[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23551-23557]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 23552]]

     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 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 identity 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.

[[Page 23553]]




         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 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.


[[Page 23554]]


  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 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

[[Page 23555]]

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 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.

[[Page 23556]]


  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 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.

[[Page 23557]]

  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.

                          ____________________