[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Page 25379]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     MOTION TO CLOSE SENATE SESSION

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was a week ago today when the 
Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, made a motion that the 
Senate move into closed session under rule XXI. It is a rule that is 
rarely used, but I was glad it was used that day because the purpose 
was absolutely essential for America to learn the truth about what 
happened before the invasion of Iraq.
  Senator Reid made that motion in order to make certain that the 
Senate Intelligence Committee keeps its word to the American people. 
Some 20 months ago, the Senate Intelligence Committee promised they 
would have a thorough professional investigation of several major 
elements relative to intelligence. One of the most important is whether 
any elected official or member of this administration in any way used 
intelligence or made statements that were not substantiated. In other 
words, were we misled, purposely or deliberately, by any elected 
official or member of the administration before the invasion of Iraq. 
It is an absolutely critical question.
  I am glad the Senate Intelligence Committee made a commitment to 
initiate this investigation. We found, after waiting 20 months, little 
or nothing was happening. Fifteen months ago, the chairman of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, called 
this phase II investigation a top priority. Yet, on March 11 of this 
year, speaking to the Woodrow Wilson Center, Senator Roberts said this 
investigation was ``on the back burner.''
  Then a few days later on March 31, Senator Roberts issued a press 
release, after we had the report of a commission relative to this 
intelligence, in which he said all prewar intelligence--it would be a 
monumental waste of time to replow the ground.
  It was very unclear whether the commitment was still there from 
Senator Roberts and the Intelligence Committee to keep their word to 
the American people to investigate this critical question.
  Yesterday, the junior Senator from Texas came to the floor arguing, I 
believe, that it was unnecessary to go forward with this investigation. 
I think he is wrong. He argued that if we find any member of the 
administration misled the American people into believing a war in Iraq 
and an invasion were necessary, somehow this would discredit the 
bravery and heroism of America's troops. I cannot follow his logic.
  The men and women in uniform are doing their country proud every day. 
They are risking their lives for America. They stand up for values that 
are essential, such as family, faith, and truth. Why would this Senate 
be reluctant to tell the American people the truth?
  This is not just a test of the Intelligence Committee; this is a test 
of the Senate. It is a test of our constitutional responsibility, the 
responsibility of Congress, to protect the American people from an 
abuse of power by the executive or any elected official. It is a matter 
of the gravest importance. If an elected official deliberately or 
recklessly misled the American people into believing there was cause 
for the invasion of Iraq, that is a serious abuse of power.
  We know Senator Roberts promised this investigation almost 2 years 
ago. Because of our motion to go into closed session, a bipartisan 
agreement was reached, and under that agreement, in 6 days, Senator 
Roberts and two of his designees will announce with three Democratic 
designees the schedule for completing this important investigation.
  When we closed the Senate, we accomplished more in 2 hours than we 
had accomplished in 2 years in moving this investigation forward. When 
the junior Senator from Texas came to the floor and said this 
investigation was unnecessary because an earlier group had investigated 
it, he referred specifically to the Silberman-Robb Commission. What he 
did not put into the record should be included, and I quote from the 
commission:

       [W]e were not authorized to investigate how policymakers 
     used the intelligence assessments they received from the 
     Intelligence Community. Accordingly, while we interviewed a 
     host of current and former policymakers during the course of 
     our investigation, the purpose of those interviews was to 
     learn about how the Intelligence Community reached and 
     communicated its judgments about Iraq's weapons programs--not 
     to review how policymakers subsequently used that 
     information.

  That is the question. That is the issue. For the Senator from Texas 
to say the Silberman-Robb Commission has dealt with that issue is not 
factual and it is not accurate, based on the words of that commission.
  He went further to say that the phase I investigation of the 
Intelligence Committee about the failings of the intelligence agencies 
to understand the threat in Iraq also took care of the question before 
us. It did not. I served on the Intelligence Committee. We purposely 
divided this into two investigations: First, any failings or 
shortcomings of intelligence agencies; second, any misuse of this 
intelligence information by policymakers and elected officials. That is 
the responsibility we have to go forward.
  It is not clear when the Senate Intelligence Committee would have 
finished its work had we not filed this motion to have a closed session 
in the Senate. Now the promise has been made not just to fellow 
colleagues, not just to the Congress, but to the American people. I 
think we need to know the truth. If a policymaker in this 
administration deliberately misled the American people, we should know 
that. If we find from the evidence it did not occur, we should also 
know that.
  Let us pursue the truth. Let us make sure the Senate Intelligence 
Committee keeps its promise to the American people.
  We know there are many areas of statements made by the President, by 
the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of 
Defense that were just plain wrong. There were no weapons of mass 
destruction. When it came to the aluminum tubes, there was a serious 
disagreement within the administration, between the CIA and the 
Department of Energy, as to whether those aluminum tubes were evidence 
of a buildup of nuclear weapons. We also know that statements by the 
administration about a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 were 
false. There was no evidence to back it up. We know now about the 
notorious statements in the President's State of the Union Address 
about whether Iraq obtained yellowcake from Niger to develop nuclear 
weapons turned out to be totally false and bogus.
  The obvious question that has to be asked is whether this 
administration and its spokespersons knew ahead of time the information 
they were giving to the American people was not accurate. That is the 
essential inquiry that must take place.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.

                          ____________________