[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.