[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 23892-23894]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            RESOLUTION FOR SUBPOENA TO SECRETARY RICHARDSON

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, during the last presidential debate, 
Governor Bush told the American people, as he has frequently during the 
campaign, that if he and Republicans are in control, there will be a 
more even-handed, cordial and respectful atmosphere in Washington and 
less partisan politics. I know that Governor Bush has tried to cast 
himself as a Washington outsider, so maybe he has not been paying 
attention to how the Republican majority here in Washington has been 
doing things these past few years. A resolution on the agenda for the 
final two meetings of the Judiciary Committee in this Congress might 
help bring Governor Bush up to speed.
  That resolution proposed by the Republican leadership of the 
Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts 
sought to authorize issuance of a subpoena compelling Department of 
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to testify before the Subcommittee 
about the investigation and prosecution of Wen Ho Lee and provide 
thirteen different categories of documents. Under the proposed 
resolution, if by November 8, 2000, Secretary Richardson did not agree 
to testify and provide the demanded documents, the subpoena would be 
authorized. This resolution was ultimately not brought to a vote due to 
the lack of the requisite quorum, sparing the Judiciary Committee from 
making an unnecessary and embarrassing demand for which the only 
enforcement mechanism is a contempt trial in the Senate.
  It might appear from the targets of this subpoena resolution, namely, 
Secretary Richardson and the Department of Energy, that the Judiciary 
Committee and the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the 
Courts are charged with oversight of the Department of Energy (DOE). In 
fact, the Republicans have proposed this resolution as part of the 
Subcommittee's oversight of the Justice Department. While the 
Department of Energy may have information helpful to an understanding 
of the Justice Department's handling of the Lee case, the manner in 
which the Republican majority has chosen to proceed both with regard to 
Secretary Richardson and other matters before the Subcommittee have 
been marked by an unprecedented political intervention in pending 
criminal matters and second-guessing of the handling of certain cases 
by federal agencies.
  For example, the majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee has 
broken from tradition and called line assistants to testify before the 
Subcommittee, questioned federal judges about pending cases over which 
they are presiding, attempted to exact assurances that particular cases 
will be handled particular ways, and made public internal and 
confidential recommendations by senior prosecutors to the Attorney 
General on how to proceed in ongoing investigations. The Subcommittee's 
earlier intervention in the Waco matter prompted a rebuke from Special 
Counsel Jack Danforth, who wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee 
twice in September, 1999, requesting that the Committee ``conduct its 
inquiries in a way that does not undermine the work of the Special 
Counsel.'' I should note that the Subcommittee on Administrative 
Oversight and the Courts persisted in seeking documents from the 
Department of Justice on the Waco matter, and that 250 boxes of Waco 
documents produced by the Department of Justice sit largely unopened in 
Judiciary Committee offices.
  Let me help bring Governor Bush up to speed with the most recent 
example of how the majority is conducting itself. Sponsors of this 
subpoena resolution made it sound as if a subpoena were necessary 
because Secretary Richardson had been dodging a discussion of the Lee 
case since March 2000. Indeed, a sponsor of the subpoena resolution 
stated at a Judiciary Committee meeting on October 5, 2000, that 
``[t]he efforts to secure Secretary Richardson's attendance go back to 
March of

[[Page 23893]]

this year when we requested his appearance and he declined, with 
comments about his unavailability on a specific date.''
  Yet, as some Republicans have even acknowledged, from December 1999 
until just six weeks ago when Dr. Lee pled guilty, the Committee was 
honoring FBI Director Freeh's urgent request that the Committee suspend 
review of Dr. Lee's case during the pendency of the criminal 
prosecution so as not to compromise the case.
  When former Senator Danforth testified to Congress about his 
independent investigation of the tragic raid on the Branch Davidian 
compound in Waco, Texas, he commented that, ``We have totally overblown 
our willingness to just trash people.'' Senator Danforth said about 
those who make reckless claims of government misconduct and who 
grandstand on matters of public importance: ``The wrong information was 
presented to the American people and it caused a real shaking of 
confidence of people in their government . . . When people make dark 
charges--I mean really, really serious charges--the people who make the 
charges should bear some kind of burden of proof before we all buy into 
them.'' His words have not been sufficiently heeded by the majority in 
this Congress, as this unwarranted and scurrilous subpoena resolution 
directed at Secretary Richardson makes clear.
  Governor Bush may also not be aware of the following: Despite 
Director Freeh's request that the Congress suspend the Lee hearings 
during pendency of the case, and the Judiciary Committee's honoring of 
that request, an interim report on the Lee matter was issued by a 
Republican Member in March 2000. He did so over the written objections 
of a Member of his own party, who expressed concern about the haste of 
issuing the report despite an incomplete investigation and the lack of 
a consensus in the Judiciary Committee about key matters.
  The Committee's suspension of its inquiry into this matter was lifted 
only six weeks ago, September 13, 2000, when Dr. Lee pled guilty and 
was sentenced. The March 2000 hearing to which Secretary Richardson was 
invited, but for which he had a conflict, was not about the facts of 
Dr. Lee's case, but legislation on which the Judiciary Committee was 
then working.
  It might help Governor Bush size up the source of partisan bickering 
in Washington if he were aware of how the Senate Judiciary Committee 
was rushing to issue a subpoena to a cabinet secretary, even though 
Members of his own party acknowledge that the complete story of the Lee 
matter will not and cannot come out for some time. I concur with 
Senator Grassley's comments on October 3, 2000, at a hearing conducted 
by the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts on the 
Lee matter: ``For now, Dr. Lee's side of the story is on hold. That is 
because his attorneys have asked that his side be told only after he is 
debriefed by the government. We also asked to interview Judge Parker 
about his views of the case but Judge Parker declined our invitations, 
so the public is not going to get the full picture, which may not come 
into view for some time yet.''
  Nonetheless, for Secretary Richardson, a high-ranking member of this 
Administration, the Judiciary Committee was asked to authorize a 
subpoena and get him before Congress immediately in an apparent effort 
to make it seem as though he is dodging congressional oversight, even 
though by Senator Grassley's candid admission that Congress will not 
have the full picture of Dr. Lee's case ``for some time.''
  In fact, the investigation of Dr. Lee remains open with intense 
debriefings ongoing. The agencies involved are rightfully sensitive 
that the debriefings of Dr. Lee are not complete and concerned that 
public discussion of the case not jeopardize the debriefings or future 
steps in the case.
  Republicans have not shown similar interest in oversight of other 
open criminal matters about which the American people might truly want 
all the facts immediately and certainly before Election Day. For 
example, no effort by the majority has been made to get to the bottom 
of ``Debategate,'' the mailing of Bush debate preparation materials to 
the Gore campaign. That incident might be a third-rate mail fraud, but 
it might also be serious campaign misconduct of the type we saw during 
the Watergate scandal. Some have speculated that it was a dirty trick 
by the Bush campaign to set up the Vice President. I have heard nothing 
from the Republicans about the matter. I have heard no outrage that 
Governor Bush and his campaign aides are not being put under oath or 
dragged before grand juries to get to the bottom of the scandal. In 
contrast to the majority's preference to investigate rather than 
legislate, their silence on the Debategate case is deafening. On that 
investigation, the Republicans are happy to allow the ongoing criminal 
investigation to take its course. But not here, where the important 
debriefings of Dr. Lee are sensitive and ongoing.
  The fact is that in the six short weeks since Dr. Lee pled guilty, 
the Department of Energy has been extremely cooperative, just as the 
Department of Energy was cooperative with other committees' previous 
reviews of the Lee matter.
  At the first hearing on the matter after Dr. Lee pled guilty, the 
Judiciary Committee's joint hearing with the Senate Committee on 
Intelligence on September 26th, Deputy Secretary T.J. Glauthier of the 
Department of Energy appeared to testify in place of Secretary 
Richardson because the Secretary was testifying before another 
committee. Secretary Richardson agreed to testify at that afternoon's 
closed session when he would be available, but no such afternoon 
session was conducted. At the second hearing on September 27th, DOE 
Security Chief Edward Curran appeared to testify.
  At the third hearing on October 3rd, DOE computer specialist Ronald 
Wilkins appeared to testify. In addition, the Subcommittee on 
Administrative Oversight and the Courts heard from Los Alamos officials 
Dr. Stephen Younger and former officials Robert Vrooman and Notra 
Trulock. In sum, Department of Energy has provided witnesses before a 
total of 11 House and Senate committees and has provided testimony 37 
times in hearings and briefings on the Lee case and related espionage 
and security matters in the past two years.
  Moreover, the thirteen categories of documents called for in the 
subpoena resolution-- to the extent not already produced--were 
requested only a few days before the subpoena was sought. A chronology 
of the relevant events shows that the Department of Energy has made and 
is making every effort to produce documents.
  On November 17, 1999, the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee 
approved a resolution to issue subpoenas to five cabinet secretaries, 
including Secretary Richardson, containing a general request for all 
documents related to Wen Ho Lee and three other matters. Because the 
Judiciary Committee a few short weeks later, in December 1999 honored 
Director Freeh's request that the Committee suspend inquiry of the Lee 
matter, no subpoena was ever issued and forwarded, and it is unclear 
whether that document request was ever communicated to the Department 
of Energy.
  On September 13, 2000, Dr. Lee pled guilty and was sentenced.
  On September 28, 2000, Senator Specter wrote to DOE requesting that 
five pages of a DOE Inspector General report be declassified, but 
making no other request for documents. My understanding is that the 
request was honored.
  On September 29, 2000, Senator Specter wrote a letter directly to 
Secretary Richardson enclosing follow-up written questions to DOE's 
Security Chief Edward Curran, who testified before the subcommittee on 
September 27th. Neither the letter to Secretary Richardson nor the 
questions to Mr. Curran contained any request for documents.
  On October 3, 2000, Senator Specter wrote to both Secretary 
Richardson and the Attorney General requesting documents relating to 
Dr. Lee's claim of racial profiling that the prosecution would have 
been required to submit to

[[Page 23894]]

Judge Parker for in camera review had Dr. Lee not pled guilty. DOE has 
produced materials in response to that request.
  On October 5, 2000, Secretary Richardson met with Senator Specter and 
discussed the case. My understanding is that Senator Specter's staff 
thereafter orally requested five documents or files from DOE Chief 
Larry Sanchez.
  On October 12, 2000, Senator Specter asked the Judiciary Committee to 
approve a resolution authorizing a subpoena for Secretary Richardson's 
testimony. That resolution contained no request for documents.
  Finally, on the evening of October 16, 2000, Senator Specter wrote a 
letter to Secretary Richardson listing the thirteen categories of 
documents sought by the subpoena resolution.
  Despite that record of the DOE's good faith, on October 19, 2000, 
less than two weeks since Senator Specter's office made an oral request 
of Mr. Sanchez for five documents or files and just three days since 
Senator Specter submitted his list of thirteen categories of documents, 
the Republicans sought a resolution seeking issuance of a subpoena. The 
Department of Energy has made three deliveries of materials over the 
past two weeks, and I have no doubt that the Department of Energy will 
continue to comply with these document requests and act in good faith. 
Moreover, I understand that Secretary Richardson has met recently with 
Senator Specter and with Chairman Hatch to discuss the facts of the 
case. Far from dodging congressional oversight, the Secretary has made 
himself available for such meetings in the midst of recent crises over 
the price of oil.
  The sponsors of the subpoena resolution advanced three reasons to 
justify its issuance. They claimed that the Judiciary Subcommittee on 
Administrative Oversight and the Courts needs to hear immediately from 
Secretary Richardson so that he may (1) respond to allegations that the 
Department of Energy was to blame for the delay between April 1999, 
when Dr. Lee's residence was searched and evidence of his downloading 
was seized, and December 1999, when he was indicted; (2) explain why 
his signature was purportedly on the order to put Dr. Lee in leg irons; 
and (3) respond to allegations made by DOE's former intelligence chief 
Notra Trulock at an earlier Congressional hearing that he had been told 
by New York Times reporter James Risen that Secretary Richardson had 
leaked Dr. Lee's name. Based on the record, as I understand it, these 
three claims are unsupportable. First, between April and December 1999, 
numerous agencies participated in sorting out a hugely complex case, 
analyzing a million computer files, interviewing a thousand people, and 
assessing the sensitive question of how to prosecute Dr. Lee in a 
public courtroom without publicly disclosing the nuclear secrets that 
he downloaded.
  As to the second claim, Secretary Richardson wrote to the Attorney 
General certifying, as required by a federal regulation, that national 
security would be threatened if Dr. Lee communicated classified 
information to a confederate, and requesting that she direct prison 
authorities to implement whatever measures might be appropriate to 
prevent such communication while Dr. Lee was in custody. Secretary 
Richardson did not order leg irons. To the contrary, Secretary 
Richardson noted his understanding that ``the conditions of [Dr. Lee's] 
confinement are in no respect more restrictive than those of others in 
the segregation unit of the detention facility,'' and he emphasized his 
concern that Dr. Lee's civil rights be scrupulously honored.
  As to the third claim, my understanding is that, immediately after 
the hearing at which Mr. Trulock testified, Mr. Risen walked up to Mr. 
Trulock and said that he had never told Mr. Trulock any such thing 
about Secretary Richardson. In addition, Secretary Richardson has 
already categorically denied the allegation.
  These reasons are hardly a basis for taking the extraordinary step of 
authorizing the issuance of a subpoena for a member of the President's 
cabinet.
  At the Judiciary Committee's meeting on October 19, 2000, it was 
suggested that Chairman Hatch might have the authority to issue a 
subpoena for Secretary Richardson pursuant to a resolution which the 
Republicans on the Committee approved in November 1999. The Democrats 
opposed that resolution in part because a subpoena might interfere with 
the ongoing investigation of Dr. Lee. Over the Democrats' objection, 
that partisan resolution was rushed through the Judiciary Committee by 
the majority precipitously and was never executed. Indeed, just a few 
weeks later, Director Freeh made his urgent request that the Committee 
suspend its inquiry into the Lee matter during the pendency of the 
criminal case.
  As it related to the Department of Energy, the partisan resolution 
authorized issuance of a subpoena to Secretary Richardson for 
documents, not his personal appearance. As for the documents, the 
resolution authorized issuance of a subpoena for all documents related 
to DOE's investigation of Dr. Lee and identified just two particular 
documents that were sought. That resolution did not identify the 
thirteen categories of documents for which authorization was sought in 
the last meetings of the Judiciary Committee.
  Since the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the 
Courts began its oversight of the Justice Department, no fewer than 
nine subpoenas have been authorized for cabinet secretaries, not 
including a subpoena for Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 
connection with Elian Gonzalez which was authorized and later 
rescinded.
  If the American people want to test the credibility of Governor 
Bush's claim about the kinder and gentler America that he claims only a 
Republican-led government can bring to our nation, they should examine 
the record of the oversight efforts by Republican-led Judiciary 
Committee and its Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the 
Courts.

                          ____________________