[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24447-24449]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATION

  Mr. DASCHLE. Finally, I will talk about our grave concern with regard 
to the ongoing investigation in the Department of Justice with regard 
to the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame. In a letter to the 
administration, we have noted they need to address five specific 
missteps we think directly hinder and perhaps may adversely affect the 
outcome of this investigation.
  First, the Department of Justice commenced this investigation on 
Friday, September 26, but did not ask the White House to preserve all 
relevant evidence until September 29. No one knows why. For those 4 
days, the investigation went on without any formal request of the White 
House or anybody else to preserve all relevant documents.
  Second, after the request, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales asked 
for yet another delay, until the following day, before any of the 
relevant evidence would have to be provided. This is a significant 
departure from standard practice and, again, mysteriously inexplicable.
  Third, no request was made of State and Defense Department agencies 
until October 1, almost a week following the request made of the White 
House. Again, that is completely inexplicable. What is even more 
troubling is that the Wall Street Journal reported that a request would 
be made to the Department of Defense and the State Department the very 
day it was done, again tipping off all of those who may have had some 
reason to destroy evidence.
  Fourth, White House spokesperson Scott McClellan stated he has 
already determined that three White House officials--Karl Rove, Lewis 
Libby, and Elliott Abrams--had not disclosed any information. Now, he 
is not a member of the investigation. He has no legal

[[Page 24448]]

expertise. He is the current White House spokesperson, but he said he 
personally made that determination and could announce with confidence 
they were not involved.
  That perhaps is the most troubling of all. How can someone with no 
legal expertise say with official acclamation that these individuals 
are not involved? First, he does not have the expertise. Second, if 
indeed that turns out to be wrong, someone in the Justice Department is 
going to have to confront the White House and reverse that 
pronouncement, making it all the more difficult for the investigation 
to go forward.
  Finally, the investigation continues to be overseen by Attorney 
General Ashcroft, someone who has very close personal and political 
ties with many of those who are at least subject to an investigation. 
That, too, is extraordinarily troubling.
  I was concerned last week when the President said it was unlikely 
that any guilt could be found; that it was unlikely this investigation 
would prove to be productive. That, too, sent a chilling message to all 
of those who are investigating.
  So these are very serious missteps that call into question whether 
this investigation is going to be carried out in the deliberate, 
thoughtful, and thorough way it demands.
  I think we ought to ask, Who is in control here? Why has somebody not 
been appointed to provide the answers to these questions and to deal 
with these serious missteps? They get worse. The cloud of doubt hangs 
over the investigation.
  Some have suggested there may be a coverup, but I think it is 
important for us to determine the facts, get the information, deal with 
the eroding confidence people have in the quality of this 
investigation, and ultimately bring it to a successful conclusion.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. From the statement the Senator has made, it is my 
understanding that out of the $87 billion the President has requested, 
the Senator from South Dakota has said that some $21 billion will be 
for the reconstruction of Iraq, not dealing with the military but for 
the reconstruction of Iraq, and that someone is going to have to borrow 
that money. It is a question, as I understood the Senator from South 
Dakota, whether the taxpayers of America will borrow that money or 
whether the people of Iraq, with their large oil reserves, will in 
effect borrow the money. Is that in fact what the Senator said?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Nevada heard me exactly right. I was 
interested in comments made earlier today that we really do not have to 
worry that much about the exploding deficit; that it is not that 
serious. Well, that is not what the CBO said.
  About a month ago, the Congressional Budget Office noted that at 
current rates the debt is not sustainable; that we are not going to be 
in a position to provide the kind of debt service ultimately, within 
the course of the next 10 years, if nothing changes.
  The debt we have already authorized is going to expire once again. We 
are going to have to increase the debt limit within the next several 
months. We are told by some groups outside the CBO that we could see a 
total Federal debt within 10 years of anywhere from 8 to 10,000 billion 
dollars.
  That is right, 8 to 10,000 billion dollars. That is $8 trillion. That 
amounts to somewhere in the vicinity of $70,000 to $75,000 for every 
man, woman, and child in the country. That is what we are facing right 
now.
  For us to say we are going to exacerbate that by borrowing even more 
to provide reconstruction assistance to Iraq is deeply troubling. They 
sit on perhaps the largest oil reserves in the world. It seems to me 
those oil reserves ought to at least be considered. Even though they 
are not available today, at some point that oil can be tapped. If it 
can be tapped, it seems to me it would make a lot more sense for us to 
collateralize that oil than to borrow even more money, adding even 
greater debt to every man, woman, and child in this country.
  I appreciate very much the question of the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I have a couple of questions for the minority 
leader. On the question of the debt, it is estimated that in the fiscal 
year that just began, October 1, we are going to end up sending more 
than we have coming in, in tax revenue this year to the tune of $600 
billion. That is over half a trillion dollars.
  My question to the minority leader is this. I have gotten feedback 
from innumerable townhall meetings over this past week in my State of 
Florida from people who are so concerned that by our not having the 
revenue and therefore having to borrow that, they are not going to be 
able to get the expenditures of the Federal Government in areas such as 
education, transportation, and health care. Would the minority leader 
comment on that?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Florida is absolutely right. We are 
being told we cannot fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act, which 
would require about $6.5 billion, most of which goes to those who are 
special needs children. Over $6 billion of it goes to special needs 
children. We cannot afford that, we are told, because the money just is 
not there. We are told we cannot afford the close to $1.9 billion our 
veterans need to fully fund the Veterans' Administration, for the 
health needs of the veterans, the very people returning from Iraq 
today. We are told the money is not available. We are told the money is 
not available to fully fund a highway bill this year. I am told we 
would need somewhere in the vicinity of $30 to $40 billion to fully 
fund the highway fund. We may not be able to do that because I am told 
the money isn't there, so I am very troubled. We are told we don't have 
the resources for funding of highways and housing and health care in 
America, but we have the money to fund housing and highways and health 
care in Iraq. That is something we have to confront a lot more 
effectively as we consider this legislation.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. If the Senator will further yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask the minority leader if 
he would comment further after his clear statement of having five times 
requested information about discrepancies in the White House with 
regard to the outing of a CIA agent. If I recall, when this fiasco 
broke several weeks ago, there was an attempt to minimize it by stating 
that the CIA employee was merely an analyst, not an operative. It is my 
subsequent understanding that, to the contrary of that minimization, 
the CIA agent whose identity was made public by someone in the 
administration clearly was a very important operative, as reported, I 
believe, in the Washington Post.
  Would the minority leader comment on the seriousness of this kind of 
outing, on the seriousness of it with regard to the security interests 
of the United States?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I answer the distinguished Senator from 
Florida that, indeed, he is correct. So as not to further compound the 
problem, I have made it a practice not to reference the agency with 
which she was associated. I think we have to be very sensitive about 
that.
  But not only was an agent outed but an agency within the CIA was 
outed as well, something that was not well known. So the depth of 
damage, not only in exposing an individual but in exposing, as well, a 
kind of operation under way within the CIA is extraordinary in the 
magnitude of concern that it ought to cause all of us.
  It is all the more reason this investigation is so critical and why 
we should do all that is possible to find out who may be responsible. 
For the President to say it is unlikely we will ever come up with who 
it may have been, I think is deeply troubling because I think it is 
critical that the laws be upheld and those responsible be prosecuted.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. If the Senator will further yield, it is also 
this

[[Page 24449]]

 Senator's understanding that this revealing of the identity of a 
special agent has so enraged the CIA and its employees that even though 
there may be an attempted coverup of this in the White House, that it 
is likely this issue will continue to bubble to the surface; is that 
the understanding of the minority leader?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I have not had any specific report to that regard. But 
the Senator from Florida has read many of the same news reports I have 
read, which indicate that CIA personnel take this very seriously, and 
that to make light of it, to minimize it, to ignore it, to do whatever 
may be now underway with regard to a questionable investigative effort, 
is a huge mistake and sets a dangerous and very troubling precedent as 
we consider situations similar to this in the future.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for his comments.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Florida for his comments, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we 
now beginning morning business that has been allocated to this side of 
the aisle?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business and 21 minutes 
remain for the Senator's side of the aisle.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I was under the understanding 
that was leader time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Leader time had expired.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I see. Then, in deference to my colleague, I 
will just make a couple of comments, and then I will certainly want to 
hear from my colleague who is one of the greatest orators in this 
Chamber, the senior Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

                          ____________________