[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5818-S5823]
Mr. McCAIN. [...]
National Security Leaks
I really came to the floor today to talk about the issue of the
leaks, the leaks which have directly jeopardized America's national
security. At the Aspen Security Forum, just in the last few days, the
head of Special Operations Command, Admiral McRaven, observed that the
recent national security leaks have put lives at risk and may
ultimately cost America its lives unless there is an effective
crackdown. Admiral McRaven, the head of our Special Operations Command
said:
We need to do the best we can to clamp down because sooner
or later it is going to cost people their lives or it is
going to cost us our national security.
This is another national security issue, my friends, and I appreciate
very much the fact that Governor Romney rightly referred to these leaks
as contemptible and a betrayal of our national interests.
I wish to point out to my colleagues that, yes, there are supposedly
investigations going on and, according to media, hundreds of people are
being interviewed. Well, I am no lawyer. I am no prosecutor. Senator
Graham may have some experience in that. But what about the 2009 G20
economic summit when, according to the New York Times journalist David
Sanger, ``a senior official in the National Security Council'' tapped
him on the shoulder and brought him to the Presidential suite in the
Pittsburgh hotel where President Obama was staying and where ``most of
the rest of the national security staff was present.'' There the
journalist was allowed to review satellite images and other evidence
that confirmed the existence of a secret nuclear site in Iran.
I wonder how many people have the key to the Presidential suite in
that Pittsburgh, PA hotel? We might want to start there. Instead, we
have two prosecutors, one of whom was a strong and great supporter of
the President of the United States. And the same people--I am talking
about the Vice President of the United States and others--who strongly
supported a special counsel in the case of Valerie Plame and, of
course, the Abramoff case. We need a special counsel to find out who
was responsible for these leaks.
I ask my colleague Senator Graham if he has additional comments on
this issue. It has receded somewhat in the
[[Page S5819]]
media, but the damage that has been done to our national security is
significant. It has put lives at risk, and it has betrayed our allies.
This is an issue we cannot let go away until those who are responsible
are held accountable for these actions.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, my comment, in response to the question
Senator McCain has, is what we do today becomes precedent for tomorrow.
So are we going to sit on the sidelines here and allow the Attorney
General--who is under siege by our colleagues in the House about the
way he has handled Fast and Furious and other matters--to appoint two
U.S. attorneys who have to answer to him to investigate allegations
against the very White House that appointed him? The reason so many
Democrats wrote to President Bush and said, You cannot possibly
investigate the Scooter Libby-Valerie Plame leak because it involves
people very close to you--well, let's read some of the letters. Biden,
Daschle, Schumer, and Levin letter to President Bush, October 9, 2003:
We are at risk of seeing this investigation so compromised
that those responsible for this national security breach will
never be identified and prosecuted. Public confidence in the
integrity of this investigation would be substantially
bolstered by the appointment of a special counsel.
Senator Biden:
I think they should appoint a special prosecutor, but if
they're not going to do that, which I suspect they're not, is
get the information out as quick as they possibly can. This
is not a minor thing . . . There's been a federal crime
committed. The question is who did it? And the President
should do everything in his power to demonstrate that there's
an urgency to find that out.
Then he goes on later and says:
There's been a federal crime committed. You can't possibly
investigate yourself because people close to you are
involved.
In the Abramoff scandal, which involved Jack Abramoff, a person very
close to House leadership and some people in the Bush administration,
and our Democratic colleagues, 34 of them, said the following:
FBI officials have said that the Abramoff investigation
``involves systematic corruption within the highest levels of
government.'' Such an assertion indicates extraordinary
circumstances and it is in the public interest that you act
under your existing statutory authority to appoint a special
counsel.
So our Democratic colleagues back during the Bush administration
said, We don't trust you enough to investigate compromising national
security by having an agent outed allegedly by members of your
administration. We don't trust the Republican Party apparatus enough to
investigate Jack Abramoff, because you are so close to him, and you
should have a special counsel appointed.
Well, guess what. They did.
Here is what I am saying. I don't trust this White House to
investigate themselves. I think this reeks of a coverup. I think the
highest levels of this government surrounding the President,
intentionally, over a 45-day period, leaked various stories regarding
our national security programs, to make the administration look strong
on national security. I don't think it is an accident that we are
reading in the paper about efforts by the administration and our allies
to use cyber attacks against the Iranian nuclear program as a way to
try to head Israel off from using military force. I don't know if it
happened, but the details surrounding the cooperation between us and
Israel and how we engaged in cyber attacks against the Iranian nuclear
program are chilling and something we should not read about in the
paper.
The second thing we read about in the paper was how we disrupted the
underwear bomber plot where there was a double agent who had
infiltrated an al-Qaida cell, I believe it was in Yemen, and how we
were able to break that up; and the man was given a suicide vest that
was new technology and couldn't be detected by the current screening
devices at the airports, and how we were able to basically infiltrate
that cell, and God knows the damage done to our allies and that
operation.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my friend, isn't it also true that this
individual had some 23 family members whose lives were also placed in
danger because of the revelation of his identity?
Mr. GRAHAM. That is what we have been told in the paper.
We also have a story about the kill list--a blow-by-blow description
of how President Obama personally oversees who gets killed by drones in
Pakistan, and at the end of the day, I am not so sure that is something
we should all be reading about.
But if that is not enough, what about releasing the Pakistani
doctor--the person who allegedly helped us find bin Laden, and his role
in this effort to find bin Laden is also in the paper, and now he is in
jail in Pakistan.
The sum total is that the leaks have been devastating. They have put
people's lives at risk. They have compromised our national security,
unlike anything I have seen, and people expect us to sit on the
sidelines and let the White House investigate itself? No way.
Those who wrote letters in the past suggesting that Bush could not
impartially investigate himself, where are they today? Is this the
rule: We can't trust Republicans, but we can trust Democratic
administrations to get to the bottom of things they are involved in up
to their eyebrows?
Do we think it is an accident that all of these books quote senior
White House officials? There is a review of one of the books the
Senator from Arizona mentioned that talked about the unprecedented
access to the National Security Adviser. There is a vignette in one of
the books where the Secretary of Defense goes up to the National
Security Adviser and suggests a new communications strategy when it
comes to the programs we are talking about: Shut the F up. Well, that
makes great reading, but at the end of the day, should we be reading
about all this? People's lives are at stake. Programs have been
compromised. Our allies are very reluctant now to do business with us.
This was, in my view, an intentional effort by people at the highest
level in the White House to leak these stories for political purposes.
And to accept that Eric Holder is going to appoint two people within
his sphere of influence and call it a day is acceptable. That is not
going to happen. We are going to do everything we can to right this
ship, and we are asking no more of our Democratic colleagues than they
asked of the Bush administration.
To our Democratic colleagues: How do you justify this? How do you
justify that you couldn't investigate Abramoff without a special
counsel and you couldn't investigate what Scooter Libby may or may not
have done without a special counsel, but it is OK not to have one here?
How do you do that?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator asked whether this side would like to explain
our position. I would be happy to do it at this point, but I can wait
until my colleagues finish their colloquy, so it is their choice.
Mr. GRAHAM. Whatever the Senator from Illinois wishes to do. I am
dying to hear how my Democratic colleagues think it is good government
not to have a special independent counsel investigate the most damaging
national security leak in decades. I am dying to hear the explanation.
Mr. DURBIN. There is no need to die. I hope the Senator from South
Carolina will continue living a good life because he is such a great
Senator. But I am asking if my colleague wants me to join in this
dialogue or would he rather make his presentation?
Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I tell you what. Why don't we let my colleague
speak, and then the Senator from Illinois will have all the time he
needs. What does my colleague, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss,
think?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Well, I am dying to hear his explanation too, let me
say that.
First of all, let me say that I join in with everything my two
colleagues have said with respect to, No. 1, the volume of the leaks
that have come out in recent weeks. We all know this town has a
tendency to leak information from time to time, but never in the volume
and never with the sensitivity of the leaks we have read about on the
front page of newspapers around the country as we have seen in the last
few weeks.
Irrespective of where they came from, to have folks who may be
implicated in the White House, and the
[[Page S5820]]
White House appointing the two individuals who have been charged with
the duty of prosecuting this investigation, reeks of ethical issues. I
don't know these two U.S. attorneys, but everything I know about them
is they are dadgum good prosecutors and they are good lawyers. But why
would we even put them in the position of having to investigate in
effect the individual who appointed them to the position they are in?
That is why we are arguing that a special counsel is, without question,
the best way to go. I am interested to hear the response from my friend
from Illinois to that issue.
Let me talk about something else for a minute, and that is the impact
these leaks have had on the intelligence community. The No. 1 thing
that individuals who go on the intelligence committees in both the
House and the Senate are told--and I know because I have served on both
of them and continue to serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee--is
to be careful what you say. Be careful and make sure you don't
inadvertently--and obviously advertently--reveal classified
information. Be sure that in your comments you never reveal sources and
methods.
Well, guess what. The individuals who were involved in these leaks
were very overt in the release of sources and methods with respect to
the issues Senator Graham referred to as having been leaked. Not only
that, but lives were put in danger, particularly the life of the
individual who was an asset who worked very closely with respect to the
underwear bomber issue. We know that to be a fact.
But there is also a secondary issue, and that is this: We have
partners around the world we deal with in the intelligence community
every single day, and we depend on those partners and they depend on us
to provide them with information we have and likewise that they give to
us. A classic example was detailed of one of these particular leaks on
the front page of the New York Times. Today why in the world would any
of our partners in the intelligence community around the world--those
partners who have men and women on the front lines who are putting
their life in harm's way and in danger every single day to gather
intelligence information and share that information with us--why would
they continue to do that if they are now concerned about that
information being written about on the front page of newspapers inside
the United States and blasted all over television or wherever it may
be?
The answer is pretty simple. Very honestly, there are some strong
considerations being given by some of our partners as to how much
information they should share with us. That creates a very negative
atmosphere within the intelligence world.
Lastly, let me say that we dealt in the Intelligence Committee with
our authorization bill recently in which we have tried to address this
issue from a punishment standpoint.
There are certain things that individuals are required to do when
they leave the intelligence community and go write a book. One of those
things is they have to present their book to an independent panel of
intelligence experts, and that panel is to review the information and
then decide whether any of it is classified and shall not be released.
In one of the instances we have, one of those individuals never
submitted his book to that panel. In another instance, an individual
submitted his book to the panel, and the panel said: You need to be
careful in these areas. And the advice from that panel was pretty well
disregarded.
One of the provisions in our bill says if someone does that, if
someone fails to submit their book to that panel, or if they disregard
what that panel tells them to do, then they are going to be subject to
penalties. Part of those penalties include the possible removal of
their right to a pension from the Federal Government--the portion the
government is obligated to pay them, not what they have contributed.
Our intelligence bill is being criticized by some individuals out
there. And guess who it is? It is the media and it is the White House.
What does that tell you about their fear and their participation in the
release of classified information?
So this issue is of critical importance. It simply has to stop for
any number of national security reasons, but the ones that have been
addressed by my colleagues obviously are to be highlighted. I look
forward to whatever comments the Senator from Illinois may have with
respect to justifying--I know he is not going to justify the leaks
because I know him too well, but whatever his justification is for
proceeding in a prosecution manner the way the Department of Justice is
going versus what the Bush administration did and appointing a special
counsel in a case that, by the way, pales in comparison to the leaks
that took place in this particular instance.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before we turn to our friend from Illinois
for his, I am sure, convincing explanation as to why a special counsel
is not required, even though it was, in the opinion of his side, in a
previous situation, I want to just, again--and the Senator from Georgia
and the Senator from South Carolina will also corroborate the fact that
we have been working and working, having meeting after meeting after
meeting, on the issue of cyber security.
We believe we have narrowed it down to three or four differences that
could be worked out over time. Among them is liability. Another one is
information sharing. But I think it is also important for us to
recognize in this debate the people who are most directly affected in
many respects are the business communities, and it is important that we
have the input and satisfy, at least to a significant degree, those
concerns.
There are those who allege that a piece of legislation is better than
no legislation. I have been around this town for a long time. I have
seen bad legislation which is far worse than no legislation. So we
understand certainly--I and members of the Armed Services Committee and
others understand--the importance of this issue.
We also understand that those who are directly affected by it--those
concerns need to be satisfied as well. I commit to my colleagues to
continue nonstop rounds of meetings and discussions to try to get this
issue resolved. To this moment, there are still significant
differences.
I say to my friend from Illinois, I look forward to hearing his
convincing discussion.
I thank the Senator and yield the floor.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois
be involved in the colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I did not know if the Senator wanted to make his
unanimous consent request that he came to the floor to make.
Mr. McCAIN. No.
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator is not going to make it?
Mr. McCAIN. No. The Senator will object.
Mr. DURBIN. Yes, I will.
Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Arizona.
Occasionally, historically, on the floor of the Senate there is a
debate, and this may be one of those moments. I hope it is because it
is a worthy topic.
Let's get down to the bottom line. I have served on the Intelligence
Committee, as some of my colleagues have. We know the important work
done by the intelligence community to keep America safe. They literally
risk their lives every day for us, and they are largely invisible. We
do not see them at the military parades and other places where we
acknowledge those warriors who risk their lives, but these men and
women do it in so many different ways.
When I spent 4 years on the Senate Intelligence Committee--and my
colleagues, I am sure, feel the same--I went out of my way to make sure
I was careful with classified information so as to continue to protect
this country and never endanger those who were helping us keep it safe
all around the world.
So the obvious question raised by the Republican side of the of the
aisle is whether this President, President Barack Obama, thinks
differently; whether President Obama believes we should cut corners and
not be so careful when it comes to the leaking of classified
information.
My answer to that is look at the record. Look at the record and ask
this basic question: When it comes to prosecuting those believed to
have been
[[Page S5821]]
guilty of leaks of classified information, which President of the
United States has prosecuted more suspected individuals than any other
President, Democrat or Republican? Barack Obama.
On six different occasions--five in the Department of Justice and one
in the Department of Defense--they pursued the active prosecution of
those they believed were guilty of leaking classified information that
might endanger the United States.
Let me add another personal observation. It was last year when my
friend Bill Daley, then-Chief of Staff to President Obama, came to
Chicago for a luncheon. It was a nice day. We had a nice luncheon. It
was very successful. He said he had to get back to Washington. He was
in a big hurry. He never said why. He told me later--he told me much
later--after this occurred: I had to get back because we had a
classified meeting about hunting down Osama bin Laden. We were sworn to
secrecy at every level of government so that we never, ever disclosed
information that we were even thinking about that possibility.
Bill Daley took it seriously. The President takes it seriously.
Anyone in those positions of power will take it seriously. To suggest
otherwise on the floor of the Senate is just plain wrong, and it raises
a question about this President's commitment to the Nation, which I
think is improper and cannot be backed up with the evidence.
Now, let's look at the evidence when it comes to the appointment of a
special prosecutor. Let me take you back to those moments when a
special prosecutor named Patrick Fitzgerald from the Northern District
of Illinois was chosen to investigate the leak of classified formation.
Let me put it in historical context. We had invaded Iraq. We did it
based on assertions by the Bush-Cheney administration about the danger
to the United States. One of those assertions dealt with Africa and
certain yellow cake chemicals that might be used for nuclear weapons
and whether they were going to fall into the hands of the Iraqi
leadership.
It was one of the arguments--there were many: weapons of mass
destruction, and so forth, that turned out to be totally false--leading
us into a war which has cost us dearly in terms of human lives and our
own treasure.
So one person spoke out. Former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who identified
himself as a Republican, said: I do not believe there is any evidence
to back up the assertion about the yellow cake coming out of Africa.
Well, he was punished. Do you remember how he was punished? He was
punished when someone decided to out his wife Valerie Plame. Valerie
Plame had served as an intelligence agent for the United States to
protect our Nation, and someone decided that in order to get even with
Joe Wilson they would disclose the fact that his wife worked in the
intelligence agencies.
Then what happened? If you will remember, when that story broke, the
intelligence community of the United States of America said: We have
been betrayed. If one of our own can be outed in a political debate in
Washington, are any of us safe? A legitimate question.
So there was an obvious need to find out who did it, who disclosed
her identity, endangering her life, the life of every person who had
worked with her, and so many other intelligence agents.
Mr. President, do you recall what happened? I do. The Attorney
General of the United States, John Ashcroft, recused himself from this
investigation. It was the right thing for him to do because the
questions about this disclosure of her identity went to the top of the
administration. He recused himself and appointed Patrick Fitzgerald,
the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, a
professional, a professional prosecutor with the U.S. Department of
Justice.
Well, the investigation went on for a long time. At the end of the
investigation, the Chief of Staff of the Vice President of the United
States was found to have violated a law. That came out, and eventually
we learned the identity of who actually disclosed the name of Valerie
Plame. It was a serious issue, one that called for a special counsel,
and, if I remember correctly, there were even Republicans at that point
joining Democrats saying: Let's get to the bottom of this. If this goes
all the way to the top, let's find out who is responsible for it. So it
was the appropriate thing to do.
Now, take a look at this situation. This President, who has activated
the prosecution of six individuals suspected of leaking classified
information, takes very seriously the information that was disclosed
related to the al-Qaida techniques and all the things they were using
to threaten the United States.
What has he done as a result of it? Let's be specific because I
really have to call into question some of the statements that have been
made on the floor. To say that the administration is covering this up,
as to this leak, is just plain wrong.
At this point, the Department of Justice has appointed two highly
respected and experienced prosecutors with proven records of
independence in the exercise of their duties. U.S. Attorney Machen has
recently overseen a number of public corruption prosecutions in the
District of Columbia. U.S. Attorney Rosenstein has overseen a number of
national security investigations, including one of the five leak
investigations that have been prosecuted under this President. The
Justice Department has complete confidence in their ability to conduct
thorough and independent investigations into these matters in close
collaboration with career prosecutors and agents.
This is not being swept under the rug. This is not being ignored.
This is being taken seriously by this administration, as every leak of
classified information will be taken seriously.
I know it is an election year. We are fewer than 100 days away from
the election, and I know the floor of the Senate is used by both
parties this close to the election. But I want to make it clear this
President has a record of commitment to protecting the men and women
who gather intelligence for America. He has a record of prosecuting
more suspects for leaks of this information than any other President in
history. He has, through his Attorney General, appointed two career
criminal prosecutors to look into this case and said they will have the
resources and authority they need to get to the bottom of it. That is
the way to do it.
Will the day come when we say perhaps a special counsel is needed? I
will not ever rule that out. Perhaps that day will come. But it is
wrong to come to the floor and question this President's commitment to
our intelligence community. It is wrong to come to the floor and
question the credentials of these two men who have performed so well in
the service of the Department of Justice in years gone by.
I thought Senator McCain was going to make a unanimous consent
request. If he wishes to, let me yield to him at this point.
Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to respond to my friend.
First of all, obviously, he is in disagreement with the chairperson
of the Intelligence Committee because she said these leaks were the
worst in the 11 years she has been a member of the Senate Intelligence
Committee. So, obviously, the Abramoff and the Valerie Plame
investigations are not nearly as serious, and they certainly were not
when we look at the incredible damage, according to Admiral McRaven,
according to anyone who is an observer of the incredible damage these
leaks have caused.
Again, the chairperson of the Intelligence Committee said it is the
worst she has ever seen. Admiral McRaven, as I said, said these have
put lives at risk and may ultimately cost Americans their lives.
I wonder if my colleague from Illinois is concerned when, according
to his book, Mr. Sanger said: ``A senior official in the National
Security Council'' tapped him on the shoulder and brought him to the
Presidential suite in the Pittsburgh hotel where President Obama was
staying, and--I am quoting from Mr. Sanger's book--where ``most of the
rest of the national security staff was present.'' There, the
journalist was apparently allowed to review satellite images and other
``evidence'' that confirmed the existence of a secret nuclear site in
Iran.
When leaks take place around this town, the first question you have
to ask is, Who benefits? Who benefits from them? Obviously someone who
wants to take a journalist up to the presidential suite would make it
pretty
[[Page S5822]]
easy for us to narrow down whom we should interview first. Who had the
key to the presidential suite? Who uses the presidential suite in a
hotel in Pittsburgh? These leaks are the most damaging that have taken
place in my time in the Senate and before that in the U.S. military.
Yes, six people have been prosecuted. Do you know at what level? A
private. The lowest level people have been prosecuted by this
administration. And this administration says they have to interview
hundreds of people in the bottom-up process.
I can guarantee you one thing, I will tell the Senator from Illinois
now, there will not be any definitive conclusion in the investigation
before the election in November. That does not mean to me that they are
not doing their job, although it is clear that one of these prosecutors
was active in the Obama campaign, was a contributor to the Obama
campaign. I am not saying that individual is not of the highest
caliber. I am saying that would lead people to ask a reasonable
question, and that is whether that individual is entirely objective.
Americans need an objective investigation by someone they can trust,
just as then-Senator Biden and then-Senator Obama asked for in these
previous incidents, which, in my view, were far less serious and, in
the view of the chairperson of the Intelligence Committee, are far more
severe than those that were previously investigated. I would be glad to
have my colleague respond to that.
Mr. DURBIN. First, let me say that whatever the rank of the
individual--private, specialist, chief petty officer--if they are
responsible for leaking classified information, they need to be
investigated and prosecuted, if guilty.
Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely.
Mr. DURBIN. So the fact that a private is being investigated should
not get him off the hook. I would----
Mr. McCAIN. I do not think it gets him off the hook. I think it has
some significance as compared to this kind of egregious breach of
security that has taken place at the highest level. We know that.
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to my friend from Arizona, if I am not
mistaken, it was a noncommissioned officer at best and maybe not an
officer in the Army who is being prosecuted for the Wiki leaks. So
let's not say that the rank of anyone being prosecuted in any way makes
them guilty or innocent. We need to go to the source of the leak.
Mr. McCAIN. No. But my friend would obviously acknowledge that if it
is a private or a corporal or something, it has not nearly the gravity
it does when a person with whom the Nation has placed much higher
responsibilities commits this kind of breach.
Mr. DURBIN. Of course. It should be taken to where it leads, period.
But let me also ask--I do not know if quoting from a book on the floor
means what was written in that book is necessarily true. Perhaps the
Senator has his own independent information on that.
Mr. McCAIN. But no one has challenged Mr. Sanger's depiction. No one
in the administration has challenged his assertion that he was taken by
``a senior official in the National Security Council to the
presidential suite.'' No one has challenged that.
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator, I do not know if that has to
do with the information that was ultimately leaked about al-Qaida. It
seems as though it is a separate matter. But it should be taken
seriously, period. What more does this President need to do to convince
you other than to have more prosecutions than any President in history
of those who have been believed to have leaked classified information?
If you will come to the floor, as you said earlier--and I quote, the
investigation is ``supposedly going on.'' I trust the administration
that the investigation is going on. What evidence does the Senator have
that it is not going on?
Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend, it is not a matter of trust, it is a
matter of credibility because if an administration has the same
argument that then-Senator Biden used and Senator Obama used in
opposition to the administration investigating the Abramoff case and
the Valerie Plame case--they argued that it is not a matter of trust,
it is a matter of credibility with the American people whether an
administration can actually investigate itself or should there be a
credible outside counsel who would conduct this investigation, which
would then have the necessary credibility, I think, with the American
people. I think that there is a certain logic to that, I hope my
colleague would admit.
Mr. DURBIN. Let me say to the Senator that in that case, the Attorney
General of the United States, John Ashcroft, recused himself--recused
himself. He said there was such an appearance of a conflict, if not a
conflict, he was stepping aside. It is very clear under those
circumstances that a special counsel is needed. In this case, there is
no suggestion that the President, the Vice President, or the Attorney
General was complicit in any leak. So to suggest otherwise, I have to
say to Senator McCain, show me what you are bringing as proof.
Mr. McCAIN. I am bringing you proof that this Attorney General has a
significant credibility problem, and that problem is bred by a program
called Fast and Furious where weapons were--under a program sponsored
by the Justice Department----
Mr. DURBIN. When did the program begin?
Mr. McCAIN. Let me just finish my comment. A young American Border
Patrol agent was murdered with weapons that were part of the Fast and
Furious investigation. What has the Attorney General of the United
States done? He has said that he will not come forward with any
information that is requested by my colleagues in the House.
So I would have to say that, at least in the House of Representatives
and with many Americans and certainly with the family of Brian Terry,
who was murdered, there is a credibility problem with this Attorney
General of the United States.
Mr. DURBIN. I say to my colleague and friend Senator McCain, I deeply
regret the loss of any American life, particularly those in service of
our country.
Mr. McCAIN. I am convinced of that.
Mr. DURBIN. And I feel exactly that about this individual and the
loss to his family. But let's make sure the record is complete. The
Fast and Furious program was not initiated by President Obama, it was
started by President George W. Bush.
Mr. McCAIN. Which, in my view, does not in any way impact the need
for a full and complete investigation.
Mr. DURBIN. Secondly, this Attorney General, Mr. Holder, has been
brought before congressional committees time after time. I have been in
the Senate Judiciary Committee when he has been questioned at length
about Fast and Furious, and I am sure he has been called even more
frequently before the House committees.
Third, he has produced around 9,000 pages of documents, and Chairman
Issa keeps saying: Not enough. We need more. Well, at some point it
becomes clear he will never produce enough documents for them. And the
House decided to find him in contempt for that. That is their decision.
I do not think that was necessarily proper.
But having said that, does that mean every decision from the
Department of Justice from this point forward cannot be trusted?
Mr. McCAIN. No. But what I am saying is that there is a significant
credibility problem that the Attorney General of the United States has,
at least with a majority of the House of Representatives----
Mr. DURBIN. The Republican majority.
Mr. McCAIN. On this issue, which then lends more weight to the
argument, as there was in the case of Valerie Plame and Jack Abramoff,
for the need for a special counsel.
Mr. DURBIN. I do not see the connection. If the Attorney General and
the President said: We are not going to investigate this matter,
Senator McCain, I would be standing right next to the Senator on the
floor calling for a special counsel. But they have said just the
opposite. They have initiated an investigation and brought in two
career criminal prosecutors whom we have trusted to take public
corruption cases in the District of Columbia and leaks of classified
information in other cases. And he said: Now you have the authority.
Conduct the investigation.
They are not ignoring this.
Mr. McCAIN. Those two counsels report to whom? The Attorney General
of the United States.
[[Page S5823]]
Mr. DURBIN. And ultimately report to the people.
Mr. McCAIN. So I would think, just for purposes of credibility with
the American people, that a special counsel would be called for by
almost everyone.
Look, I understand the position of the Senator from Illinois. We have
our colleagues waiting. I appreciate the fact that he is willing to
discuss this issue. I think we have pretty well exhausted it.
[...]
