[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24013-24015]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                CALL FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, many of my colleagues and I have been 
urging the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to review 
and investigate the leak that revealed the identity of an undercover 
CIA agent. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
responded by saying that we are blowing things out of proportion, that 
our motives are political. I have to disagree. This is a serious issue, 
and it is not just those on my side of the aisle who have concerns 
about the obvious conflict of interest for the Justice Department to 
investigate this matter on its own.
  I am referring to the Washington Post-ABC poll that was released. The 
poll found that nearly 7 in 10 Americans believe a special type of 
prosecutor should be named to investigate allegations that the Bush 
administration officials illegally leaked the name of an undercover CIA 
agent. The survey found that 81 percent of Americans considered the 
matter serious, while 72 percent thought it was likely that someone in 
the White House leaked the agent's name. It's clear the people of this 
country want a full, fair and independent investigation.
  I would also like to take a minute to respond to comments from my 
colleague from Minnesota that were made earlier Wednesday. I believe he 
may have been misinformed. I wanted to make sure my colleague from 
Minnesota was clear on the difference between an independent counsel 
and a special counsel. Yesterday I had again stated the need for the 
Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to investigate this leak 
regarding an undercover CIA agent. We all know that a Federal law was 
broken--that is clear--a law that provides for stiff penalties, 
imprisonment, and fines. It is a Federal crime, under the Intelligence 
Identities and Protection Act of 1982 to intentionally disclose 
information identifying a covert agent to anyone not authorized to 
receive this classified information.
  Columnist Robert Novak printed that information. We need to know who 
the senior administration official or officials were that gave him that 
information. But we also need to find out who gave that information to 
the administration officials.
  Let me be clear about this. There is a cancer spreading in this 
administration. Most have focused only on who it was who gave the name 
of the undercover agent to Mr. Novak, the columnist. Clearly that is 
illegal. But there is another question behind that. How did that 
individual or individuals get access to this classified information 
about this undercover agent? Who gave that individual this information? 
Did it come from the National Security Council? Did it come from the 
State Department? Did it come from the CIA itself? Did someone in the 
White House request this dossier on Mr. Wilson and his wife? Or was it 
voluntarily given to them by someone in the CIA or the National 
Security Council or somewhere else? This is an even deeper question 
because it goes to what they wanted this information for. Why would 
individuals high in the administration want the information about who 
was an undercover agent and who was not, unless they had the intention 
of using that information to intimidate Mr. Wilson, to put a chilling 
effect on those who might want to disagree with this administration's 
position on Iraq.
  That, I believe, is another concern we have--the chilling effect. The 
greatest weapon we have in our fight against

[[Page 24014]]

international terrorism is not a ballistic missile, it is not this 
missile defense shield that people want to build over this country, it 
is not our laser-guided bombs; the best weapon we have against 
international terrorism is the intelligence and information we get from 
agents in the field around the globe, working with our friends and 
allies and others, so that we can get to the terrorists in their 
incubation, before they are able to carry out their dastardly deeds, 
break up their cells, break up their lines of communication. It is the 
intelligence and information that we need to win this battle against 
terrorism.
  If, however, one of our agents in the field and all that agent's 
contacts now think that at some time this administration, or an 
administration in the future, can ``out'' them, release their name, 
then that puts kind of a damper on whether or not they are going to get 
information. That could put people's lives in jeopardy, put them at 
risk in the future.
  For example, the woman who was outed, Valerie Plame, had in fact 
traveled overseas as an undercover agent. I assume now people will be 
looking at whom she contacted, whom she talked to, who were her sources 
of information. This is not, as I said the other day, some little real 
estate deal out in Arkansas. This is not just some President 
philandering with some White House aide. This has to do with the 
security of our country.
  According to the Washington Post, a senior administration official 
told the Post that before Novak's column appeared, two top White House 
officials called at least six journalists and disclosed the identity of 
the CIA agent. Now the Justice Department is investigating.
  So let's get this straight. The Attorney General, appointed by the 
President, is investigating the President's office. As I said 
yesterday, and I say again this morning, if an investigation ever cried 
out for a special counsel, this is it. Again, I point to an article 
that appeared on the front page of the New York Times today, which 
said: Attorney General is closely linked to inquiry figures. Rove was a 
consultant. Deep political ties between top White House aides and 
Attorney General John Ashcroft have put him into a delicate position as 
the Justice Department begins a full investigation into whether 
administration officials illegally disclosed the name of an undercover 
CIA agent. Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political advisor, whose possible 
role in the case has raised questions, was a paid consultant to three 
of Mr. Ashcroft's campaigns in Missouri--twice for Governor and for 
United States Senator in the 1980s and 1990s. Jack Oliver, the deputy 
finance chairman of Mr. Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, was the 
director of Mr. Ashcroft's 1994 Senate campaign and later worked as Mr. 
Ashcroft's deputy chief of staff.
  Does anyone really believe that this Attorney General can, with a 
straight face, say they are going to investigate these people when they 
work for them and they have close ties? As I said, a special counsel is 
needed desperately.
  In response yesterday morning, when I called for this, my colleague 
from Minnesota accused some of my colleagues and me of ``rank political 
hypocrisy'' when it comes to calling for a special counsel. He said 
this, and I quote from the Record today:

       I'm a slight student of history. I believe in 1999 there 
     was an effort in this body, led by Senator Collins from 
     Maine, a bipartisan effort to put in place a provision to 
     allow for a special prosecutor. And it was blocked. It was 
     stopped by the very same folks today that are talking about 
     needs for a special prosecutor. I think, and I am going to be 
     very blunt here, what we are hearing is a little rank 
     political hypocrisy when it comes to calls for a special 
     prosecutor.

  That is in the Congressional Record today from Senator Coleman of 
Minnesota. I think Senator Coleman needs to brush up on his history. In 
1999, the independent counsel law expired. Republicans were in charge 
of the Senate and they chose not to reauthorize it. This law allows the 
Attorney General to recommend an independent counsel, to lead an 
investigation, and a three-judge panel chooses that counsel. That 
independent counsel was accountable to no one. It had its own staff, 
budget, and missions. The investigations could go on indefinitely.
  My main problem with the Office of Independent Counsel was that the 
investigations could go on forever, with a bottomless budget that 
taxpayers had to pay. The Collins alternative was a step in the right 
direction, which limited the time on these investigations. But the 
Republican leadership never scheduled a vote--never scheduled a vote.
  By the way, former independent counsel Kenneth Starr opposed renewing 
that law. Regardless, appointing an independent counsel or prosecutor 
is not what I have been talking about. I don't believe I've ever 
mentioned appointing an independent counsel. I have said the Attorney 
General should appoint a special counsel. There is a big difference. 
The Attorney General alone can appoint an outside special counsel if he 
believes there is an inherent conflict of interest or if he deems it is 
in the public interest for a special counsel to be appointed. The 
special counsel reports to the Attorney General, who pays the counsel's 
salary and the salary of his or her staff.
  The key to the special counsel is this. At the end of the 
investigation, the Attorney General must report to Congress all 
instances where he blocked the special counsel from taking an action, 
such as subpoenaing documents or putting a witness before a grand jury. 
That is the kind of balance we need in this kind of situation, when the 
administration is obligated to investigate itself.
  So I think the Senator from Minnesota not only needs to brush up on 
his history but also definitions. It was an entirely different issue in 
1999. The law had expired. The Republican majority did not move to 
reauthorize it and to even call for a vote to reauthorize the 
independent counsel law. Quite frankly, I am one of those who don't 
believe in these independent counsels because they go on forever and 
they are accountable to no one. They can investigate whatever they 
want. That is not what I am calling for.
  What I am calling for is the Attorney General to use the authority he 
has under the law to appoint a special counsel, someone of prominence, 
someone of integrity, someone who would assure the American people the 
investigation will be done fairly, objectively, and thoroughly, and let 
the chips fall where they may. It would not go on forever. The Attorney 
General decides the salary and the pay and how much staff. But the key 
is this: The special counsel would have, under the auspices of the 
Attorney General, the ability to subpoena witnesses, to subpoena 
documents and records, to take a person before a grand jury. The 
Attorney General could say no and stop it, but at least we would know 
that. The people of America would know whether or not the Attorney 
General stopped the special counsel from getting certain documents or 
referring a witness to a grand jury. Therein lies the check and balance 
that is so important to making sure we have an open and transparent 
system of Government.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. It is time we have a special counsel.
  I am honored to yield to my friend from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I ask my friend this question: If someone within the CIA 
had divulged the name of this operative, that person, it seems to me, 
would be subject to criminal penalties and would be considered a 
traitor; is that true?
  Mr. HARKIN. I know the person would be subject to criminal penalties. 
I am not certain I know the definition of a ``traitor,'' but I think it 
would be closely akin to that. I don't want to make a statement. I 
don't know the absolute definition of ``traitor,'' I say to my friend. 
Obviously, it would be subject to penalties. We have Aldrich Ames right 
now spending his life in prison without parole because he divulged the 
name of operatives, undercover agents, whose associates and others were 
killed in the former Soviet Union, and Aldrich Ames today is where he 
ought to be: in prison for life without parole.

[[Page 24015]]

  The same applies here, it would seem to me, I say to my friend from 
Nevada, that this is a case where not only someone in the CIA but 
anyone in a position who has access to this classified information 
would be subject to this. Again, I say to my friend from Nevada, since 
he is on the floor, I really think many of the people who are inquiring 
about this are stopping short because they are only focusing on who 
gave the information to Mr. Novak. There is a deeper and I think even 
more profound question to be asked: How did those individuals in the 
administration get that classified information? How did they come by 
that information to know this Valerie Plame was an undercover agent? 
That raises very serious questions.
  Mr. REID. If I can answer and ask a question. First of all, Webster's 
compact dictionary I have in my desk says a traitor is one who betrays 
trust. So certainly if a CIA agent leaked to the press the name of one 
of his colleagues who is an undercover agent, he would be a traitor.
  Mr. HARKIN. I accept that definition. I say to my friend, my feelings 
and my senses are that someone with this kind of information who leaked 
it I think has violated the law and betrayed the government and the 
citizens of the United States.
  Mr. REID. The next question I ask my friend: So if a CIA operative 
would be subject to criminal penalties and would be considered a 
traitor for doing this activity, certainly someone working within the 
administration, within the White House, would be considered the same; 
is that not true?
  Mr. HARKIN. I think the Senator from Nevada has it exactly right. 
That is true, they would be considered the same. I thank the Senator 
for asking the question because it does clarify a point.
  If I can take off from what the Senator from Nevada just asked me--
and it is a good point, it should be made--what would happen in the 
administration if someone in the CIA had leaked this kind of 
information about an undercover agent. What would happen? I will tell 
you what would happen. They would have that person locked up in jail 
before nightfall, and they would be prosecuted to the full extent of 
the law. My friend from Nevada raises a good question: What is the 
difference between that and someone in the White House or 
administration doing the same thing?
  Again, it is time for a special counsel. As the New York Times said 
this morning on the front page, both Mr. Rove and Mr. Oliver have close 
connections with Mr. Ashcroft. I don't know whether they are involved 
in this or not, but they are both very high in the administration. 
There are too many close ties between Attorney General Ashcroft and 
people high in this administration for the people of this country to be 
assured that we are going to have a fair, independent, full, and 
thorough investigation. Let the chips fall where they may and 
prosecute--yes, prosecute--the people responsible for leaking this 
information.
  Mr. President, I intend to take the floor of the Senate every day to 
talk about this issue. We cannot allow this to be swept under the rug. 
We cannot allow a coverup to go on day after day. This is a President 
elected by the people, a servant of the people. And I don't think it is 
enough for any President to say: We will let the Attorney General 
investigate. The buck stops on the President's desk. I can only say if 
an allegation had been made about someone on my staff doing something 
like that, I would call them in, and I would have them sign a notarized 
legal document right there: I, so and so, had nothing to do with any 
leak and know no information about it whatsoever. Sign it.
  That is what the President can do, and we can have this information 
out about who called Mr. Novak, who called these other reporters. We 
would know it before the sun went down today. That is why this coverup 
cannot continue to go on. The American people deserve better than this, 
and they are going to get it. We are going to find out who put our 
country at risk, who committed these treasonous activities.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________