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)... 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. ...
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? ...
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. ...
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. ...
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. ...
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. ...
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank all of those involved in the discussion and the agreement we have just reached procedurally. This is an important issue and it deserves the consideration of the Senate.
I want to especially acknowledge the leadership Senator Schumer has shown on this matter, and I expressed the gratitude of our caucus to him for providing this legislative leadership as we consider what to do in this particular case.
I think there are several facts we know for sure. We know the law was violated. We know what the law says with regard to violations of this magnitude. We know the chilling effect it has on our intelligence- gathering capability and on personnel involved in the front lines with regard to intelligence-gathering responsibilities.
We know, if we can believe the reports that have already been printed and reported, what motivated someone in the White House or someone in this administration was retaliation, retribution for being critical of the administration. Those things we know. ...
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Schumer for his leadership on this issue.
This is not a new issue. This article was written by columnist Robert Novak back in July. It is interesting at the end of September and the beginning of October that it finally surfaces and is receiving the attention it deserves.
What Senator Schumer is asking is for the Senate to go on record in calling on the Bush administration to appoint a special prosecutor, someone who will be independent enough to ask the hard questions and try to find out who was the source of this very serious security leak.
Keep in mind what happened here. A decision was made by someone in the administration--perhaps in the White House--to disclose the identity of a woman working for one of our intelligence agencies. ...
Who was behind this? I don't know. I do not know if it reaches to the White House. I can't say. Mr. Novak has only said "administration sources." But what Senator Schumer brings to the floor today to really confront is the fact that we cannot honestly expect Attorney General John Ashcroft to really treat this case in the manner it deserves to be treated for the good of our intelligence gathering, for the integrity of the people who work at those agencies and, frankly, for justice to be served. ...
Mr. REID. ... This is as serious as it gets. I used the word "traitor" yesterday in a colloquy with Senator Harkin. I know that is strong language, but I believe that about anyone who would leak this kind of sensitive information at a time when we are at war. This is a crime. It is a felony punishable by 10 years in prison.
This morning we heard that the Justice Department has launched an investigation into this crime. Realistically, we not only have to do away with what is bad but what looks bad. To have John Ashcroft, former Senator, longtime political confidant of the President doing this investigation simply won't sell. Considering the grave nature of what has happened, this case warrants an independent counsel, a special counsel, someone who does not have political ties to the White House. If we need an independent counsel to investigate a private real estate deal, certainly a breach of national security deserves the same level of scrutiny. We must act quickly before memos and phone logs and computer records are destroyed.
We must find the source of this leak and send a message to everyone everywhere who betray the United States: Loose lips sink ships, and they will land you in jail.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have cosponsored the Schumer sense-of- the-Congress amendment which is before the Senate. The amendment calls upon the Attorney General to appoint an independent special counsel to investigate allegations that a high ranking official or officials within the Bush administration purposely disclosed to the media the identity of a CIA agent involved in clandestine operations.
If these allegations are true, they are extremely serious. ...
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The point of order has been made. The amendment is not germane. The point of order is sustained. The amendment falls.
[...]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am very happy to point out that the good Senator from Tennessee and I served as Governors together, and his emphasis was always education then and obviously still is. I respect him greatly.
I would like to speak for a few minutes on Senator Schumer's amendment to call on the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel, it having been laid aside on the basis of germaneness.
I rise in support of the erstwhile amendment--maybe it will come back--calling on the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to investigate allegations that senior Bush administration personnel-- perhaps including those working at the very highest level of the White House--may have knowingly and deliberately revealed to the press the identity of an undercover CIA agent.
I speak as a Senator from West Virginia and also as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. This is a matter of national security. It is a matter of criminal law. It is a matter that demands the most careful, impartial, and independent investigation possible. As I will explain shortly, it is actually a matter without legal precedent. ...
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s093003.html or ...
15 . APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL -- (Senate - September 30, 2003) continued at ...
18 . DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT