Congressional Record: July 14, 2005 (Senate)
Page S8248-S8290
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
[...]
Amendment No. 1223
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk, and I
ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] proposes an
amendment numbered 1223.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To protect classified information and to protect our
servicemen and women)
At the appropriate place insert the following:
Sec. ___
Any federal officeholder who makes references to a
classified Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the
floor of the United States Senate, or any federal
officeholder that makes a statement based on a FBI agent's
comments which is used as propaganda by terrorist
organizations thereby putting our servicemen and women at
risk, shall not be permitted access to such information or to
hold a security clearance for access to such information.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be
90 minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their designees
to be used concurrently on the pending amendment and No. 1222; further,
that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate
proceed to a vote in relation to the pending Frist amendment, to be
followed immediately by a vote on the Reid amendment No. 1222, and
there be no second-degree amendments in order to either amendments
prior to the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, briefly, with the three votes we just
completed relating to mass transit, we are on a good glidepath toward
finishing tonight. I should say we were on a good glidepath for
finishing tonight. The chairman and ranking member of the Homeland
Security subcommittee have cleared a large number of amendments, and it
does appear we will be able to finish tonight.
Having said that, I am very disappointed that we now have pending
before us what is purely a political amendment on which we will be
spending the next 90 minutes, plus the votes. We have been working in
very good faith on a bill that funds important priorities to this
country, to our homeland security, and that has been the focus. We have
done very well staying focused on this bill until the Democratic,
really political, amendment was offered.
The pending amendment offered by the Democratic leader has nothing to
do with funding of our national security. I am disappointed because it
is going to slow down the underlying process on the bill.
We will be spending the next 90 minutes on these two amendments, then
followed by two votes. Hopefully after that we will put politics aside
and attend to the Nation's business.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Amendment No. 1222
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that my amendment be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. No Federal employee who discloses, or has
disclosed, classified information, including the identity of
a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a
person not authorized to receive such information shall be
permitted to hold a security clearance for access to such
information.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that my leader time be used now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want everyone here today to be clear on
what we are talking about. You can call it politics; I call it
government. I call it good government. We are talking about a matter of
national security. At least one--there could be more--at least one
senior White House official disclosed the identity of a CIA
intelligence officer to a reporter or reporters, and then this
administration proceeded to deny and deflect the truth after it was
discovered it had been leaked. It put this agent's life in jeopardy. I
repeat, it put this agent's life in jeopardy, plus people she had dealt
with from other countries and here in America. It put our intelligence
community at risk and, of course, jeopardized our national security.
Even the President's father, my friend, President George Bush, a
former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, recognizes the
seriousness of this offense. He said:
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray
the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in
my view, the most insidious of traitors.
Whoever did this, according to George Bush, the first Bush President,
would be an insidious traitor.
But instead of dealing with the problem, this administration, this
White House, and the majority in the Senate want to divert attention
from this breach of national security. Unfortunately, it is a pattern
we are all too familiar with from this White House. When they are on
the ropes, they attack. If you do not believe me, you need look no
further than yesterday's Washington Post, July 13, 2005, which detailed
the Republican strategy for this affair:
The emerging GOP strategy--devised by--
RNC chair
[Ken Mehlman] and other Rove loyalists outside the White
House--is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for
Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role and wait for President
Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selections to drown out the
controversy, according to several high-level Republicans.
This is what is known as a coverup. This is an abuse of power. This
is a diversion from what we should be dealing with in the Senate.
No interest in coming clean and being honest with the American
people. This afternoon, the majority is bringing this strategy to the
Senate floor. Mehlman's strategy is being brought right here, but the
American people can see right through this.
This morning, the Wall Street Journal, not a bastion of liberality,
had a poll which said only 41 percent of Americans believe the
President is being honest and straightforward. That is from the Wall
Street Journal this
[[Page S8269]]
morning, which confirms and underlines what I have said that this is a
coverup. It is an abuse of power. It is diversionary.
It is time to quit playing partisan politics with our national
security. It is time for the White House to come clean. It is time to
address the pressing issues facing this country. This second-degree
amendment--and I have been in the Congress more than two decades--is
about as juvenile and as mudslinging as I have seen. We are here to
protect the country. We are here with a bill that deals with homeland
security. We are here to talk about issues such as leaking information
about our CIA agents. Is that not part of our national security? I
certainly hope so.
We have pressing issues facing this country. The reason the American
people have lost faith in this administration is because we are not
dealing with the problems they care about: 45 million Americans with no
health insurance, millions of others underinsured; our educational
system is wanting; K-12 have big problems; our public educational
system is under attack. With college education today it is how much
money one has as to where they can go to school and when they can go to
school. It is how much money their parents have. Only half of American
workers today have pensions, and more than half of those pensions are
in distress.
People are worrying--just like those people who worked all of those
valiant years at United Airlines--are they going to lose their
pensions? Are they going to be cut? Are they going to be whacked?
This administration is obstructing progress. The American people
deserve more. The Republicans should stop playing games, come clean,
and work on issues to help this country.
What we have today, with this little second-degree amendment, is a
diversion. It is an abuse of power, and it is a coverup.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I may, I noticed the Democratic
leader had his amendment read. I would like to ask that the Frist
amendment be read, and then Senator Coleman will be ready to address
the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following: Section.
Any Federal officeholder who makes reference to a classified
Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the floor of the
United States Senate, or any federal officeholder that makes
a statement based on a FBI agent's comments which is used as
propaganda by terrorist organizations thereby putting our
servicemen and women at risk, shall not be permitted access
to such information or to hold security clearance for access
to such information.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, we have had a very productive day dealing
with homeland security, which is a $32 billion bill. In the past couple
of weeks we passed an energy bill, a highway bill, and a trade
agreement. We have a consultation process going on now for a Supreme
Court appointment that I think is going fairly well. There has been a
pretty good atmosphere in this body. My concern is that the oxygen is
being sucked out of that good atmosphere as we get involved in partisan
political attacks.
The circumstances that have motivated this statute are ones that are
being reviewed right now by special counsel. That is the way it should
be. We have somebody, the President, who says he has confidence in that
special counsel, and it seems that rather than play partisan political
games that we should let the special counsel do his work; that we
should cool the rhetoric and we should focus on the business of the
people, which I think we have been doing, which is a good thing.
I would really love to ask my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle some questions about the statute. There is a reason we do things
through committee and we review them. Perhaps one of my colleagues on
the other side would yield to a question. There is an existing Federal
law that makes it a crime to reveal the identity of agents. There are
some very specific intent provisions in that statute. The law states
that for a violation to occur, a Government official must have
deliberately identified a covert agent.
As I read this statute, I am not sure whether there is an intent
requirement. The criminal statute requires that they must have known
the agent was undercover and that the Government was trying to keep
that agent's identity a secret. That is the criminal law.
As I read this statute, I do not see any indication of intent. So
when the amendment says ``no Federal employee who discloses, or has
disclosed information,'' does that mean intentionally disclose? Does
that mean unintentionally disclosed? Are we mirroring the criminal
provisions to then apply them to a security clearance? I am not sure,
and I would hope that on the time of my colleagues on the other side
they will respond to those questions. If we went through the normal
committee process, I think those are the kinds of questions we would
sort out.
As I look at the amendment, it talks about ``no Federal employee.''
Does that mean public official? I would hope my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle would agree that this amendment should cover public
officials. It should cover us. Is the intent of my colleagues to
specifically preclude Senators from losing their access to classified
information? I think that is the intent.
If one goes back and looks at definitions of Federal employees, that
is the conclusion one would come to. If one comes to that conclusion, I
think that is a pretty poor conclusion. If we are going to talk about
being outraged by the fact that classified information has been
revealed--and, again, I think we have to answer this question of intent
or not, but I would hope that my colleagues would look at this and say,
yes, we mean to include public officials. And if we do include public
officials, there is some other construction language we would have to
deal with because public officials do not necessarily have clearances,
but we have access to classified information. So we would have to work
on it.
I know my colleague from Kansas would like to speak.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield for a question?
Mr. COLEMAN. Absolutely.
Mr. McCONNELL. Did I understand the Senator from Minnesota correctly
that he was posing two questions to the proponents of the Reid
amendment, No. 1, whether intent was left out of the amendment on
purpose, and No. 2, whether it covered Members of Congress?
I was wondering if anyone on the other side was prepared to answer
the questions of the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. Those questions that my colleague from Kentucky has
raised are what we would like some answers to. Are we intending to
cover public officials, U.S. Senators, by the provisions of this
amendment, and do we include----
Mr. REID. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. COLEMAN. If that is the case, I suggest then we perhaps take a
few minutes to work out the language because there may be some
technical problems with definitions of Federal employees. The language
in the statute talks about receiving security clearances for access to
information. We do not necessarily have security clearances, but we do
have access, so there may be some technical provisions.
I am very pleased if in fact my colleagues on the other side intend
to include public officials. We might want to clean this up before we
finalize it.
The other question I have is, is there an intent element in this
statute? Is it intentionally disclosing or unintentionally disclosing?
Is it negligently, is it mistakingly, or is there the specific kind of
intent one usually needs to have in statutes of this kind?
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 39\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Who yields time?
Mr. REID. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Newsweek magazine reported that on July 11,
2003, a correspondent for Time magazine, Matt Cooper, sent an e-mail to
his bureau chief, Michael Duffy: Subject, Rove P&C, and that means for
personal and confidential. The e-mail said: Spoke to Rove on double
supersecret background for about 2 minutes before he went on vacation.
[[Page S8270]]
According to Newsweek, Cooper wrote that Karl Rove offered him a big
warning not to get too far out on Joe Wilson. Cooper's e-mail said the
following: that it was, Karl Rove said, Wilson's wife who apparently
works at the Agency--and that is referring clearly, by the other part
of the e-mail, to CIA--on WMD, weapons of mass destruction, issues, who
authorized the trip, referring to Joe Wilson's trip.
According to the Newsweek report, Ambassador Wilson's wife is Valerie
Plame. Then Cooper finished his e-mail by writing: Please do not source
this to Rove or even White House--and suggested that another reporter
check with the CIA.
Then in October of 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan was
asked whether Karl Rove was involved in the leak. These were the
questions and answers:
Question: Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove
nor two other named persons disclosed any classified information with
regard to the leak. I am wondering if you could tell us more
specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame
worked for the CIA?
Mr. McClellan: Those individuals, now referring to including Rove, I
spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals
assured me they were not involved in this.
Question of McClellan: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie
Plame worked for the CIA?
Mr. McClellan: They assured me they were not involved in this.
Then comes the bombshell, the contemporaneous e-mail which indicated
that as a matter of fact Mr. Rove indicated to Mr. Cooper that Joe
Wilson's wife apparently worked at the CIA on weapons of mass
destruction issues.
It is not good enough to parse words on a matter that is this
serious. It is not good enough to say, as both Mr. Rove and his lawyer
have said, well, there was no reference to a specific name.
On July 3, Mr. Rove's lawyer said his client did not disclose the
identity of the CIA person. A little over a week later, after the
release of the Cooper e-mail, Mr. Rove's lawyer parsed the words and
said Mr. Rove did not disclose the name.
Well, whether it is the name of a CIA employee or the identity of a
CIA employee, that is wrong. It has to be stopped, and the only way to
stop it is to adopt a statute which says either it is a criminal
offense in case of specific intent, which we already have on the books,
but even if one cannot prove a specific intent, even if one identifies
a CIA employee, period, without the higher level of proof that is
required for a criminal law, the identification of a CIA employee is
enough to lose their security clearance. That is what the amendment
before us provides: Identify a CIA agent, put that agent in this Nation
at risk, and they are going to lose their security clearance.
Now, if someone does it intentionally, and if that can be proven
beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond that, then they have committed a
crime. So that is the answer to the question of my friend from
Minnesota or the question of the Senator from Kentucky as to whether
specific intent is required. It is not.
In the criminal statute, it is, but we say the disclosure of the
identity of a covert CIA employee is sufficient to lose one's security
clearance.
Let us be clear as to what this e-mail said. There was no doubt that
Mr. Rove, at least according to the e-mail, knew that the wife of Joe
Wilson was a CIA employee because she was so identified as a CIA
employee. So there is no question in the fact situation which has
brought this matter to such dramatic light that the facts are there to
provide this basis that there was, indeed, knowledge. But, to answer
the question, there is no specific intent which is required.
I wonder if the leader will yield 2 additional minutes?
Mr. REID. I am happy to do that.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the President has his responsibility. The
President has said he knows Karl Rove was not involved. Now there is
clear information that Karl Rove identified a CIA employee to a
reporter who had no right to that information. Now what? Now that the
President does know Mr. Rove is involved, now what?
That is up to the President. That is the President's responsibility;
how he exercises it is his judgment. He will exercise it as he sees
fit, now that he knows Mr. Rove was involved.
We can all give him suggestions, and we have, that he ought to
exercise that responsibility by addressing the issue. Now that you know
there was this involvement, now what?
But we have a responsibility. We have a responsibility in Congress to
make sure there is no ambiguity in the law, there is no hair splitting,
no legal loopholes, no question about--well, wait a minute, I didn't
name a name, I only named an identity. No higher standard of proof is
required by criminal law beyond a reasonable doubt. You identify a
covert agent of the CIA, you lose your security clearance. It is as
clear as that and as important as that to the security of this Nation.
Mr. COLEMAN. I wonder if my colleague from Michigan will yield for a
question.
Mr. REID. He yields on your time.
Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to. I do not control the time.
Mr. COLEMAN. Is the Democratic leader aware of the executive order
issued by President Clinton in 1995 on this issue, on security
clearances?
Mr. REID. My friend from Michigan is answering the question.
Mr. COLEMAN. Because in that order--again, I am looking at the
standard, and I appreciate my colleague's words about going beyond the
intent. In the executive order the standard is knowingly, willfully, or
negligently. Is that the standard that is intended by this statute? Or
is this amendment changing that standard?
Mr. LEVIN. The amendment speaks for itself. If you identify a covert
CIA agent, and you have a security clearance, and the person to whom
you identify that covert CIA agent does not have the right to receive
that information, you lose your clearance. Period. I think it is pretty
clear.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, who has the floor?
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor.
Mr. COLEMAN. How much time do we have left, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 38\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. COLEMAN. Is that on both amendments?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On both amendments.
Mr. COLEMAN. To be split between both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 38 minutes for the majority on two
amendments.
Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield to the Senator from
Alabama such time as he needs.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that we would
have such an amendment offered at this time in our American process of
passing a Homeland Security bill.
Karl Rove has served this country exceedingly well. One reason people
do not want to involve themselves in public service is they go out and
try to do something and somebody accuses them of a crime. He had no
intent whatsoever to do anything wrong, to violate any law or out any
undercover agent. And if the reports in the paper are so, and I assume
they are, those are the facts.
Victoria Toensing, the former Assistant Attorney General of the
United States, was quoted this morning on television. I happened to
catch it. She is a skilled lawyer and articulate person. Asked: Was
this statement that allegedly had been made that Wilson's wife worked
at the CIA, did that violate the law--a law she wrote; she was involved
in writing the bill to deal with the deliberate outing of undercover
operatives of the United States--she answered in one word, ``No.''
So what we have on the floor of this Senate is an attempt to pass an
ex post facto law to remove the security clearance of one of America's
finest public servants.
Look here. ``No Federal employee who discloses or has disclosed.'' We
are going to change the law now? After somebody has done something that
was not a violation of the law? What kind of principle of justice is
that? This is a political charade. It is a game to embarrass the
President of the United States, who is attempting to conduct a
[[Page S8271]]
war on behalf of the American people, a war this Congress has voted to
support, overwhelmingly, by three-fourths vote. And I do not appreciate
it. I think it is beneath this Senate's dignity. It is contrary to the
quality of debate and effort to amend the laws we ought to have in this
country.
I am shocked by it. I prosecuted for over 15 years in Federal court.
You don't pass a law to go back and grab somebody who did something
that was not a violation of the law in order to embarrass the President
of the United States over nothing. He intended no harm here. He had no
intention to out an undercover agent of the CIA--if these allegations
are true, and I haven't talked to him about it.
I say this: Mr. Rove has served in the center of this Government
since the President took office. He has conducted himself, I believe,
with high standards. Yes, the colleagues on the other side probably
have not been happy with the success he has had in helping President
Bush in his campaign and other efforts. But he has not been accused of
corruption or deceit or dishonesty, or certainly not anybody would
suggest he would ever do anything to intentionally harm an agent of the
United States who is out serving our country.
I say, this language is unacceptable. We ought to vote it down
flatly. It is not proper and we ought not to be doing that at this
time.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from West
Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as vice chairman of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, I strongly support the Reid amendment.
Senator Reid is addressing a problem that has become endemic in recent
years. It is something of which I have become acutely aware since I was
appointed to that position 4\1/2\ years ago, the leaking of classified
information.
Barely a day goes by, frankly, when you don't read or watch press
reports that contain classified information. The country is the lesser
for it. I tell my colleagues, these leaks do real damage to our
national security. When individuals with access to our Nation's secrets
disclose those secrets to the public, they are telling our enemies
about our intelligence capabilities and potentially how to defeat them.
When intelligence sources and methods are exposed, we lose the ability
to collect the information that will keep America safe. Good
intelligence is the foundation of national security. We know that. It
guides our foreign policy, it helps us determine what weapons systems
to build, and how to shape and deploy our military forces. It is
critical to our efforts to stop terrorists before they attack.
Intelligence that is compromised, therefore, makes America less
secure. There is no excuse when individuals entrusted with these
secrets leak them. It is not just careless or unfortunate, it is
dangerous. Among the secrets we guard the most closely are the identity
of our spies. Revealing the identity of a covert agent not only ends
the effectiveness of that individual, it puts that person in grave
personal danger, and such disclosure also puts at risk all of the
agent's colleagues and the people the agent has recruited around the
world over the years. In other words, when you expose the name of a
covert agent, people can die.
The consequences of such exposure are so severe that in 1982 the
Congress passed the Identities Protection Act, to criminalize this
behavior. But apparently that is not enough. Last year, someone with
access to classified information told members of the press the identity
of a covert CIA operative. They did this not to expose some wrongdoing,
but because they wanted to embarrass her husband. Someone calculated
that our national security was less important than scoring points in
the press for the administration's policy regarding Iraq. The act was
deplorable.
Over the past 2 years the special prosecutor appointed to investigate
this crime has pursued it aggressively. He may now be making headway,
we don't know, but it is unclear whether he will ever accumulate enough
evidence to bring the guilty party or parties to justice. If he is
unsuccessful, we should not let that be the end of this sorry episode.
We can and should make it clear that people entrusted with classified
information cannot carelessly disclose that information without
consequence.
Federal employees are bound to protect classified information. If
they do not, the very least sanction they should face is to lose the
privilege of holding a security clearance. We have to make clear to
those in the Federal workforce entrusted with protecting highly
sensitive information that there are consequences for these
disclosures.
The amendment by Senator Reid does exactly that. It is
straightforward and is common sense. If you disclose classified
information to somebody not authorized to receive it, you are no longer
allowed to hold a security clearance. The FBI and the Justice
Department may not be able to gather sufficient evidence to prosecute
leakers, but the Director of National Intelligence should be able to
use this administrative tool to help stem the tide of unauthorized
disclosures. We need to get serious about this problem and this is a
good place to start.
The Frist amendment attempts to equate the unauthorized disclosure of
classified information with unclassified remarks regarding an FBI
report that some object to on political grounds. There is nothing
inherently improper or illegal about making ``reference'' to an FBI
report, or making a ``statement'' based on some unidentified FBI
agent's comments. The law is clear about the importance of protecting
highly sensitive national security secrets, including the identity of a
covert agent. The Frist amendment makes a mockery of the gravity
associated with leaking classified information by suggesting that any
unclassified reference to any FBI report anyone believes is being used
as propaganda is somehow as serious an offense.
Under the twisted logic contained in the Frist amendment, the remarks
of FBI Director Mueller himself, if used by a purported terrorist group
to discredit the United States, would cause the Director to lose access
to classified information. It is absurd. This is absurd. The Frist
amendment seeks to rewrite the freedom of speech clause of the
Constitution and should be dismissed by this body out of hand.
The Reid amendment, on the other hand, is clear and measured. If you
disclose classified information without authorization, your security
clearance should be revoked.
I end by asking my colleagues, what is wrong with this?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator
from Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am still a little unclear in regard to
the Reid amendment. I understand from three Senators--Senator Levin,
Senator Durbin, Senator Reid--that this also applies to public
employees, i.e., Senators. If that is the case, if Members are
included, one of the things we have to determine is that `` . . . to a
person not authorized to receive such information shall be permitted to
hold a security clearance for access to such information''--well, we
don't have security clearances.
By our election, we are deemed to be cleared for all security, and so
we are not losing anything. If in fact somebody unintentionally came to
the floor and in a public statement basically said or disclosed or has
disclosed classified information including the identity of a covert
agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, the answer to this is
meaningless because we don't have a security clearance. They don't
exist for Members. We are deemed to have a total clearance. And so I
don't know what the remedy is.
Again, if you do it unintentionally, I can tell you that is a
slippery slope. There have been Members basically inadvertently saying
things in the Chamber and in the public that could match this
amendment. I am not going to get into names, but I think that has
happened in the past without question. I know it happened in the
Intelligence Committee, probably the Armed Services Committee, probably
many other committees.
[[Page S8272]]
This is just not very clear, and what we have here is a Special
Prosecutor with a lot of leaks; we have a reporter in jail for a story
she did not write; we have a steady stream of leaks about every aspect
of this case; we have the Washington press corps in full attack mode;
and, finally, before we have all the facts known, we have my colleagues
across the aisle calling for Karl Rove's resignation, if not
incarceration. So much for the presumption of innocence.
Don't get me wrong; we must protect the identities without any
question, as my distinguished vice chairman of the committee, Senator
Rockefeller, has said, but that obligation also extends to the Agency
for which they work. I just think here we have a tempest, to
characterize the newest revelations in the Valerie Plame case as a
stunning turn of events demanding immediate action by the President,
the special prosecutor, and now the Congress of the United States. I am
not a big advocate of the ``shoot now, ask questions later'' approach.
I certainly prefer to know the facts and then make a judgment.
My preference notwithstanding, the judgment of the current deluge of
media coverage seems to be based on the premise that the White House--
i.e., Karl Rove--was trying to discredit Ambassador Wilson for his
much-publicized opposition to the war. It is important to remember that
there is already a record on this point, and I urge Members to really
pay attention to the record.
More than a year ago, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued its
unanimous report on prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq. We have a
511-page report explaining in detail how our intelligence agencies got
it wrong.
Now to the subject at hand, this so-called tempest. Included in that
report was a recitation of the facts that surround the now infamous
travels of the former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who can best be described
as a bit player in the Iraq story, notwithstanding his substantial
efforts to embellish the significance of his role.
Mr. Wilson became quite a celebrity and questioned the President's
veracity as he carefully crafted his public persona as a
``truthteller.'' He went on a media blitz, Mr. President. He appeared
on more than 30 television shows including, ironically, ``The Daily
Show,'' a fake news show. Time and time again, he told anybody who
would listen that the President had lied to the American people, the
Vice President had lied, and that he had debunked the claim that Iraq
was seeking uranium from Africa.
However, the committee found not only did he not debunk the claim, he
actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe it
may be true. In an interview with committee staff, the same committee
staff that interviewed over 250 analysts to prove that we had systemic
problems in the intelligence community, he was asked how he knew some
of the things he was stating publicly with such confidence. On at least
two occasions, he admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support
some of his claims and he was drawing on either unrelated past
experiences or no information at all. For example, when asked how he
knew that the intelligence community had rejected the possibility of a
Niger-Iraq uranium deal as he wrote in his book, he told committee
staff that his assertion may have involved ``a little literary flair.''
I urge my colleagues to read the 511-page report that was voted out
17 to nothing.
The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave
the American people or, for that matter, the world, a version of events
that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading. What is more
disturbing, he continues to do so today.
Now that the Washington press corps is in a full-attack mode over the
recent revelations in the Valerie Plame case, Ambassador Wilson is back
on the circuit. He is continuing his self-proclaimed quest to have Karl
Rove, in his words, ``frog marched in handcuffs'' out of the White
House. And basically that is what we are trying to do with this
amendment, if you follow the partisan line of thinking as put forth by
Ambassador Joe Wilson. And before all the facts are known, he has been
joined by a chorus of colleagues and liberal action groups calling for
Karl Rove's resignation and in some cases even incarceration. So much
for the presumption of innocence.
Now, don't get me wrong. If someone willfully or knowingly outs an
undercover intelligence officer, they should be punished. Senator
Rockefeller is exactly right about that. Punishment should be reserved,
however, for those who have actually committed a crime. The law
requires knowledge. And if Mr. Rove didn't know and no one told him
that Valerie Plame was undercover, then, pardon me, he did not break
any laws. The mere fact that one works for the CIA is not in and of
itself classified.
As important, the law presumes the Government is taking ``affirmative
measures to conceal'' the officer's intelligence relationship to the
United States. I am just not convinced that a serious effort to conceal
an undercover officer's intelligence relationship includes driving to
CIA headquarters every day for work.
The Intelligence Committee has examined with staff the issue of cover
before and identified a number of serious problems, and we are
currently examining the issue of cover once again because some of these
problems do persist. While we should leave the criminal investigation
to the Special Prosecutor, we will continue our work to ensure that
those who are actually undercover get the protection they need and
deserve.
Again, as for the former Ambassador, no one needed to discredit him.
He took care of that himself.
Now, before I close, I would like to say something in response to the
gray picture painted by the distinguished minority leader. Much has
been said about the grave damage that was done to our Nation's security
when Valerie Plame's name was revealed to the press. There has also
been speculation that Ms. Plame, although nominally undercover, really
wasn't undercover at all. So as part of the Intelligence Committee's
ongoing oversight of the issue of cover, we will examine this case and
see where the truth lies.
Basically, I think we are on the wrong track here, and again I urge
my colleagues, if you put in law that if anybody reveals classified
information unintentionally, including the Members of this Senate, that
is a slippery road we will go down where current Members who I see
sitting in the Chamber would fit into that category, and it is
unwarranted, unneeded. It is not the way to do it according to the act
that was cited by my distinguished colleague from Minnesota.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. REID. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Connecticut, Mr. Dodd.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and leader, Senator
Reid. Let me respond to a couple of points. I had not intended to get
involved deeply in this debate, but a couple things strike me, Mr.
President, as this debate evolves.
First of all, this is an appropriate discussion on this bill. On what
more appropriate piece of legislation could you have discussion than
this one regarding intelligence matters that deal with the very issue
of homeland security. So I don't understand the objection. You may
object to the amendment, but the idea that on the Homeland Security
bill where security plays a critical role, it seems to me discussing
this matter has relevancy.
Secondly, it is our responsibility as Members of Congress to draft
legislation to try to deal with these matters. Certainly what the
Senator from Nevada has raised is responding to what is a national
story, one that has been around now for the last several years, a
matter, I might add, that could have been resolved probably a couple of
years ago had Mr. Rove at the time said, Look, I am the person who
spoke to Matt Cooper. I am the one who used Mr. Wilson's wife,
describing her in those terms, and maybe explained at the time he
didn't intend to do it. We might not be talking about this matter as
extensively as we are today. But the fact is they covered it up for the
last 2 years rather than coming clean and saying, I had
that conversation.
I am perplexed at what the response of this is. Are my colleagues on
the
[[Page S8273]]
other side suggesting as the alternative to what Senator Reid proposes
a better suggestion that people who do reveal highly classified
information, the names of covert agents, should be allowed to continue
to keep their secret classification? I don't think so.
That is really what the point of this is, to make the case that when
anyone reveals, including Members of this body, highly classified
information, the names of covert agents, you lose the privilege of
having a security clearance. It is not a criminal indictment. It just
says if you do that, you don't have the privilege of having that kind
of a classification. I don't know why there is such a protest. This
ought to be adopted unanimously.
Where is the objection? This does not mention Karl Rove, although
certainly his actions have provoked this discussion. If in fact it
turns out that he is indicted, then he will have to face those
allegations. But to suggest that somehow we should do nothing about
this, despite the fact that everyone is talking about it across the
country--it has been a serious problem, it needs to be addressed, an
investigation is ongoing--that should not deprive this body of
responding to a situation where classified information, the name of a
CIA agent, has been revealed and we ought to say something about it.
So, Mr. President, I think what Senator Reid has proposed is
eminently reasonable. It is applying to everyone here. And Senator
Rockefeller, our friend from West Virginia, is absolutely correct. It
is an ongoing problem, almost on a daily basis, and we need to speak
loudly and clearly, it has got to stop. If we are going to be more
secure as a people, then we need to stop revealing important
information and the identities of people who we depend upon to make us
more secure. That is what the Reid amendment does.
My hope is we would have 100 Members supporting this amendment
instead of a divisive debate over whether this is about an employee at
the White House who, in my opinion, probably ought to voluntarily step
aside pending the investigation and voluntarily give up his security
clearance.
If he were a police officer in any department in the United States
who had been accused of such a transgression, the chief of police would
ask him to step aside temporarily, not to resign, not to retire but to
step aside pending the investigation to determine whether the
allegations were true.
That is what ought to happen here. But Mr. Rove is not directly the
subject of this amendment. It is simply a response to a problem that
exists in our country and one that needs to be addressed. Senator Reid
is right, and if our colleagues were smart, they would endorse this
amendment and support it unanimously at the appropriate time when the
vote occurs.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, once again, let's be very clear. It is
about politics. That is all this is about--politics. We have an
Executive order that has been in place for 10 years that talks about
dealing with classified information, talks about what happens when
classified information is revealed. An Executive order, by the way, has
a standard, deals with a situation: knowingly, willfully or
negligently. We have a standard.
My colleagues on the other side talk about a coverup. We have a
matter that is being investigated by special counsel. The President of
the United States says: I have confidence in the special counsel. Let's
see what he does. We have Karl Rove, who is cooperating with the
special counsel, who openly said: Whoever I talked to, talk to them.
There is no cover. This is about politics. I just came from a press
conference a little while ago with the head of the campaign committee
of the Democratic Party about this issue with Joe Wilson.
It is about politics. We have an amendment in which on the first
blush it talks about Federal employees, and then after questioning they
say: Well, yes, it means public officials. It is not in there.
But what happened to the greatest deliberative body in the world?
This is about politics. We have an amendment crafted as an ex post
facto. Will that pass muster? I don't know. I have questions about it.
Again, I go back to the Executive order. It is very clear. It talks
about knowingly, willfully, negligently. That makes sense. If you are
an individual with your wallet stolen with a piece of information in
there that led to the agent being uncovered, you are impacted by this.
What about if your office is in a secure facility, somehow it was
burglarized; are you covered? There is a reason you have an Executive
order that has been in place 10 years that provides a knowing standard,
a logical standard, an effective standard.
This is a poorly crafted piece of political propaganda. That is all
it is.
Listen to the facts. They are based on what I read in Newsweek.
Instead of doing what you would think we do in this deliberative
body, we wait to see what the special counsel has to say. We wait to
get the facts before the Senate. If, in fact, we find this Executive
order is lacking in scope, is lacking in effect, is somehow not doing
the job it needs to do, we can provide some legislation to deal with
it.
We have none of that. What we have is ``gotcha politics'' in
Washington in 2005. So we are dealing with something that is hastily
crafted, poorly crafted, that does not explicitly say who it covers,
that does not have a clear standard of intent, that is simply
unnecessary--unnecessary when the conduct that was supposed to be
concerned about, or should be concerned about is already covered by
Executive order.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COLEMAN. I yield.
Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator from Minnesota is an experienced prosecutor
and understands these things.
It also, as I read it, says, if you reveal the identity of a covert
agent without an intent--you might not even know that person was a
covert agent, isn't that right?--you would be in violation of the
statute.
Mr. COLEMAN. The Senator from Alabama, based on my reading of this,
is correct.
Mr. SESSIONS. That is another example of the poor drafting of this
statute, to hold somebody accountable for a perfectly innocent
mistake--a strict liability statute that requires only the revealing of
information that somebody happened to be a covert agent when the person
did not even know it.
Mr. COLEMAN. I suggest to my friend from Alabama that is the reason,
in the Executive order, we have a standard of knowing. In fact, if you
do something negligently, there is a standard and you can be held
accountable. But there is no such standard, whatever, in this hastily
crafted political amendment and, as such, my colleagues should reject
it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. This amendment is an amendment that deals with the
following:
No Federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed,
classified information, including the identity of a covert
agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not
authorized to receive such information shall be permitted to
hold a security clearance for access to such information.
How in the world can anyone in this Senate vote against this? The
only reason I can figure out is that there is an attempt to divert
attention, an attempt to cover up. It is an abuse of power. This is
absolutely something that everyone should vote for.
There have been wails of concern from the other side but very little
discussion of this amendment. I simply say, when they talk about the
Executive order, I learned in law school that a Federal law would
supersede any Executive order.
I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, there are some who may disagree with
the proposition at the heart of Senator Reid's amendment; that is, that
U.S. Government officials who violate the laws governing safeguarding
sources should not be permitted to have continued access to that
information. I happen to agree with that. I happen to think it is a
fair point to discuss. As the Senator from Connecticut said, it is
appropriate for this discussion.
In fact, there is a document that every employee signs. It is
entitled ``Department of Defense Secrecy Agreement.'' The second part
of it reads:
I agree that I will never divulge, publish or reveal,
either by word, conduct, or by any
[[Page S8274]]
other means, any classified information, intelligence, or
knowledge, except in the performance of my official duties
and in accordance with the laws of the United States, unless
specifically authorized in writing in each case by the
Secretary of Defense.
It is my understanding Senators do not sign it, Members of Congress
do not sign it, but members of the administration and staff do sign
this document.
All the Reid amendment does, essentially, is codify what has been
carried out informally by regulation.
The second-degree amendment is not fair or honorable. It is clearly
designed to threaten a Member's unquestionably lawful conduct. It is
venal. I believe it is unprecedented.
We have asked the historian of the Senate if this has ever been done
before. He said, no, never in the Senate. Once, in the House of
Representatives, from 1836 to 1844, the House had a gag rule on all
motions pertaining to abolition of slavery. They were immediately
tabled. Otherwise, there never has been an effort like this.
The problem with the substitute amendment, and let me read it, is
this.
It says strike all that follows and add the following:
Any federal office holder who makes reference to a
classified Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the
floor of the Senate, or any federal officeholder that makes a
statement based on an FBI agent's comments which is used as
propaganda by terrorist organizations thereby putting our
servicemen and women at risk, shall not be permitted access
to such information or to hold a security clearance for
access to this information.
Yesterday, I had a meeting with the Director of the FBI. We discussed
many aspects of the PATRIOT Act. Supposing I had come to the Senate and
discussed those aspects and Al-Jazeera picked it up and used it as
propaganda. I am within my rights to discuss that. It is unclassified.
I know of no Senator that has come to the Senate and used any
information that was classified.
Now, there have been accusations. I got that FBI report. I have it
right here. It has a big X through secret and has written on it:
All information contained herein is unclassified except
where shown otherwise.
What this amendment aims to get at is clearly a venal retribution.
Candidly, I object to it. It has never happened in the Senate before.
And it should not happen today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. I appreciate very much the statement of the Senator from
California. No one works harder in the Senate than this Senator. She
serves on the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, Judiciary, Rules and Administration, and
Intelligence. She has served honorably on the Intelligence Committee
and spent days of her life in the Intelligence Committee. I very much
appreciate her statement.
How much time remains with the majority and the minority?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 20\1/2\ minutes and the
minority has 20\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. REID. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from California, Mrs.
Boxer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Reid-Levin Rockefeller-Biden amendment
is very clear. I will read it again so that, hopefully, the American
people know what we are debating. This is what we are debating:
No Federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed,
classified information, including the identity of a covert
agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not
authorized to receive such information shall be permitted to
hold a security clearance for access to such information.
Why is this important? It is important because when this story broke,
CIA agents and folks at the CIA were absolutely horrified that the name
of a covert agent had been leaked, putting that covert agent in grave
danger.
Now who could vote against this? I don't know. We are going to find
out. But let me state what I think it is about. Either you stand on the
side of these brave undercover operatives who risk their lives every
day, without people with a political agenda going after them to reveal
them, or you stand on the side of those who would play politics and
have played politics with their identity.
Why did it happen in this particular case? Because this particular
administration did not like what they heard from a particular
gentleman, and to punish him, they went after his wife. And they didn't
care. You cannot tell me because you didn't use her everyday name that
it was hard to find out who she was.
If somebody says Senator Boxer's husband did thus and so, even if he
had a different last name, it would not be too hard to find out who my
husband is.
So here we had a political agenda and Senator Coleman talks about how
horrible it is to play politics on the floor of the Senate. Publishing
an ``enemy's list'' is the worst form, and the lowest form, of politics
you can have. This took it to a whole other level when it involved
someone who was an undercover agent.
I want to say a word about the second-degree amendment, which is
unbelievable. Under the second-degree amendment, if this passes, every
single Member in the Senate will lose their security clearance. Anyone
in this Senate who ever came down to the floor and said anything about
the pictures at Abu Ghraib will lose their clearance. Anyone who ever
came to the floor and said, I think it is important, when the President
makes a nomination, we get all the information, including reading an
FBI report. Let me say, and I guess I will lose my clearance, but I
will say it right now, up against this amendment, this ridiculous
second-degree amendment--I say right now, whenever the President
nominates someone for a high position and there is an FBI file, I say
to my friends, you are not doing your job if you do not read it.
Under this, I guess I lose my security clearance.
So be it. But I think everyone in this Senate has lost their security
clearance because every one of us has spoken about the Iraqi war.
Now my colleague says we don't have a security clearance. You have
read this. You have written this. So there you go.
Your side wrote, can't have a security clearance. So all I can say
is, one side can say you are playing politics, the other side can. Put
that aside. Read this amendment. It is the right thing to do. Either
you stand on the side of the brave men and women who risk their lives
undercover every day or you stand on the side of politics. You make up
your mind.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, for the record, my good friend, my
colleague from California, does not have a security clearance. None of
us do. We are deemed by the electorate to be cleared from the lowest to
the highest. We do not have a security clearance to lose.
So that is not accurate. And I don't court the venal part of this.
In terms of the second-degree amendment, unless I was hearing
something different and somebody raised the issue, as Congress included
in this--the Senate--along with Federal employees who either
intentionally or unintentionally reveal classified information, Senator
Levin, Senator Durbin, Senator Reid said ``yes.'' So that is reflective
of the second-degree amendment.
If that is not the case, we have a double standard for Members of
Congress or other public officials as opposed to Federal employees. We
ought to get that straight, which is why I think the suggestion from
the Senator from----
Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question?
Mr. ROBERTS. No. I only have 2 minutes. But perhaps on down the road.
That is why I think the suggestion of the Senator from Minnesota is a
good one, that we ought to go into a quorum call to try to figure out
what this means.
Read the language in detail. Intentionally or unintentionally reveal
classified information--I have news for you, we have people in the
intelligence community who make mistakes, inadvertently make mistakes.
This is going to end the career of many young people who will make
mistakes down the road and lose their security clearance.
Security clearances are an administrative process, not a statutory
process. The Reid amendment strips all distinction from employees in
regard to their home agency and in regard to any discretion.
Mr. President, could I have one more minute?
[[Page S8275]]
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield another minute to the Senator
from Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for one
additional minute.
Mr. ROBERTS. So in your zeal to hang Karl Rove--and that is what this
is about--you are going to put a stake in the careers of national
security professionals from here on in.
During the administrative procedure by that home agency or that
person's superior officer, they can be counseled, they can be
admonished, but they do not lose their security clearances. They do
make mistakes. I don't know how many that is going to be, but that is
going to be a bunch.
That is going to send a chilling effect throughout our entire
intelligence community. This is poorly written. We ought to go into a
quorum call and work it together so we at least know what the outcome
is going to be.
Mrs. BOXER. Could you yield now on your time?
Mr. ROBERTS. I don't have any time. It is his time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to compliment my
friend from Kansas for his remarks. While I am not sure he is right, he
is doing what we should be doing on this floor. We presented an
amendment on a serious issue, and he is debating that amendment. He is
saying: Here is a place in the amendment that I think is wrong, and
maybe you ought to change it.
That is how a debate ought to go. But the response of my colleagues
who have cosponsored the other amendment is not that at all. It is not
to debate a serious issue that involves national security. It is,
rather, to create a smokescreen--``You stick it to us, we will stick it
to you''--when we all know that the issue of who leaked this
information is a serious issue. We did not say it is a serious issue.
President Bush did. George Tenet did. The original investigation I was
involved in creating because I called George Tenet and said: This is an
affront to all CIA agents. He agreed, and called the Justice Department
and said: Do an investigation. It is serious stuff.
What do we get in response? A smokescreen. It is almost sort of the
childish sticking out your tongue back at somebody. Debate the issue. I
can understand why you do not want to debate the issue. Somebody in the
White House did something seriously wrong. Does anyone have any doubt
that if this occurred under a Democratic President that you would want
to debate it, as you should? The opposition party is intended in this
Republic to be a check.
As I said, I originally called for this investigation. I worked with
Deputy Attorney General Comey to get an independent counsel who was
above reproach. I never mentioned a word about any individual. Because
there was none. There was all this swirl about Karl Rove. You did not
hear the senior Senator from New York talking about it. You, rather,
heard me say: Let's get to the bottom of this.
But in the last 2 or 3 weeks, we have seen some serious and
indisputable evidence. We do not know if it meets the criminal
standard. That is why I have not called for Karl Rove to step down. But
we do know, without any doubt, that security was compromised. You
cannot hide behind the argument: Well, I mentioned the husband and not
the wife and, therefore, I didn't breach some kind of security.
While the criminal law standard says you had to know whether that
wife was classified, whether Ms. Plame, Agent Plame was classified,
that is not the standard in terms of entitling someone with the
privilege of hearing national security secrets.
If you cannot keep those secrets, if you disclose those secrets, for
whatever motivation, and particularly a venal one, if that was the
case, political retribution, you do not deserve to continue to hear
those secrets. That is what the amendment offered by my colleagues from
Nevada and Michigan and West Virginia simply says. It is the right
thing to do.
The President should have done it without any amendment. If someone
leaks a name--and it looks more and more as though it was Karl Rove;
and we know for an undisputed fact--his lawyer admitted it--he stepped
right up to the line--we don't know if criminally he stepped over it or
not; that will be for Mr. Fitzgerald to determine, not for us--then he
should not have that security clearance.
You are right, my colleagues, we should not have to be here today.
The President should have done this on his own. And if you think the
amendment is poorly drafted, as my good friend from Kansas does, that
is what this place is all about. Come and tell us why and how we can
change it and make it better.
But if the response is simply to say, ``Oh, we're going to try to
create a smokescreen or maybe intimidate you on the other side,'' that
is not worthy of what this body is about, at least in its better and
finer moments.
So, my colleagues, I would hope we could have a 100-to-nothing vote
on the amendment by the Senator from Nevada. Yes, it is embarrassing
that it happened in the White House, and they are Members of your
party. But it happened. No one disputes it happened. I do not think a
single American thinks that nothing should be done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. I urge support of the Reid amendment and rejection of
the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. REID. What time remains on both sides, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 17\1/2\ minutes. The minority
has 10 minutes 49 seconds.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would ask, under the usual status here,
under the usual procedure, that I would have the close here. But we
have more time than you have, as I understand it--17\1/2\ minutes--and
you have 10; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 17\1/2\ minutes. The minority
has 10 minutes 49 seconds.
Mr. REID. I was just thinking we were in the majority, but I guess we
are not.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield such time to the majority whip as
he needs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Frist amendment,
which is one of the two votes we will have shortly.
First, let me say, I regret we are spending an hour and a half of the
Senate's time, when we should be debating and completing the Homeland
Security bill, engaged in extensive political sparring.
The Karl Rove amendment--and that is exactly what it is--richly
deserves to be defeated. I certainly would encourage all of our
colleagues to vote against that amendment when it is before us shortly.
But with regard to the Frist amendment, Senators ought to be
especially careful when they repeat unproven allegations about the
conduct of our troops, particularly during a time of war. Our enemies
can make use of such statements. And their propaganda puts at risk our
service men and women who are, of course, out there protecting us every
day.
Unfortunately, this very thing happened last month when one of our
colleagues repeated unproven allegations about our service men and
women who were interrogating suspected terrorists. It was reported in
the Middle East. It would be hard to believe that it did not do damage
to our troops while we continue to fight in the war on terror in that
region.
It seems to me if we are going to impose strict liability on Federal
employees who act indiscreetly, then we should not have a different
standard for ourselves. I know our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle have indicated that the Reid amendment intends to include
Senators, but it seems not to be drafted that way. If Senators disclose
classified information or repeat unproven allegations that endanger our
troops, then it seems to me we ought to lose our access to classified
information as well.
The Reid amendment does not do that because it talks about Federal
employees, which seems to mean only
[[Page S8276]]
civil servants. Again, I acknowledge and recognize that those on the
other side of the aisle have said it means to include us. However, it
does not seem to in the plain meaning of the amendment.
The Frist amendment makes it clear that we, as Federal officeholders,
also lose our access to confidential information if we act rashly,
intemperately, and thereby put our troops at risk. What the Frist
amendment is about is the security of our servicemen and our
servicewomen.
Statements on the Senate floor--out here on the Senate floor--
comparing our service men and women to tyrannical regimes that result
in risking their safety must not and should not stand. I hope when the
Senate has an opportunity to address both of these amendments shortly,
the Reid amendment will be defeated and the Frist amendment will be
adopted.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New
Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the Reid amendment.
It is something we have to do, given the White House inaction on Mr.
Rove's behavior. We hear nitpicking about words. What was the
intention? Is it ex post facto law? No, it is not ex post facto law. We
are not just writing a law here. What we are doing is trying to curtail
a situation that enables someone at the White House level to make a
statement that, frankly, sounds as if it is traitorous, as defined in
April of 1999, when former President George H. W. Bush said, speaking
about the outing of a CIA agent and sources: ``I have nothing but
contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name
of our sources. They are in my view the most insidious of traitors.''
That is right: traitors.
So now we know who leaked the information, revealed publicly, Mr.
Rove. Where is the appropriate action? Well, here is a quote from a
White House press briefing with Scott McClellan on September 29, 2003.
Q: You said this morning, quote, ``The President knows that
Karl Rove wasn't involved.'' How does he know that?
A: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous
suggestion in the first place. . . . I've said that it's not
true. . . . And I have spoken with Karl Rove. . . .
Q: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, ``Did you
ever have this information?''
A: I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that
there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.
We go to the next episode. This is Scott McClellan on September 29,
2003:
If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they
would no longer be in this administration.
I guess it takes a long time to terminate somebody. That was over a
year and a half ago.
President George W. Bush said on September 30, 2003:
If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to
know it, and will take appropriate action.
It is pretty clear what is intended here. He violated the rules of
the White House here. Why shouldn't the public be aware of the fact
that, as they try to distribute guilt all over the place, it comes from
the President's very senior assistant? That is what we are talking
about. The rest of this is trivial. It is getting even. It is
recrimination: I will get you if you get me.
So we ought to move on positively on the Reid vote. Let's see how
everybody stands on this, whether they want the public to know the
truth; and that is: Karl Rove, did he violate the rules? Did he violate
the regulations when he went ahead and revealed something that never
should have been made public, the identification of a CIA employee.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, last week we saw the terrorist attack on
an ally. Our country faces very important homeland security challenges.
We have been in the midst of debating important public policy issues--
how best to secure mass transit or to prepare our first responders. I
cannot believe the Senate has diverted from that important debate--a
debate important to Americans all across this country--and instead of
finishing up the Homeland Security bill, we have diverted to debate
these issues.
We should not be doing this. This is exactly why the American public
holds Congress in such low esteem right now.
We should be focusing on the national security and homeland security
challenges facing this Nation. We should not be engaging in this
debate. I, for one, am going to vote no on both of the amendments.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I understand the frustration of my
colleague from Maine. I urge that we lower the rhetoric here and go
about doing our business. There is a special counsel looking at this.
Contrary to what my colleague from New Jersey said--he said we are not
writing the law here--that is what we are doing. We are writing a law
here. I have worked with my colleagues across the aisle. I have worked
with them on the permanent subcommittee, on the Foreign Relations
Committee. I know how studious they are. I know how focused they are in
doing the right thing. I know how when they want to do something, they
want to make sure it is complete. They want to make sure they have
examined it.
They can all see what we are doing here. It is about politics. We are
writing a law here. We are writing it on the run. We are writing it
without clarifying the definition of who is covered. We are writing it
without clarifying what the standard of intent is, whether it is beyond
negligent conduct. We are writing it without reflection on an existing
Executive order that covers the conduct we all want to deal with.
My colleague from California was right. Whose side are you on? Are
you on the side of the agents who risk their lives to protect the
American dream and the American ideal, things this body is supposed to
stand for, or are you for politics? Today we are about politics. Today
we are diverting from a $31 billion bill to protect America's security,
and we are debating politics.
We don't know the facts. We have a special counsel whose job it is to
get the facts. The President is committed to act on that. Instead we
are playing politics. This is not a shining moment for the Senate. I
have to believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the Reid amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I have two quick points. First, the
current law which has been referred to by my good friend from Minnesota
is a discretionary law. Whether someone does this intentionally or
negligently, the violation may or may not lead to the loss of one's
clearance. That is simply too loose. It is too discretionary. It has
resulted in leak after leak after leak. It is long overdue that we
tighten this law, and that is the effort of the amendment before us. It
relates directly to the national security of the United States.
I agree with my dear friend from Maine when she says we have to
address national security issues. Protection of the classified identity
of CIA agents is essential to the national security of the United
States. If one identifies an agent, a CIA agent, it seems to me that
person should lose their clearance, no ifs, no ands, no buts. That is
not something which should be left to a ``may'' lose one's clearance.
It should be a ``shall'' lose one's clearance.
On the second-degree amendment, the amendment of the majority leader,
when it states that . . . ``Any Federal officerholder that makes a
statement based on an FBI agent's comments which is used as
propaganda'' shall lead to the loss of clearance, we had a whole
hearing yesterday about FBI agents' statements. Those statements were
highly critical of the Department of Defense employees at Guantanamo.
These included a number of FBI agents' e-mails that were critical.
Those were the subject of a hearing of the Armed Services Committee
yesterday. Many
[[Page S8277]]
members of the Armed Services Committee were highly critical of the
conduct of some of the people at Guantanamo as reflected in those FBI
e-mails.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. REID. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the minority leader.
Madam President, I want to raise this point: If you can't discuss the
issue of intelligence and security on a bill about homeland security,
where would you raise the issue? What we are talking about here are men
and women who are the first line of defense against terrorism. These
are intelligence agents who literally, many of them, risk their lives
every day to protect Americans.
What happened here? There was a decision made by some people in the
White House--that is what Mr. Novak said--to disclose the identity of a
covert CIA agent, the wife of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, for the
purpose of political retribution. That is what it was all about. They
were angry with Ambassador Wilson, and so they were going to disclose
his wife's identity, a woman who had put her life on the line for the
United States. That disclosure endangered her life and the lives of
everyone she worked with. It was political.
The Senator from Minnesota is right. At the heart of this is
politics: a decision by someone in the White House at the highest level
for political revenge to go after the identity of this woman.
Let me tell you what other CIA officers had to say about it. They all
happen to be Republicans. After this happened, this is what they said,
those who were contemporaries of hers:
My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have
kept the secret of each other's identities for over 18 years.
. . . This issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about
the destruction of the very essence, the core, of human
intelligence collection activities--plausible deniability--
apparently for partisan domestic reasons.
We have heard people come to the floor on the Republican side who
have said this is all political and it is not that important and why
don't we get back to the bill. It is important. What Senator Reid has
offered--an amendment which I am proud to cosponsor--basically says, if
you disclose the identity of a covert CIA agent, you lose your security
clearance. Why? Because why should we continue to give information to
people about those who are risking their lives for America if they are
going to misuse it, in this case, for political purposes? That is what
this is all about. It is fundamental and basic.
For those who say: I am going to vote against that, think about what
you are saying. You are saying a person can disclose the identity of a
CIA agent and still keep their security clearance, gathering more
information and the identity of more agents. How can that give the men
and women in our intelligence community any confidence that we stand
behind them? I don't believe it can.
There is a second-degree amendment that has been offered and referred
to by the Senator from Kentucky. In the time I have been on Capitol
Hill, it may be the worst drawn amendment I have ever seen. I don't
think those who put it together sat down and read it very carefully.
Because if they did, they would understand that the language they put
in it is so broad and so expansive that it draws together many innocent
people and many people they didn't intend.
Listen to this: Any Federal officerholder who makes reference to a
classified Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the floor of the
Senate shall lose their security clearance.
We did a quick check. I am sorry to say to the Senator from Kentucky,
you are going to be stunned to know that many chairmen and former
chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee have done just that. They
have disclosed a classified reference to a classified Federal Bureau of
Investigation report on the floor of the Senate. I won't read all the
names of my colleagues into the Record--I guess I could--who have come
to the floor and have already violated this provision in the second-
degree amendment.
One of my colleagues was on the floor. I went to him and said: I am
not going to read your name into the Record. You did it. You may not
have known you did it, but you did.
This amendment was so poorly drafted that it has brought all of them
under this prohibition where they can't have a security clearance.
Let me tell you the second part on which the Senator from Kentucky
continues to make reference. If the standard is, whatever we say on the
floor may be used by an organization such as Al-Jazeera against the
United States, we are in trouble. These are the clippings from Al-
Jazeera's Internet site where they have cited Senator after Senator for
things they have said on the floor. Be careful on the second-degree
amendment. It goes far beyond what they intended.
Mr. REID. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. The Senate Armed Services Committee had a meeting
yesterday. They discussed FBI reports about Abu Ghraib, about
Guantanamo. They have no control--the members of that committee--about
how those reports will be used by others. Here is the Al-Jazeera Web
site which referred to Senators on that committee who were using those
reports. Under the language of the amendment being offered by the
Senator from Kentucky and the majority leader, these Senators, who
believed they were doing their job, would lose their security
clearance. I know they are trying to come back and attack us and say,
if you are going to say something negative about Karl Rove, we are
going to say something negative about you. But this amendment was so
poorly drawn that they have drawn into their net of suspicion and
accusation many of their own colleagues.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, there might be a contest between which
of these amendments is most poorly drafted. The Reid amendment that
kicked off this event, that surprised me when it came up in this last
minute, says that ``No Federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed
classified information . . . '' And goodness, that has already been
disclosed. It is something that has already happened. Apparently, it is
not a violation of the law. Now we are going to reach back and make it
a violation of law. That is ex post facto law. It would come back from
the Supreme Court, if anybody were ever charged and convicted under it,
like a rubber ball off the wall.
Mr. LEVIN. Will my friend yield for a question on that?
Mr. SESSIONS. No, 2 minutes is all I have.
It also says ``no Federal employee,'' and the Senator says that
includes Senators. He can say it includes turnips, but it doesn't
include Senators. It says Federal employees, and that does not cover
Senators. It also says a covert agent, and there is no intent or
knowledge required. So a person could mention a name not knowing they
were a covert agent and be subject to this punishment. Frankly, I don't
think the other amendment is much better. Both should be voted down.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. How much time do we have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 9 minutes 31 seconds remaining.
Mr. COLEMAN. I yield 2 minutes to the majority whip.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thank my friend from Minnesota.
While we are talking about poorly drafted amendments, listen to this.
Under the Reid amendment, it imposes a standard of strict liability so
that a civil servant who loses his wallet would lose his security
clearance. A civil servant who loses his wallet under the Reid
amendment would lose his security clearance. What is the point of all
this? We ought not to be, as Senator Collins pointed out, having these
political debates on this bill. But if our colleagues on the other side
insist on trying to offer these kinds of amendments, I think the point
needs to be made clearly that there will be amendments offered on this
side. In other words, this kind of political gamesmanship on the Senate
floor will not
[[Page S8278]]
stand, will not be yielded to, will not succeed. In the end, the public
will only get the impression that we are playing games here when we
should be dealing with their business. Their business, the underlying
bill, is the Homeland Security bill, of extraordinary importance to our
country. Hopefully, shortly the time will run out, and we will get back
to doing the people's business.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, before we close, I do want to get back
to perhaps some of the underlying facts that motivated this amendment.
By the way, we don't know the facts. We just know what we have read.
The Democratic leader cited a poll that appeared in the Wall Street
Journal. I have an editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal
yesterday, July 13. I ask unanimous consent to print it in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2005]
Karl Rove, Whistleblower
Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying
for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA
nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On
the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru
deserves a prize--perhaps the next iteration of the ``Truth-
Telling'' award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr.
Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him
as a fraud.
For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real
``whistleblower'' in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's
the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters
to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told
the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for
the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President
Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In
short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans
could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but
was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an
election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.
Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke
any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played
a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to
investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in
Niger. To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence
Identities Protection Act, Mr. Rove would had to have
deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that
she was an undercover agent and using information he'd
obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove
didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard bout her
work at Langley from other Journalists.
On the ``no underlying crime'' point, moreover, no less
than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do
the 136 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in
March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's
Judith Miller out of jail.
``While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is
far from clear--at least on the public record--that a crime
took place,'' the Post noted the other day. Granted the media
have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to
protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that
Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either.
The same can't be said for Mr. Wilson, who first ``outed''
himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times
op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly
debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that
President Bush had mentioned in his now famous ``16 words''
on the subject in that year's State of the Union address.
Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert
Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in
selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as
adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere
in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's ``Meet
the Press'' and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.
But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The
bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July
cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her
* * * * *
Mr. COLEMAN. It talks about Karl Rove the ``whistleblower.'' I don't
want to read all of it, but in part it reads:
For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real
``whistleblower'' in this whole sorry pseudoscandal. He's the
one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to
be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told
the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for
the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President
Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In
short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans
could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but
was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an
election campaign.
I believe what I have read, that Mr. Rove may have said it was
Wilson's wife who worked at the CIA. We don't know that. Did he know
she was a covert agent. We don't know.
It goes on and on to talk about the 1982 law:
. . . Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and
maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an
undercover agent and using information he'd obtained in an
official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know
Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley
from other journalists.
We don't know what he knows, Madam President. That is why there is a
special counsel, and we should wait to find out what he finds. Nobody
is arguing about debating these issues, but we are arguing about
passing legislation. Contrary to what my friend from New Jersey says,
we are writing a law. I want to remind my colleagues that we are
writing a law that doesn't, on its face, in the language of it, cover
us. As my friend from Alabama said, they say it covers us, but it
doesn't. We don't come under the definition of Federal employees. So we
are not covered by this hastily crafted, politically motivated
amendment. This covers inadvertent, accidental, an act of God,
anything, and your career is going to be impacted.
There is a reason we have an Executive order that has been in effect
for 10 years, which has a standard of knowingly, willfully, and
negligently. It covers the kind of conduct that you want to have
covered.
The bottom line is this is about politics, that we have wasted a lot
of the time of this body--the greatest deliberative body in the world--
and this is not a shining moment. Let's get about doing our business
and passing appropriations, shoring up homeland defense. Let's put the
politics aside and let the special counsel do his work. Let's lower the
level of the rhetoric and move on and keep doing the business of the
people.
With that, I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I will use my leader time. I believe this
is a shining moment. It is shining the spotlight on what is going on in
this country--abuse of power, diversion, and, of course, a coverup.
The analogy my dear friend from Kentucky used about the wallet is,
for lack of a better description, without foundation. Anybody who
thinks what we are doing is unimportant, I invite them to travel with
me--as I did a number of years ago--to the CIA. When you walk into that
facility at Langley, the first thing you see are the stars up on the
wall for each CIA agent who has been slain, killed in the line of duty.
I have never forgotten that. That is what this is all about.
We have someone who has obviously disclosed a name. We read it in the
paper. Whether it is Karl Rove, I don't know. Someone did. This
amendment says if someone does that, they should not have a security
clearance. My friend, who I care a great deal about, the chairman of
the homeland security authorizing committee, came to the floor and said
the American people are fed up with what happened. She is right about
that, too, because not much happens on issues they care about--issues
like this staggering deficit. There was a celebration at the White
House yesterday because the deficit was only the third largest in the
history of the country. Education is failing. We know we have all kinds
of problems in health care. Those are the issues we should be dealing
with. Gas prices--maybe people care about that. We know they do.
So this is important. But when my friends on the other side are on
the ropes, they attack. Just like in the Washington Post yesterday, I
quote again:
The emerging GOP strategy, devised by RNC Chairman Ken
Mehlman, is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for
Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role, and wait for President
Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selection to drown out the
controversy.
This is a coverup, an abuse of power, and it is a diversion. They
have no interest in coming clean and being honest with the American
people. The American people are seeing through
[[Page S8279]]
this. When I mentioned the Wall Street Journal, I say to my friend from
Minnesota, I wasn't vouching for the editorial policy. I don't read
them. I was vouching for a news story that had a poll they conducted
with NBC. The poll showed that only 41 percent of Americans believe the
President is being honest and straightforward. That is what this is
about. It is a coverup, an abuse of power, and a diversion.
It is time to quit playing partisan politics and do some legislating
for the American people. It is time for the White House to come clean.
Everyone should support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The majority leader is
recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I will speak in leader time. For nearly 2
weeks, we have been working in a bipartisan manner for the goal of
passing the Homeland Security bill, which spends almost $32 billion for
homeland security, all of which is one of our most basic
responsibilities, and that is to keep the American people safe and
secure.
That is what the Senate, this body, was hard at work doing--up until
about 2 hours ago, when the Democratic leadership chose raw, partisan
party politics over protecting American lives. They filed their
political amendments.
You know, the American people want better from their leaders than
petty politics. Through their votes, they have put their trust in us,
and they have elected us to serve their interests and, thus, this is a
sad and a disappointing afternoon in the Senate.
Madam President, there is a special counsel who has been appointed to
look at the whole issue of the CIA leak case. He is doing his job and
he is investigating this whole matter. Do my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle think that without any of the facts, the hundreds of
hours of manpower, and interviews, and the investigation that the
special counsel has done, they are better equipped to judge the facts
of this case?
We should let the special counsel do his job, and we should focus on
our jobs as Senators, which is, first and foremost, protecting the
American people.
Lastly, I want to say that I think the first speech I gave in this
Congress was an olive branch to reach out and say let's focus on
civility. I thought the bitterly contested elections that we saw--once
they were behind us, I thought we could focus on doing the Nation's
business, moving America forward, governing.
Unfortunately, even on an issue that we should all agree on--homeland
security--my colleagues prefer to score political points rather than
focusing on the Nation's business. It is this kind of political stunt
that causes many Americans watching to lose faith in this body, in
elected officials. Let's get back to serving our constituents and get
back to the issues that really matter to the American people, such as
homeland security, protecting our country from terrorist attacks,
strengthening our highways and transportation infrastructure, and
pursuing a national energy policy.
I urge my colleagues to let civility and duty to the American people
prevail. Oppose the Reid amendment; support the Frist amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Frist
amendment.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), and the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 64, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 187 Leg.]
YEAS--33
Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Martinez
McConnell
Santorum
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Vitter
NAYS--64
Akaka
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brownback
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Snowe
Stabenow
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
DeMint
Lott
Mikulski
The amendment was rejected.
Vote on Amendment No. 1222
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), and the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint) would have voted ``no.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 188 Leg.]
YEAS--44
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
NAYS--53
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--3
DeMint
Lott
Mikulski
The amendment (No. 1222) was rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are getting close to the end here. We
hope there will be one vote left and that will be on final passage.
[...]
