[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 88 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3939-S3942]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           National Security

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, Senator Graham and I know there are others 
who would like to come to the floor on the issue of the almost 
unprecedented release of information which directly affects our 
national security--in fact, the most important programs in which we are 
engaged, including the use of drones and our counterterrorism 
activities, and, of course, the highly classified cyber attacks that 
have been made on the Iranians in order to prevent them from achieving 
their goal of building nuclear weapons.
  I can't think of any time that I have seen such breaches of ongoing 
national security programs as has been the case here. The damage to our 
national security has been articulated by many both inside and outside 
of the administration, including the most damaging that we have seen. 
Our Director of National Intelligence said that it is the worst he has 
seen in his 30 years of service in the area of intelligence. All of the

[[Page S3940]]

ranking and chair members of the Intelligence Committee, Armed Services 
Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, and Homeland Security Committee 
have described in the strongest terms what damage has been done by 
these ``leaks.''
  Among the sources that the authors of these publications list are 
``administration officials'' and ``senior officials''; ``senior aides'' 
to the President; ``members of the President's national security team 
who were in the [White House Situation Room] during key discussions''; 
an official ``who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a 
classified program''--I am quoting all of these from the public cases; 
``current . . . American officials . . . [who would not] allow their 
names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and 
parts of it continue to this day''; several sources who would be 
``fired'' for what they divulged--presumably because what they divulged 
was classified or otherwise very sensitive.
  One author notes:

       [O]ver the course of 2009, more and more people inside the 
     Obama White House were being `read into' a [particular 
     secret, compartmentalized] cyber program [previously known 
     only by an extremely tight group of top intelligence, 
     military and White House officials], even those not directly 
     involved. As the reports from the latest iteration of the bug 
     arrived--

  Talking about the cyber attack on Iran--

     meetings were held to assess what kind of damage had been 
     done, and the room got more and more crowded.

  Some of the sources in these publications specifically refused to be 
identified because what they were talking about related to classified 
programs or ongoing programs. One of the authors specifically observed 
that some of his sources would be horrified if their identities were 
revealed.
  As always with this leaking, which goes on in this town, although not 
at the level I have ever seen, I think we need to ask ourselves first 
who benefits--certainly not our national security or our military 
intelligence professionals or our partners abroad who are more exposed 
as a result of these leaks. I think to answer the question of who 
benefits, we have to look at the totality of circumstances. In this 
case, the publications came out closely together in time. They involved 
the participation, according to those publications, of administration 
officials. The overall impression left by these publications is very 
favorable to the President of the United States.
  So here we are with a very serious breach of national security--and 
in the view of some, the most serious in recent history--and it clearly 
cries out for the appointment of a special counsel.
  I would remind my colleagues and my friend from South Carolina will 
remind our colleagues that when the Valerie Plame investigation was 
going on, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued 
strenuously for the appointment of a special counsel at that time. 
Later on, I will read some of their direct quotes.
  It is obviously one of the highest breaches of security this country 
has ever seen because of ongoing operations that are taking place. By 
the way, our friends and allies, especially the Israelis, who have been 
compromised on the Stuxnet operation, the virus in the Iranian nuclear 
program, of course, feel betrayed.
  Now, can I finally say that I understand our colleague and 
chairperson of the Intelligence Committee is going to come over to 
object to our motion for the appointment of a special counsel. It is 
the same special counsel who was appointed at other times in our 
history, and ahead of her appearance after the statements she made 
about how serious these breaches of intelligence were. It is a bit 
puzzling why she should object to the appointment of a special counsel.

  I ask my colleague from South Carolina--to place two outstanding 
individuals and prosecutors to investigate still places them under the 
authority of the Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney 
General of the United States is under severe scrutiny in the House of 
Representatives. The Attorney General of the United States may be cited 
for contempt of Congress over the Fast and Furious gunrunning-to-Mexico 
issue which also resulted, by the way, in the death of a brave young 
Border Patrolman, Brian Terry, in my own State, who was killed by one 
of these weapons. That is how serious it is.
  I would think Mr. Holder, for his own benefit, would seek the 
appointment of a special counsel, and I ask that of my friend from 
South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I think it not only would serve Mr. Holder well, but 
certainly the country well.
  We are setting the precedent that if we do not appoint a special 
counsel--and I don't know these two U.S. attorneys at all. I am sure 
they are fine men. But the special counsel provisions that are 
available to the Attorney General need to be embraced because it 
creates an impression and, quite frankly, a legal infrastructure to put 
the special counsel above common politics. The precedent we are about 
to set in the Senate if we vote down this resolution is, in this case, 
we don't need to assure the public that we don't have to worry, the 
person involved is not going to be interfered with; that in this case 
we don't need the special counsel, and there is no need for it.
  Well, to my colleagues on the other side, how many of them said we 
needed a special counsel--Peter Fitzgerald--who was not in the 
jurisdiction--Illinois wasn't the subject matter of the Valerie Plame 
leaks. It happened in Washington. When Peter Fitzgerald was chosen as a 
special counsel, the country said that is a good choice, chosen under 
the special counsel provisions, which are designed to avoid a conflict 
of interest.
  What is the problem? For us to say we don't need one here is a 
precedent that will haunt the country and this body and future White 
Houses in a way that I think is very disturbing, I say to the Senator 
from Arizona, because if we needed one for Valerie Plame--allegations 
of outing a CIA agent--and if we needed one for Jack Abramoff, a 
lobbyist who had infiltrated the highest levels of the government, why 
would we need one here? Is this less serious?
  The allegations we are talking about are breathtaking. Go read Mr. 
Sanger's book as he describes Operation Olympic Games. It reads like a 
novel about how the administration, trying to avoid an Israeli strike 
against the Iranian nuclear program, worked with the Israelis to create 
a cyber attack on the Iranian nuclear program, and how successful it 
was. It literally reads like a novel.
  What about the situation regarding the Underwear Bomber case, a plot 
that was thwarted by a double agent. One could read every detail about 
the plot and how dangerous it was and how successful we were in 
stopping it from coming about. Then, how we got bin Laden and sharing 
information with a movie producer, but telling the world about the 
Pakistani doctor and how we used him to track down bin Laden.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I add revealing the name of Seal 
Team 6.
  Mr. GRAHAM. That takes us to the bin Laden information. In the book 
there is a scenario where the Secretary of Defense went to the National 
Security Adviser, Thomas Donilon, and said, ``I have a new 
communication strategy for you regarding the bin Laden raid: Shut the F 
up.''
  But the drone program, a blow-by-blow description of how the 
President handpicks who gets killed and who doesn't.
  This is breathtaking. Certainly, it is on par with Abramoff and 
Plame, I think, the biggest national security compromise in 
generations. For our friends on the other side to say we don't need a 
special counsel here, but they were the ones arguing for one in the 
other two cases, sets a terrible precedent, and we are not going to let 
this happen without one heck of a fight.
  Senator Obama wrote a letter with a large group of colleagues urging 
the Bush administration to appoint a special counsel and to have an 
independent congressional investigation on top of that of the Valerie 
Plame CIA leak case. He also joined in a letter with his Democratic 
colleagues urging the Bush administration to appoint a special counsel 
in the Jack Abramoff case because the allegations were that Mr. 
Abramoff had access to the highest levels of government and that 
extraordinary circumstances existed.

[[Page S3941]]

  What are we talking about here? We are talking about leaks of 
national security done in a 45-day period that paint this President as 
a strong, decisive national security leader. The book questions--not 
just the articles--is there any reason to believe this may go to the 
White House? Look what happened with the Scooter Libby prosecution in 
the Valerie Plame case. The Chief of Staff of the Vice President of the 
United States eventually was held accountable for his involvement.
  Is there any reason to believe that senior White House people may be 
involved in these leaks? Just read the articles. But this is a book 
review by Mr. Thomas Riggs of the book in question by Mr. Sanger. 
Throughout, Mr. Sanger clearly has enjoyed great access to senior White 
House officials, most notably to Thomas Donilon, the National Security 
Adviser. Mr. Donilon, in fact, is the hero of the book as well as the 
commentator of record on events. It goes on and on in talking about how 
these programs were so successful.
  Here is the problem. In the House, when a program is not so 
successful, such as Fast and Furious, that is embarrassing to the 
administration. One can't literally get information with a subpoena. So 
we have an administration and an Attorney General's Office that is 
about to be held in contempt by the House for not releasing information 
about the Fast and Furious Program that was embarrassing. When we have 
programs that were successful and make the White House look strong and 
the President look strong, we can read about it in the paper.
  All we are asking for is what Senator Obama and Senator Biden asked 
for in previous national security events involving corruption of the 
government: a special counsel to be appointed, with the powers of a 
special counsel, somebody we can all buy into. If we set a precedent of 
not doing it here, I think it will be a huge mistake.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, wouldn't my colleague agree that one of 
the most revealing aspects of this entire issue from program to program 
that leads to enormous suspicion would be that probably the most 
respected Member of the President's Cabinet who stayed over from the 
Bush administration, Secretary Gates, was so agitated by the revelation 
of information about the bin Laden raid that he came over to the White 
House and said to the President's National Security Adviser that he had 
a ``new communication strategy.'' He responded by saying to the 
National Security Adviser, ``Shut the F up.'' That is a devastating 
comment and leads one to the suspicion that things were done improperly 
in the revelation of these most important and sensitive programs that 
were being carried out and are ongoing to this day.
  So I ask my colleague, what is the difference between the Biden-
Schumer-Levin-Daschle letter to President Bush in 2003 where they 
called for the appointment of a special counsel--Vice President Biden--
and how the White House should handle Libby? I think they should 
appoint a special prosecutor. In 2003, then-Senator Biden called for a 
special counsel with 34 Senators, and then-Senator Obama requested the 
appointment of a special counsel to lead the Abramoff case.
  I was involved heavily initially with the Abramoff case, and I can 
tell my colleagues even though there was severe corruption, there was 
certainly nothing as far as a breach of national security is concerned. 
Yet they needed a special counsel, according to then-Senator Obama, to 
investigate Abramoff but not this serious consequence.
  So I guess my unanimous consent request for this resolution will be 
objected to. But the fact is, we need a special counsel because the 
American people need to know. I do not believe anyone who has to report 
to the Attorney General of the United States would be considered as 
objective.
  I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if I may, I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record the letters written by Senator Obama and Senator 
Biden asking for a special counsel.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Obama, et al. Letter on Abramoff

                                                 February 2, 2006.
     Hon. Alberto Gonzales,
     U.S. Department of Justice,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear General Gonzales: We write to join the request made 
     last week that you appoint a special counsel to continue the 
     investigation and the prosecution of those involved in the 
     corruption scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff's dealings with 
     the federal government. The Department's response to the 
     press regarding that request did not address the fundamental 
     issue of a conflict of interest or the other serious issues 
     raised by the letter.
       This scandal has shaken the public's confidence in our 
     government and all involved must be pursued vigorously. A 
     special counsel will ensure the public's confidence in the 
     investigation and prosecution and help to restore its faith 
     in our government. FBI officials have said the Abramoff 
     investigation ``involves systemic corruption within the 
     highest levels of government.'' Such an assertion indicates 
     extraordinary circumstances and it is in the public interest 
     that you act under your existing statutory authority to 
     appoint a special counsel.
       Mr. Abramoff's significant ties to Republican leadership in 
     Congress, and allegations of improper activity involving 
     Administration officials, reaching, possibly, into the White 
     House itself, pose a possible conflict of interest for the 
     Department and thus further warrant the appointment of a 
     special counsel. Recent news reports confirm that Mr. 
     Abramoff met the President on several occasions and during 
     some of those meetings, Mr. Abramoff and his family had their 
     photos taken with the President. Mr. Abramoff also organized 
     at least one and possibly several meetings with White House 
     staff for his clients. These meetings with the President and 
     White House staff occurred while you were serving as White 
     House Counsel. Given the possible ties between Mr. Abramoff 
     and senior government officials, we believe the appointment 
     of a special counsel is not only justified, but necessary.
       The Public Integrity section of the Department has thus far 
     pursued this case appropriately, and we applaud its pursuit 
     of Mr. Abramoff and his colleagues. As the investigation 
     turns to government officials and their staffs, both in the 
     Executive and Legislative branches, we have no doubt that if 
     the investigation is left to the career prosecutors in that 
     section, the case would reach its appropriate conclusion. 
     Unfortunately, the highly political context of the 
     allegations and charges may lead some to surmise that 
     political influence may compromise the investigation. This 
     concern is heightened by allegations that Frederick Black, 
     the former acting U.S. Attorney for Guam and the Northern 
     Marianas, was replaced, perhaps improperly, as a result of 
     his investigation of Mr. Abramoff.
       Appointment of a Special Counsel at this point in time is 
     made even more appropriate by the White House's recent 
     nomination of Noel Hillman, the career prosecutor in charge 
     of the case, to a federal judgeship. As a new prosecutor will 
     need to take over the case, we ask you to appoint an outside 
     Special Counsel so the public can be assured no political 
     considerations will be a part of this investigation or the 
     subsequent prosecutions.
       Because this investigation is vital to restoring the 
     public's faith in its government, any appearance of bias, 
     special favor or political consideration would be a further 
     blow to our democracy. Appointment of a special counsel would 
     ensure that the investigation and prosecution will proceed 
     without fear or favor and provide the public with full 
     confidence that no one in this country is above the law.
       We know you share our commitment to restoring the public's 
     trust in our government. We hope you will take the only 
     appropriate action here and appoint a special counsel so we 
     can ensure that justice is done while preserving the 
     integrity of the Justice Department.
       We look forward to hearing from you on this matter soon.
         Harry Reid; Charles E. Schumer; Ken Salazar; Barack 
           Obama; Dick Durbin; Robert Menendez; Ted Kennedy; 
           Daniel K. Inouye; Blanche L. Lincoln; Kent Conrad; Jack 
           Reed; Evan Bayh; Carl Levin; Joe Lieberman; Debbie 
           Stabenow; John F. Kerry; Bill Nelson; Frank R. 
           Lautenberg; Barbara Mikulski; Dianne Feinstein; Patty 
           Murray; Daniel K. Akaka; Maria Cantwell; Hillary Rodham 
           Clinton; Ron Wyden; Barbara Boxer; Jim Jeffords; Max 
           Baucus; Joe Biden; Chris Dodd; Patrick Leahy; Russell 
           D. Feingold; Tim Johnson; Paul Sarbanes; Tom Carper; 
           Jeff Bingaman.
                                  ____


             Biden, Daschle, Schumer, Levin Letter to Bush


                                         United States Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, October 9, 2003.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We write to express our continuing 
     concerns regarding the manner in which your Administration is 
     conducting the investigation into the apparently criminal 
     leaking of a covert CIA operative's identity. You have 
     personally pledged the White House's full cooperation in this 
     investigation and you have stated

[[Page S3942]]

     your desire to see any culprits identified and prosecuted, 
     but the Administration's actions are inconsistent with your 
     words.
       Already, just 14 days into this investigation, there have 
     been at least five serious missteps.
       First, although the Department of Justice commenced its 
     investigation on Friday, September 26, the Justice Department 
     did not ask the White House to order employees to preserve 
     all relevant evidence until Monday, September 29. Every 
     former prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that the 
     first step in such an investigation would be to ensure all 
     potentially relevant evidence is preserved, yet the Justice 
     Department waited four days before making a formal request 
     for such documents.
       Second, when the Justice Department finally asked the White 
     House to order employees to preserve documents, White House 
     Counsel Alberto Gonzales asked for permission to delay 
     transmitting the order to preserve evidence until morning. 
     That request for delay was granted. Again, every former 
     prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that such a 
     delay is a significant departure from standard practice.
       Third, instead of immediately seeking the preservation of 
     evidence at the two other Executive Branch departments from 
     which the leak might have originated, i.e., State and 
     Defense, such a request was not made until Thursday, October 
     1. Perhaps even more troubling, the request to State and 
     Defense Department employees to preserve evidence was 
     telegraphed in advance not only by the request to White House 
     employees earlier in the week, but also by the October 1st 
     Wall Street Journal report that such a request was 
     ``forthcoming'' from the Justice Department. It is, of 
     course, extremely unusual to tip off potential witnesses in 
     this manner that a preservation request is forthcoming.
       Fourth, on October 7, White House spokesperson Scott 
     McClellan stated that he had personally determined three 
     White House officials, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby and Elliot 
     Abrams, had not disclosed classified information. According 
     to press reports, Mr. McClellan said, ``I've spoken with each 
     of them individually. They were not involved in leaking 
     classified information, nor did they condone it.'' Clearly, a 
     media spokesperson does not have the legal expertise to be 
     questioning possible suspects or evaluating or reaching 
     conclusions about the legality of their conduct. In addition, 
     by making this statement, the White House has now put the 
     Justice Department in the position of having to determine not 
     only what happened, but also whether to contradict the 
     publicly stated position of the White House.
       Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, the investigation 
     continues to be directly overseen by Attorney General 
     Ashcroft who has well-documented conflicts of interest in any 
     investigation of the White House. Mr. Ashcroft's personal 
     relationship and political alliance with you, his close 
     professional relationships with Karl Rove and Mr. Gonzales, 
     and his seat on the National Security Council all tie him so 
     tightly to this White House that the results may not be 
     trusted by the American people. Even if the case is being 
     handled in the first instance by professional career 
     prosecutors, the integrity of the inquiry may be called into 
     question if individuals with a vested interest in protecting 
     the White House are still involved in any matter related to 
     the investigation.
       We are at risk of seeing this investigation so compromised 
     that those responsible for this national security breach will 
     never be identified and prosecuted. Public confidence in the 
     integrity of this investigation would be substantially 
     bolstered by the appointment of a special counsel. The 
     criteria in the Justice Department regulations that created 
     the authority to appoint a Special Counsel have been met in 
     the current case. Namely, there is a criminal investigation 
     that presents a conflict of interest for the Justice 
     Department, and it would be in the public interest to appoint 
     an outside special counsel to assume responsibility for the 
     matter. In the meantime, we urge you to ask Attorney General 
     Ashcroft to recuse himself from this investigation and do 
     everything within your power to ensure the remainder of this 
     investigation is conducted in a way that engenders public 
     confidence.
           Sincerely,
     Tom Daschle.
     Joseph R. Biden.
     Carl Levin.
     Charles E. Schumer.

  Mr. GRAHAM. I guess the difference is we are supposed to trust 
Democratic administrations, and we can't trust Republican 
administrations. I guess that is the difference. It is the only 
difference I can glean here. Certainly, the subject matter in question 
is as equal to or more serious in terms of how it has damaged the 
Nation and in terms of the structure of a special counsel. If we 
thought it was necessary to make sure the Abramoff investigation could 
lead to high-level Republicans, which it did, and if we thought the 
Valerie Plame case needed a special counsel to go into the White House 
because that is where it went, why would we not believe it would help 
the country as a whole to appoint somebody we can all buy into in this 
case, give them the powers of a special counsel? That is what was urged 
before when the shoe was on the other foot.
  This is a very big deal. We are talking about serious criminal 
activity. Apparently, the suspects are at the highest level of 
government, and I believe it was done for political purposes. To not 
appoint a special counsel would set a precedent that I think is 
damaging for the country and is absolutely unimaginable in terms of how 
someone could differentiate this case from the other two we have talked 
about.
  To my Democratic colleagues: Don't go down this road. Don't be part 
of setting a precedent of not appointing a special counsel for some of 
the most serious national security leaks in recent memory--maybe in the 
history of the country--while at the same time most of my Democratic 
colleagues were on the record asking about a special counsel about 
everything and anything that happened in the Bush administration. This 
is not good for the country.
  Mr. McCAIN. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues.