District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2004-Resumed

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004—RESUMED

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Schumer for his leadership on this issue.

This is not a new issue. This article was written by columnist Robert Novak back in July. It is interesting at the end of September and the beginning of October that it finally surfaces and is receiving the attention it deserves.
What Senator Schumer is asking is for the Senate to go on record in calling on the Bush administration to appoint a special prosecutor, someone who will be independent enough to ask the hard questions and try to find out who was the source of this very serious security leak.

Keep in mind what happened here. A decision was made by someone in the administration—perhaps in the White House—to disclose the identity of a woman working for one of our intelligence agencies. In and of itself, it doesn't sound like much to an outsider. But for many of the people working for those intelligence agencies in a covert status, the fact that their identity is not known is an important part of their job and an important part of their survival. As a result, the disclosure of the identity of such a person is a Federal felony, the most serious crime you can commit. We believe it undermines our intelligence-gathering capability and can literally endanger the lives of innocent, hard-working, patriotic Americans to knowingly disclose their identity. In this case, a decision was made within the Bush administration to disclose the identity of this woman and jeopardize her future, her career, and maybe even her life. That is as serious as it gets in this business.

We can remember back in the Nixon administration the enemies list that was generated—people the Nixon administration decided did not share their views on foreign policy or domestic policy. They made a long list of columnists and individuals across America who were their enemies. They looked for ways to hurt them.

In this situation, we have the equivalent of an enemies list in the Bush administration—a decision by someone at the highest level of the administration to declare that Ambassador Joe Wilson and his wife were enemies and at any cost they had to be silenced; they had to be stopped. What was the administration trying to silence? They were trying to silence the fact that they sent Ambassador Joe Wilson, a former Ambassador in the Clinton administration, on a special detailed assignment to determine whether some of the statements the administration had made about the dangers of Iraq were true, particularly the statement which was made in the President's State of the Union Address that there had been fissile material that could be used to make nuclear weapons sent from the tiny African nation of Niger to Iraq.

Of course, the reason that was important was because it was the first issue raised by the Bush administration as to why we had to invade Iraq. If they had nuclear weapons and the capacity to build them in short order, they would be a threat not only to the region and to the world, and so we had to stop Saddam Hussein in his tracks.

Evidence of the movement of this enriched uranium or fissile material from Africa to Iraq was critical. The President of the United States thought it was so important that he made reference to it in his State of the Union Address to the American people.

When Ambassador Joe Wilson was sent to Africa and began investigating, he returned and reported to the Bush administration they were wrong. In his estimation, there was no evidence that this ever took place. In fact, as I stand here today, President Bush has apologized to the American people for including this statement in his State of the Union Address, and there is literally no evidence that this took place.

Ambassador Wilson did his job, took his assignment for the Bush administration, did it honorably, and came back and reported to them what he found. But there were some people in this administration who didn't like his report. They didn't want to know the facts. They had already created a scenario of nuclear weapons, and Joe Wilson's report wasn't consistent with it. They went forward and allowed this unproven theory to fester and grow as they started talking about the danger of Iraq to the world.

Finally, Ambassador Joe Wilson, in desperation, published an article in a leading newspaper and said, I have to tell the truth. I went to Africa on an assignment from the Bush administration. What I found was inconsistent with what they said to the American people.

This was an amazing development—an amazing disclosure. But I met with Ambassador Wilson, and he felt he had no other choice. His integrity was on the line. He decided to tell the truth to the American people. But because he did and because that truth brought embarrassment to this administration, they struck back. But they didn't strike at Ambassador Joe Wilson. They went after his wife, a professional intelligence agent working in a covert capacity. That is what this is all about.

Who was behind this? I don't know. I do not know if it reaches to the White House. I can't say. Mr. Novak has only said "administration sources." But what Senator Schumer brings to the floor today to really confront is the fact that we cannot honestly expect Attorney General John Ashcroft to really treat this case in the manner it deserves to be treated for the good of our intelligence gathering, for the integrity of the people who work at those agencies and, frankly, for justice to be served.

Last year when I served on the Senate Intelligence Committee and there was a disclosure of some classified information,
Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld were adamant and vocal that the leaking of classified information, particularly in the runup to the war in Iraq, was absolutely intolerable and unacceptable. No one questions that premise. I certainly don't, as a member of the Intelligence Committee. When this piece of information was leaked, they turned on the Intelligence Committee and said we want to know which Senator—assuming it was a Senator, and it could have been staff or someone else, for that matter—which Senator leaked the information.

Do you know what they did next? They sent an FBI agent to my office and to the office of every Senator on the Intelligence Committee—this Ashcroft Department of Justice and the Bush administration. They asked me if I would submit to a polygraph—a lie detector—to determine whether I was the one who leaked the information. I didn't leak the information. But I also feel, as most people do across America, that those polygraphs are notoriously inaccurate. Most States don't even recognize them in their courts. I have never counseled a client in my legal practice to take one. I just do not think they can be trusted.

I said no, I am not going to submit to a polygraph. The next thing you know is that in the course of my reelection campaign it was disclosed to the public that I had turned down the request of the FBI agent for a polygraph test. I explained it as best
I could to the people of Illinois. They obviously accepted it, and gave me a chance to serve again in the Senate.

But isn't it interesting that this Bush administration and their Department of Justice, which obviously believes so passionately in polygraph tests, now is in a predicament where if they are going to investigate this leak, if they are going to try to find out which person in the administration is responsible for calling Robert Novak and disclosing this, they are frankly going to be in a position where they have to ask for polygraph tests.

You have to ask the obvious question. Is Attorney General John Ashcroft willing to ask Karl Rove to submit to a polygraph and tell the people whether he says yes or no? You could go through the list of potential people from the administration who need to be asked. I think the answer is obvious. They are not going to do that. Attorney General Ashcroft is not likely to ever do that.

What Senator Schumer and myself and others are saying is now is the time to acknowledge the obvious. This administration is not up to the task of dealing with such a disclosure so sensitive and so important at the highest level of Government. It is time to give this responsibility to a special prosecutor, someone outside the administration, with no conflict of interest.

I will tell you, I did not think the day would come, or come soon, when I would come to the Senate floor and call for a special prosecutor. The gross abuse of independent prosecutors during the Clinton era really, I guess, satisfied me once and for all that you have to be extremely careful to put that much power in one individual. But I do not know any other way out here.

I cannot imagine that leaving this in the hands of Attorney General Ashcroft and the Department of Justice is really going to give us a satisfactory conclusion to these critical and important questions: Who was it who decided to put Ambassador
Wilson's wife on this hit list, on this enemies list? Who was it who was willing to risk prosecution of a Federal felony to embarrass her and compromise her as an analyst or an agent for America? Who was the person who decided that all bets were off and no holds were barred when it came to going after critics of the administration?

Those are hard, tough questions, questions this President would not want to face, no President would want to face, and certainly questions not likely asked or answered if it is going to be done within the administration.

So I certainly support my colleague from New York. I join with others who believe the appointment of a special prosecutor is the only way to serve the needs of justice and to do it in a way where there is a credible outcome.

LOST JOBS AND THE ECONOMY

Mr. President, I would like to ask, if I may, to step aside from this particular issue for a moment and note the fact that the President of the United States visited Chicago, IL, today. We were happy to see the President, whatever the circumstances.
In this case, he came to raise money. Over $3 million was raised in Chicago for his campaign. But I might also note that over 3 million jobs have been lost in America under his administration. Both of these are historic records for President George W. Bush.

The real question that presents itself is this: Can all the money raised in Chicago and other places to buy media make America forget all those lost jobs? Can $3 million raised today in Chicago make America forget the 3 million lost jobs under the Bush administration? More jobs have been lost by this President than any other President since the Great Depression—70 years ago. It is the worst record of job creation under any President in modern history.

In Illinois, we know this too well. Working people in Illinois are not going to forget we have lost 200,000-plus jobs since President Bush was sworn in. And I just met with a group of small businesses, small manufacturers. They are not going to forget we have lost over 123,000 manufacturing jobs in my State of Illinois alone since President Bush took office.

Our taxpayers in my State are not going to forget that President Bush's unfunded school mandates in No Child Left Behind are going to cost our school districts millions of dollars at a time when they literally cannot afford it because of our State's financial crisis.

Also, I do not think there will be a family in America who will forget the costly and dangerous occupation of Iraq, which President Bush has obligated American families and taxpayers to bear. I do not think there is enough spin in Washington or enough dollars in the President's campaign coffers to cover up these realities.

So, Mr. President, thank you for visiting Chicago. I am sure you had a great day. But I think the total story is going to be considered by the voters in Illinois before the next election. And when they look at the economic record of this administration, they are going to realize we have squandered a great opportunity. The economic expansion of the 8 years before President Bush came to office has not been equaled or rivaled, and it is not likely to be in the future, as long as we have a President who is passing out tax cuts to wealthy people and generating the largest deficits in the history of the United States, causing us to cut back in education spending and health care spending, causing us to compromise the Social Security trust fund as the baby boomers come on line to receive their checks.

These are the realities that American families understand. And when this President——

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I was wondering if the Senator would yield for a question.

Mr. DURBIN. I would be more than glad to when I have finished. On your time, I would be happy to answer a question.

THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL

Mr. President, the other point I would like to make, before we return to the issue at hand, is this: People say, What has happened? It seems as if there is more criticism of the Bush administration in the last few weeks. And I think that is true. I think once the President went on national TV and announced that $87 billion pricetag for our continued presence and occupation of Iraq, the American people were awakened to reality. This $87 billion pricetag is a bone in the throat of America's taxpayers and families. They understand that we are not cutting spending or raising taxes to come up with that money; we are, in fact, adding to the deficit—the biggest deficit in our history—and we are taking it out of the Social Security trust fund.

I, for one—and I am sure I speak for every Senator—will not compromise when it comes to our military. We will give them every single dollar they need to be successful and come home safely.

When it comes to spending billions of dollars in Iraq to do things which we obviously cannot do, according to the President of the United States, hard questions will be asked, and the hardest question is going to be posed by my colleague from the State of North Dakota, Senator BYRON DORGAN. I think he has really touched a nerve because he has reminded this administration that time and again they told us this day would never come, that Iraq was so bountiful in its oil reserves that it could finance its own reconstruction. Those are statements made by Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz; the list goes on and on.

Now they come to us and say they need $20 billion that is going to rebuild Iraq. Well, the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, raised the question earlier. It is clear that the money to rebuild Iraq is going to be borrowed. The question is, From whom will it be borrowed? From the American people or the Iraqi people?

I agree with Senator Dorgan. Let's take this bountiful oil supply that they have in Iraq and use that as security, as collateral for what they need to rebuild their country. We can help them. I am sure we will. But, honestly, shouldn't the Iraqi people and their future oil revenues be on the line before our Social Security trust fund and our investments in education and health care? It is fairly obvious to me and to many of the people I represent.

Let me conclude and say again to Senator Schumer, thank you for your leadership on calling for this special prosecutor. It is my belief that a special prosecutor at this point is the only way to make sure that justice is served. If we have in any way seen a compromise of intelligence gathering in the United States, it could not have come at a worse time.

If we are going to successfully fight the war on terrorism, we have to stand behind the men and women at those intelligence agencies. We have to support them. And in my oversight capacity with the Intelligence Committee, from time to time I am sure I will be critical of some of the things they will do, but we should never, ever compromise their identity or professional integrity or ability to do their job.

Whoever decided to leak the identity of Ambassador Wilson's wife to Robert Novak, who writes a regular column, decided that the political price they had to pay was worth it. They were going to make that family pay a price that few others would be asked to pay because they were so bold as to criticize this administration's policy in Iraq. We have to get to the bottom of it. And I do not think Attorney General John Ashcroft's Department of Justice is up to that job.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois said he would respond to a question on my time. And I will ask him a question and yield him 30 seconds to respond. It should not even take that long. But since the Senator from Illinois wandered during his presentation on to ground other than the actual amendment before us, specifically the issue of education, I was wondering when the Senator from Illinois intends to offer his motion to deny the children of Washington the opportunity to get a fair and reasonable education—something that is supported by the Mayor of this city, something that is supported by the president of the school council in the city, something that is supported by 7,500 children who are on a waiting list to get a decent education.

When does the Senator from Illinois intend to offer his motion to strike the capacity of those children to get a decent education?

I yield to the Senator, oh, 10 seconds to answer that question.

Mr. DURBIN. It will take 30 seconds.

Mr. GREGG. I will yield the Senator 30 seconds.

Mr. DURBIN. I would ask the Senator to clarify. Is he speaking about the proposal to divert public funds to private schools, a proposal that has been rejected by an overwhelming majority of people in the District of Columbia, the school board, and the city council, the proposal that would send the money to schools without standards that the teachers in these private schools even have college degrees? Is that the proposal about which the Senator is asking?

Mr. GREGG. I am simply asking if the Senator ever intends to offer his motion to strike.

Mr. DURBIN. The answer is yes, I do intend to offer it.

Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator intend to offer it today?

Mr. DURBIN. Not today, but I intend to offer it.

Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator intend to offer it tomorrow?

Mr. DURBIN. It could be tomorrow.

Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the Senator's candor.