been reported publicly are true, it is clear
that a crime was committed. The only questions remaining to
be answered are who committed the crime and why?''
The FBI, too, has confirmed that they are undertaking an
investigation.
But no one should hold their breath. So far, Congress has
treated the Bush Administration with kid gloves. Absent an
active investigation by a grand jury, under the direction of
a U.S. Attorney or special prosecutor, an FBI investigation
is not likely to accomplish anything. After all, the FBI does
not
[[Page S12156]]
have power to compel anyone to talk. And unless the President
himself demands a full investigation, the Department of
Justice is not going to do anything--unless the Congress
uncovers information that embarrasses them into taking
action.
While this case is a travesty, it won't be the first one
that this administration has managed to get away with. Given
the new nadir of investigative journalism, this
administration has been emboldened. And why not? Lately, the
mainstream media has seemed more interested in stockholders
than readers. If Congress won't meaningfully investigate
these crimes--and, indeed, even if it will--it is the press's
duty to do so. Let us hope it fulfills that duty. But I am
not holding my breath about that, either.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this is serious stuff, and I was furious.
I had no idea who had done it at that point in time. ``High
administration official'' can mean a whole lot of things. So I wrote
the letter to Mr. Mueller and publicly called on him for an
investigation.
I learned shortly thereafter that for such an investigation to
proceed, the CIA had to fill out, I think it is, an 11-point
questionnaire about the person named, what they did, and what was
revealed. Of course, last week it came out on television and in the
newspapers that the CIA had asked for an investigation. The logical,
though not certain, conclusion of that, of course, is that they believe
a crime might well have been committed; that Ms. Plame, indeed, was
hurt by the revelation, and that it was illegal to reveal it.
I cannot tell you how many people I have talked with in this body and
throughout the country who are just outraged by this--just outraged.
The attitude that seemed to be indicated by the administration
spokesperson yesterday--oh, we get plenty of leaks, and this is just
one of them, and we investigate all of them--is even more infuriating.
This is not an ordinary leak. I challenge any of my colleagues on
either side of the aisle to bring to me the situation where someone in
a high administration position leaked the name of an agent and
jeopardized their life, their contacts, and America's security. This is
a totally different ball of wax. This is not just a leak. This is a
crime, plain and simple.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to my two
colleagues in just a minute.
Even the White House saying, ``We will fire whoever did it,'' is not
sufficient. If you have a company and someone is suspected of murder
and they say, ``If we find out they are convicted of murder, we will
fire them,'' would that be a sufficient enough punishment? Absolutely
not.
What we have here is an attitude: Let's sweep this under the rug,
let's make sure nobody says much about it, and maybe it will go away.
I yield first to my colleague from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a question. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SCHUMER. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Nevada for
a question.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from New York, I have
been at a meeting with the Iraqi Governing Council, and I was stunned
when I came back to the Senate Chamber and was advised by my staff that
we are no longer on the DC appropriations bill. We are suddenly in
morning business until our weekly caucuses.
I say to my friend from New York, why in the world would someone be
afraid to vote on an amendment the Senator from New York and others are
going to offer that says: Let's take a look at this; let's find out
what happened? We know there was a crime committed. I don't use those
words often. I know there was a crime committed. It is only a question
of who did it. Why wouldn't our friends on the other side of the aisle
allow a debate on this issue? It is not as if we are taking away heavy
business. We have been vouchered out from doing the DC appropriations
bill.
I say to my friend from New York, what fear does the majority in the
Senate have in allowing an amendment the Senator from New York wishes
to offer? Why can't we debate this amendment?
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for the question. I have asked
myself the same question. I was told first that the reason the DC
appropriations bill has not been put forward is that they are afraid of
this amendment. This is a pattern. This morning--
Mr. REID. I say to my friend--pardon the interruption, through the
Chair--afraid of what? Of the truth?
Mr. SCHUMER. That is what the signs seem to indicate. This morning, I
was asked to go on the ``Today Show'' and talk about this issue. They
asked a whole bunch of Republican Senators. None would appear. They
asked the administration to send somebody. No one would appear. Again,
the attitude seems to be: Let's shrug our shoulders and hope this goes
away.
I will make one other point to our colleague. Our President has made
it his hallmark of defending our troops. That is why we are debating or
we will be debating the money for them. That is why we will be debating
all of this. Every CIA agent is one of our troops, and for the
President to not address this directly, for the President to have his
spokesperson say this is one of a whole lot of leaks, to say if they
find out who it is, they will be fired--well, I just ask my colleagues
to think about this. Let us say they were certain it would cause no
damage to them, that these high administration officials were somewhere
far away. Do my colleagues think we would have the same attitude from
our Commander in Chief, and one who correctly prides himself in
protecting our troops?
So it makes one scratch one's head and say, What are they worried
about? Why will they not get to the bottom of this? This, again, as my
colleague has said, is very likely a crime, and a serious crime.
I read my colleagues what President Bush, Sr., the 41st President,
said about this type of crime. He ought to know because, of course, as
we all know, he was head of the CIA before he was President.
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray
the trust by exposing our sources. They are, in my view, the
most insidious of traitors.
Do we just answer, this is a leak like every other leak when dealing
with traitors?
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for one more question?
Mr. SCHUMER. I will be happy to yield for a question.
Mr. REID. I came in past the 11:30 hour. Is it true then that we find
ourselves in a situation, from a parliamentary standpoint, that the
Senator cannot offer his amendment? Is that what the Senator is telling
me?
Mr. SCHUMER. If my colleague from Nevada will yield, that is exactly
right.
Mr. REID. The Senator has worked on this all morning, I know, as well
as yesterday. I had a conversation with him yesterday. We were to go
back into legislative business at 11:30. That right has been taken away
from us by the majority. They will not even let the Senator offer an
amendment in legislative session. Is that true?
Mr. SCHUMER. That is exactly true.
I would be happy to yield to my colleague from California for a
question.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator so much for yielding. I have a few
questions. What I want to do is make a 4- or 5-minute statement and
then ask three or four questions and hope the Senator can answer them
in his inimicable fashion.
First, I thank Senator Schumer so much for picking up on this issue.
I remember reading about this in July and just scratching my head. I
essentially thought: This cannot be true. I cannot believe that someone
in the White House would reveal the identity of a person who is working
at the CIA undercover. Whether she is an analyst, an operative, or an
agent, it matters not, but certainly someone whose identity had never
been revealed. I thought: This cannot be happening.
To be honest, I should have done more about it, but I did not, and
thank the Senator for writing to the head of the FBI, for whom I have a
great deal of respect, and letting him know this.
Here are my questions: As I look at this, I think, why would someone
do this? Well, clearly the idea behind attacking Ambassador Wilson's
wife was that Ambassador Wilson gave the White House news they did not
want to hear, which was that there was really no proof that Saddam
Hussein was getting nuclear materials from Niger. They did not want
that answer; it was kind of a kill-the-messenger type of response; and
in order to get back at
[[Page S12157]]
him, they out his wife, which is despicable and a crime, but I think it
is about arrogance and it is about intimidation.
We have seen the arrogance, but it is the intimidation factor I want
the Senator to comment on because this is not only about this one
incident--in which clearly Ambassador Wilson was correct, by the way--
but it is a signal that is sent, really, frankly, to everyone in
politics that nothing is off limits if someone crosses us: We will go
after their wife; we will go after their kids.
I have to say to my friend, he is a family man, I am a family woman.
We are in this world--God knows how and why but we are in it--and we
are willing to take the hits and everything else, but the lowest form
of politics is if someone comes after your kids or your spouse. I
resent it, and I want my colleague to comment on those two areas.
I also ask him to comment on a third one, and that is the whole
struggle that women are having in this world of ours to enhance our
careers, to break the glass ceiling, to go into fields that are maybe a
little bit unusual. I do not have the statistics at my fingertips, but
if we look at the number of women who are FBI agents, I can tell my
colleague that it is very few. I used to know the exact number. I do
not want to throw out a number, but it is way less than a third, as I
remember.
So we have a circumstance where there is a woman in a nontraditional
field doing her work, obviously not getting credit for it. She is
working incognito at the CIA, whatever her work is, and she is going up
the ladder. Maybe she has a tremendous future. Well, probably the
future in that field has been harmed, if not totally destroyed, and
maybe her life or other lives that she touched in her work are in
danger.
So we are talking about a number of issues--yes, the crime that was
committed, but the whole idea of intimidation to people who might take
on this administration, the whole idea of going after someone's family
when we know, as public servants, what our families mean to us and how
we protect them from whatever befalls us, the hits, the pain, and other
things that happen. We asked for it. We are in this arena.
So I hope my friend will perhaps talk about that. It is a human
tragedy beyond the crime, and I ask my friend to comment.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for her thoughtful, incisive, and
from-the-heart-type comments. I will comment on them.
The one I would like to focus on a little bit is the intimidation.
The greatness of this democracy through the centuries has been the
structure the Founding Fathers set up which allows debate on the
issues. It is wonderful.
If we had to think of a sentence at the core of America, it might be:
We believe in the competition of ideas, and the best idea will win out.
Free speech, that is the competition of ideas in its pure form. Free
enterprise, that is the competition of economic ideas. Freedom of
religion, that is the competition of spiritual ideas. Democracy is the
competition of political ideas. When we no longer have that, the
democracy frays.
When people are afraid to say what they think, not because their
arguments will be answered directly but, rather, because they will be
hit below the belt, we have the beginnings of the fraying of the
democracy, and that is what is happening.
I hate to say this, but this administration seems to have a peculiar
penchant to attack someone's patriotism when they disagree. I have
basically been a supporter of the President on the war and foreign
policy, but for those who disagree, there has been not just, here is
why you are wrong and let me tell you why--there has been some of
that--but in addition there is an impugning of motive, an impugning of
character, a kneecapping. One of the reasons this issue resonates so is
that it is the worst of that.
Now, about our families, of course, they should be off limits. I will
tell a little story, and then I will yield to my colleague from Iowa.
But the points of my colleague from California are so good.
When I ran for the Senate in 1998, my daughter was starting ninth
grade in a new high school. My worry was she was going to start in
September. If, God willing, I won the primary, the next day I knew that
my opponent, who was known as a hardball political player, Senator
D'Amato, my predecessor--with whom I now get along quite well, I am
happy to say--would go after me. My greatest worry, and the No. 1
reason I debated not to run, was that I thought she would be new in
high school, with a whole bunch of new people, and she was going to a
different high school, not in Brooklyn but in Manhattan, and people
would not want to be friends with her because they would see these
horrible things being said about her father on television. Of course we
talked it over with Jessica, too, who was a mature 10th grader then--
now she is in college and doing great--and we decided to run. As it
turns out, they did run all the nasty ads. The morning I won the
primary I turned on the TV and there they were. It didn't affect her or
her friends. That is the worry we had.
What they are trying to do here is send the message that even your
family is not off limits, perhaps. That is a horrible message. That
frays democracy, just as does the inability to dissent.
I respected Ronald Reagan. When you asked Ronald Reagan something, if
he disagreed with you he would say exactly why: Well, I am against Head
Start because I think parents should be in charge of their children
until they are 5.
All too often in this administration they don't answer directly. In
fact, they will get up and say, ``We love Head Start,'' and then they
will cut the money.
So the candor, the debate on the merits, seems to be going away, and
that worries me about the future of this country. This incident is an
apotheosis of that, both in terms of intimidation, in terms of going
after family, in terms of being malicious, and in terms of saying our
political agenda is more important than the lives of the people
fighting for us--in this case, in the intelligence agencies.
I am happy to yield to my colleague from Iowa for a question.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from New York for yielding for a
question. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment that the
Senator is trying to offer. I came over to the floor from the
Appropriations Committee meeting to speak on this amendment. Evidently,
I now find out, I understand--am I correct, I ask my friend from New
York, that the majority, Republican side, has extended this period of
morning business which will keep you from offering this amendment? Is
that correct?
Mr. SCHUMER. That is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Again, I am proud to cosponsor the amendment. I think it
gets to the heart of the matter, and that is to try to get a special
counsel to look into these serious allegations.
I noted earlier the Senator from New York had quoted from former
President George Herbert Walker Bush on leaks. I think there is another
quote from a former Senator, John Ashcroft, now Attorney General, in
which he said:
You know, a single allegation can be most worthy of a
special prosecutor. If you are abusing government property,
if you are abusing your status in office, it can be a single
fact that makes the difference on this.
John Ashcroft, October 4, 1997, on CNN, Evans and Novak, ``A single
allegation can be most worthy of a special prosecutor.''
As I understand it, the allegation here is not someone has abused
government property, not that someone has engaged in some murky real
estate deal in timberland someplace, this is an allegation that someone
high up in this Government--we don't know where, but someplace high up
in the Government, having access to classified information, leaked to
one or more reporters, columnists, news people, the name of a CIA
agent. That is the allegation, is it not?
Mr. SCHUMER. That is exactly the allegation.
Mr. HARKIN. It would seem to this Senator that allegation is of such
import that everyone here ought to support the Senator's sense-of-the-
Senate resolution. I say to the Senator, I view it with nothing short
of amazement that the other side would want to stop this. I would think
everyone here would want to get to the bottom of this.
I ask the Senator, again, is it the Senator's judgment that somehow
we
[[Page S12158]]
are not being allowed to bring this up for a vote? Does the Senator
intend to pursue this, to make sure we do speak as a Senate on this?
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for asking that question. Indeed,
whenever the DC appropriations bill comes up, I am going to bring up
this sense of the Senate.
I thank him for bringing up something else. I don't want this to be a
partisan issue. When I first wrote the Director of the FBI, I had no
idea who put this in there. I just wanted to get to the bottom of it
because I was so outraged at the tactic. What I think we ought to be
doing is getting the special counsel because the special counsel is the
way to certainly remove any appearance of a conflict, and perhaps a
conflict itself. Attorney General Ashcroft, whom you quoted, is known
as a close political ally of the President's. There is an argument that
the Attorney General should be removed from the President and be a
lawyer for the Nation. And there is an argument that the Attorney
General should be a close political ally of the President. Democrats
and Republicans--it has not been a Democratic or Republican issue.
John Kennedy appointed his brother as Attorney General. But when you
appoint an Attorney General who is a close political ally and friend,
and when something sensitive with conflicts of interest occurs, then
you have an obligation, in my judgment, to move for a special
prosecutor. You pay a price, in a certain sense. You gain things by
having a political ally as Attorney General, but you also lose things,
and you lose the guise of independence, the actuality of independence.
My colleague is so right. The best thing that could happen is we pass
this resolution unanimously, we all work together to get a respected
independent counsel--someone like a John Danforth or a Warren Rudman or
a Sam Nunn or a George Mitchell--and then they go forward with their
investigation. I think every one of us on this side of the aisle, as
well as the other, would be content that the chips will fall where they
may so this dastardly crime, and that is what it is, will be exposed.
This idea of not bringing up such a resolution, of not wanting to
debate it, of, again, maybe casting aspersions on the motivation of
those who are for it--we have 14 or 15 of us, and we will have more--is
going to make the American people think: Wait a minute, maybe they are
worried; maybe there is something to hide--which there may or may not
be.
I thank my colleague.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank my colleague for responding. I have a couple more
questions.
I appreciate what the Senator just said. There have been some
allegations made. I don't know whether or not this is some partisan
effort or something like that. We know that a law has been broken.
There is a clear law against leaking the names of our intelligence
agents, and it is punishable by 5 years--or 10?
Mr. SCHUMER. Ten.
Mr. HARKIN. Ten years or a $50,000 fine. A crime has been committed.
I say to the Senator, here we are going on day after day, and there
is a lot of stuff going around the White House and the Attorney
General's office. Is it the judgment of the Senator that this could
really be brought to the forefront rapidly? I say because of a
statement that was made on ABC News--The Note. They had an interesting
question. They asked: Has he [has the President] insisted that every
senior staff member sign a statement with legal authority that they are
not the leaker and that they will identify to the White House legal
counsel who is?
It seems to me the President of the United States can say: Sign this.
Are you the one who called or not? And this will be over with by 4
o'clock this afternoon.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for that. That is what the
President ought to do. This President--I mentioned this earlier to my
colleagues, when I was having a dialog with my colleague from Nevada--
is known for defending our troops. That is what we are talking about
with $87 billion. That is a good thing.
Our CIA agents are our troops, just as our soldiers are our troops.
In fact, after the war, after 9/11 and the global fight against
terrorism, they are even more important because intelligence is so
important.
It seems to me that it would be logical for this President to do just
what the Senator said--to say: You know, yes, we have to have a legal
investigation, but I want to get to the bottom of this immediately
because this conduct is reprehensible.
I don't believe the President was involved in this. I disagree with
him politically. It doesn't seem part of his character. But he should
sure want to get to the bottom. He does not address it at all. His
spokesperson comes out there and says: Oh, these are leaks just like
all the others. We will find out and we will fire him.
One wonders.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. One wonders. The President, it seems
to me, would want to get this over with in a hurry by finding out who
the person is who leaked this and let the legal recourse then follow.
But at least expedite this right away and get rid of that person.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The 30 minutes allotted on this
side has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent, since there is no one from the
other side, that we be given an additional 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know other Senators want to engage the
Senator from New York. I thank him for his leadership on this. I know
of the Senator's longstanding support for our law enforcement and for
making sure that those who violate the trust of public office are
brought to justice. That is what this is about. This is a gross
violation. This is not some little real estate deal someplace.
I ask the Senator: Maybe it is not so much that the wife of Mr.
Wilson is identified, and she may be safe here in the United States. I
don't know about her travels abroad. That may be restricting her
freedom in the future. But what about the contacts she made and her
sources around the world? What is going to happen then? What will
happen to our intelligence agents around the world today if they think
they are going to be ``outed'' sometime by this administration or some
other administration? What happens to our war on terrorism?
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator. I so much appreciate my colleague's
intelligence and integrity and passion which he brings to so many
different issues. He is exactly right. Even if this agent should decide
to retire, the damage would be great because other agents would think:
Maybe I will get in trouble. What will I get in trouble for? Speaking
the truth?
We depend on truth in our intelligence services more than just about
anything else. President after President has said one of the keys to
governing well is good intelligence that will tell you when you are off
base as well as when you are on base. It is so serious. The Senator is
exactly right. This transcends any one person. It transcends any
specific person because it goes to the integrity.
I say to my colleague one other thing: From what I understand, our
intelligence services are livid because this happened.
Mr. HARKIN. They should be.
Mr. SCHUMER. I don't know for a fact. But my guess is there was great
debate in the CIA because it was a tough thing to do given that ``high
administration sources'' were implicated. But the anger among the
Agency is red hot, as I understand it, and with good reason.
I thank my colleague. I would be happy to yield to my colleague from
Florida for a question.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wanted to pick up on
something the Senator from New York said. I can best illustrate it with
Veterans Day and Memorial Day when we typically are commending those
young men and women in uniform. We have to modify that now because of
the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. We commend the young men
and women not only in uniform but in the service of their country,
because the CIA was the first to go into Afghanistan. They were all
over Afghanistan before we ever went in with our military forces. They
are
[[Page S12159]]
working in conjunction with our military forces. Indeed, the first
American to be killed in Afghanistan was Mike Spann, a CIA agent.
What we are dealing with, lest folks get this all mixed up with
politics, is a crime of the most serious nature because it jeopardizes
the security of the United States and its people. When someone's
identity is suddenly revealed and is an agent of the U.S. Government,
their life is in jeopardy and the lives of their contacts are in
jeopardy. That is the gravity of this leak. That gets lost in all of
this. He said, she said, and so forth is just branded as politics. But
we are dealing with the lives of people.
As in any normal criminal proceeding, if a violation of law is
thought to have occurred, then let us allow the cops to investigate and
let us bring that person in front of the responsible judicial
tribunals. The question is, which cops will be able to investigate and
get to the truth? If you leave it to the professional law enforcement
people, they will. But isn't it sad that we have to be concerned that
political influence will direct that investigation?
Whatever turn it takes, what the Senator from Florida is standing for
is I know our people want to get to the truth, and it ought to be the
professional law enforcement investigators who determine what is the
truth. That is why I wanted to come and support the Senator.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague. Again, he is on the money. That is
all we seek here now--the truth.
The spokesperson for the President, Mr. McClellan, said we are
referring it to the Justice Department and the professionals. If you
look at the chain of command, it goes right up to the Attorney General.
As I mentioned earlier, the Attorney General is a close political
ally with the President. There is nothing wrong with that. That is one
model of the Attorney General. But it certainly sacrifices the
appearance of independence, and perhaps independence itself
particularly goes very high up.
Why we have asked for a special counsel is very simple: It is to
allow professional law enforcement to do the job unfettered so they
know they will not pay a price if they pursue it completely and fully.
That would entail a special counsel of great legal background and
sterling repetition for independence and integrity. I think it would
behoove the administration to do that.
There are all sorts of doubts now. Are they telling the truth about
this, that, or the other thing when it comes to foreign policy? Were we
to appoint a special counsel, people would say: Yes, maybe they are.
But I will say this: The effort to sort of sweep this under the rug
and say, oh, this is just one of the leaks that occurs every day, that
makes me angry, to be honest with my colleague. That is unfair not only
to the CIA agent in question but to the thousands of intelligence
agents across the globe who at this moment, as my good colleague points
out so correctly, are defending just as our soldiers are defending us
and are more needed than ever before.
That is why in the intelligence community there is such livid anger
because this occurred. My guess is--this is just my guess--that is why
Mr. Tenet requested the investigation. My guess is that in his head he
was saying, Oh, boy, this is going to get me in trouble the way, say,
Janet Reno may have gotten in trouble with the previous President, the
Attorney General from the Senator's State. But he knows that the
integrity of the intelligence service is important. My guess is that is
why he did it. Maybe that is why it took a bit more time than I had
imagined when I first requested this on July 24. But he did request it.
Now our obligation to the thousands of brave men and women who are in
our intelligence services and risking their lives is to get to the
bottom of it with a fearless, complete, and thorough investigation.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator further yield for an
additional comment? It is not only, interestingly, those who are
directly in the services of the CIA now, but it is also the retirees.
I will never forget being in an almost deserted embassy in Islamabad,
Pakistan, after September 11. I heard my name being called. I turned
around, and I saw an elderly looking gentleman, and he recalled how we
knew each other back when I was in the House of Representatives.
I said: What in the world are you doing here?
We were getting ready to do a raid in 5 cities simultaneously that
night, of which we got 50 al-Qaida, and we got the No. 3 guy. And, lo
and behold, he was a retired CIA agent they brought back in the
aftermath of September 11, when we were trying to catch up until we
could get the new guys trained. They reached out, and they got the old
guys who had all the knowledge.
Mr. SCHUMER. Right.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. So we are talking about the protection of the
interests of this country, and not only those in the active service
right now but those who are retired who in times of emergency are
called back as well.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague. Well said. It is a tribute to how
familiar he is with our intelligence services and how many from his
State serve in the intelligence community.
I was glad to hear, for instance, that these days, on the college
campuses, signing up for intelligence is a coveted thing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 10 minutes have expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be given
another 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
There are lines to join the intelligence services, sort of as there
were after World War II, when some of our best and our brightest wanted
to go into our services.
I will tell you, if politics can be played--and those of us asking
for an investigation are not playing politics; it was the people who
outed this agent, if, indeed, that is proven to be true, who were
playing politics--but if that is allowed to prevail, it is going to
hurt our intelligence agencies in many more ways than one.
I thank my colleague.
Mr. President, I would just make two points. No. 1, I will continue
to make an effort to bring up this amendment. It has now been printed
in the Record. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to read
it. We were judicious in our language. It does not have any kind of
political language or diatribe. It just states the facts. I would hope
we could get colleagues from both sides of the aisle to sponsor it.
And I would hope we could move it forward--move it forward quickly--
as a message because that is all it can be, but as a message to the
President that we need a thorough, complete, and fearless
investigation, and that only a special counsel can do that for us.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from the State of
Alabama, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be
rescinded.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________