[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 137 (Wednesday, October 1, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12216-S12217]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE CIA LEAK

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I also wanted to again comment on the 
stories appearing in the media about the leaked information regarding 
an undercover CIA agent. As we all know by now, a law was broken. It is 
a Federal crime under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act of 1982 
to intentionally disclose information identifying a covert agent by 
anyone not authorized to receive classified information. Conviction 
under this crime is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine 
of $50,000.
  What do we know so far? We know a columnist, Mr. Robert Novak, 
received this information. He printed it in his column in the 
newspaper.
  It is interesting that we now find there were other journalists given 
that information, but they did not write this. They did not print it. 
That raises questions in itself as to why Mr. Novak went ahead and 
wrote this.
  We know this was put out into the public. We know--at least it has 
been alleged--that Mr. Novak said he got the information from a ``high 
administration official.'' The other journalists, I guess, who got this 
information said the same thing. We don't know whether it is in the 
White House or where it is. But there are all kinds of rumors and 
allegations floating around.
  Now I see the Justice Department is starting to investigate. Isn't 
that a sweetheart deal? Attorney General John Ashcroft, appointed by 
this President, investigating the President. If a situation ever cried 
out for a special counsel, this is it.
  Yet yesterday when the Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, wanted 
to just have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that a special counsel 
should be appointed, the other side raised a nongermane objection to 
this. We will continue to bring up this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. 
In fact, when we have the opportunity, we will ask to have a vote on 
whether a special counsel ought to be appointed, someone more 
independent than Mr. Ashcroft.
  There is a piece missing from the puzzle. We know a law was broken. 
We know Mr. Novak, a journalist, printed in his column that it came 
from somewhere in the administration. But here is the missing part of 
the puzzle that no one is writing about. Whoever gave that information 
to Mr. Novak got that information somewhere. This is classified 
information. The question is, Did someone in the CIA voluntarily give 
that information to this individual? If that is the case, we have a 
real problem in the CIA. If, however, someone in the administration is 
saying the National Security Council, which has access to this kind of 
classified information, then gave this information to another 
individual in the administration, then we have a real problem in the 
National Security Council of someone deliberately leaking this 
classified information.

  It is not enough just to find out who gave the information to Mr. 
Novak. We have to find out how that individual got the information in 
the first place.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Let me finish this.
  Did that individual have that information given by the CIA? Was it 
given to him by the National Security Council? How did that individual 
come by this classified information? That is the missing part of this 
puzzle.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Iowa, does it not show the depths 
which have been reached if someone in the White House is prepared to 
not only discredit but to disclose the identity of an intelligence 
agent, perhaps compromising their professional career, maybe 
endangering their life, in order to settle a political debt?
  I ask the Senator from Iowa, who has a memory of this--as I do, as 
well--this is an echo of an enemies list of Richard Nixon's era where 
they have decided at any cost they will go after their enemies, even in 
the commission of a Federal felony, to disclose the identity of 
Ambassador Wilson's wife.
  The Senator from Iowa is correct. It is true that the lengths to 
which this administration is willing to go to silence its critics 
harken back to an era that was one of the darkest eras in Presidential 
politics.
  Mr. HARKIN. Again, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his 
question.
  Why was this name leaked to this columnist? It was to somehow 
discredit her husband. What had her husband done? He told the truth 
about the lack of any evidence showing Iraq had gone to Niger to obtain 
basically uranium or yellow cake. He had gone there to investigate, 
said there was nothing to it. So he told the truth. And now the 
administration, because a truth did not comport with their imagination 
about what was going on in Iraq, obviously put Mr. Wilson on their 
enemies list.
  I say to the Senator from Illinois, this really does bring back 
memories of enemies lists. The administration will go to any length, to 
the length of breaking a law, to try to discredit anyone who tries to 
point out the truth about what went on in Iraq.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will continue to yield, this calls for a 
special prosecutor. Does the Senator from Iowa recall last year when 
there was a suspected leak of information from the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, the FBI, under Attorney General Ashcroft, called on every 
member of the Senate Intelligence Committee to submit to a polygraph--
for every Senator to submit to a polygraph? I ask the Senator from 
Iowa, what is the likelihood that Attorney General Ashcroft is going to 
ask the highest ranking officials in the White House to submit to a 
polygraph and then disclose to the public whether or not they have 
agreed to do so?
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Illinois, I am not serving on the 
Intelligence Committee. I had heard and been aware, and now the Senator 
has validated that fact, the FBI did ask members of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee to take polygraphs. Again, it is a fair question 
the Senator asks: Will the FBI ask all senior members of this 
administration to sit down and take a polygraph test? If they asked 
Senators, why would they not ask the White House? I don't know. Will 
they?

  Mr. DURBIN. Further questioning the Senator from Iowa, I don't 
believe in polygraphs. I never recommend them. Most State courts do not 
recognize the results, I don't think they are accurate. But it was a 
pressure tactic by the FBI to try to get Senators on the Intelligence 
Committee to say publicly whether they would submit to a

[[Page S12217]]

polygraph. It is an indication of what they can do when they want to.
  The question is, Will they do it? Would Attorney General Ashcroft's 
Department of Justice do that to the highest ranking officials in 
President Bush's White House? The answer is obvious. So I ask, does 
that not make the case for a special prosecutor?
  Mr. HARKIN. Absolutely. The Senator from Illinois is correct. This 
points to the need for a special counsel, someone independent of the 
Justice Department. This is serious stuff.
  I notice that the columnist, Mr. Novak, said, well, this woman is 
just an analyst for the CIA.
  I don't know. I never met these people. But now I understand she was 
indeed an undercover agent overseas. She may be doing something at the 
CIA right now, but prior to that she was. Again, I have no knowledge of 
this. I only know what I have been reading in the papers.
  It seems to me, in our war on terrorism, our best asset is not a 
missile; it is not a nuclear device; it is the information we get. And 
if there is a chilling effect out there--that is what this is, a 
chilling effect--on getting information, it is a serious blow to our 
fight against terrorism.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The time on the 
Democrat side has expired.
  The Senator from Minnesota.

                          ____________________