Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012--Motion to Proceed--Continued
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the majority leader if he is aware of the statement we had on the floor of the Senate by Senator Whitehouse, who has been one of the leaders in putting together the cyber security bill relative to an incident at the Chamber of Commerce? I would like to read it, if I may, very briefly. And I quote Senator Whitehouse from page S5720 of the July 31 Congressional Record:
Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been the completely unwitting victim of a long-term and extensive cyber intrusion. Just last year the Wall Street Journal reported that a group of hackers in China breached the computer defenses of the U.S. Chamber, gained access to everything stored in its systems, including information about 3 million members, and they remained on the U.S. Chamber's network for at least 6 months and possibly more than a year. The Chamber only learned of the break-in when the FBI told the group that servers in China were stealing their information.
Even after the Chamber was notified and increased its cyber security, the article stated that the Chamber continued to experience suspicious activity, including a ``thermostat at a townhouse the Chamber owns on Capitol Hill ..... [that communicated] with an Internet address in China ..... and ..... a printer used by the Chamber executives spontaneously ..... printing pages with Chinese characters.
As Senator Whitehouse has said:
These are the people we are supposed to listen to about cyber security.
Can I ask the Senator from Nevada if he was aware that the chamber opposition to the cyber security bill certainly belies the fact that they have been hacked by the Chinese themselves, and they didn't even know it until the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported it?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
Mr. DURBIN. May I turn to one other issue the Senator raised, if he has a moment?
Mr. McCAIN. Sure.
Mr. DURBIN. The pending bill, cyber security--this is a bill which I hope we both agree addresses an issue of great seriousness and gravity in terms of America's defense. I know the Senator from Arizona and some of his colleagues have produced an alternative. I support the bipartisan bill that Senators Lieberman and Collins have brought to the floor.
The major group who opposes the passage of the cyber security bill is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an organization that represents the largest businesses in America, and what I have heard the Senator from Arizona say over and over is that they have to be an important part of this conversation and this discussion. I think Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins would say: We have engaged them. We have listened to them. We have made changes consistent with what they were looking for. But clearly they have not reached the point where they are satisfied.
I learned yesterday, when Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island came to the floor, that, in fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce really turns out to be pretty expert on this issue of cyber security. And I call the attention of the Senator from Arizona, if he is not aware of it, to a Wall Street Journal article of December 21, 2011. This Wall Street Journal article is entitled ``China Hackers Hit U.S. Chamber,'' and it starts by saying:
A group of hackers in China breached the computer defenses of America's top business lobbying group and gained access to everything stored on its systems, including information about its three million members, according to several people familiar with the matter. The complex operation involved at least 300 Internet addresses. ..... Four chamber employees who worked on Asian policy had six weeks of their emails stolen.
The article goes on to say that the Chamber of Commerce did not notice this breach that went on for 6 months. The Federal Bureau of Investigation brought it to their attention. And then they learned that the Chinese had not only hacked into the computer mainframe, they had somehow hacked into the computer-driven thermostats in their office, and at times in the office of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, their copy machines and fax machines were spitting out pages with Chinese characters on them. They were completely compromised by this cyber attack. Now they come us to as experts on how to avoid a cyber attack.
I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article be printed at this point in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. I am sure that wasn't the case. I am sure it was a fascinating treasure trove of great insights and information.
But let me just say to my friend from Arizona, I am asking only for a little humility on both sides, both in the public sector and the private sector, by first acknowledging, as our security advisers tell us, that this is one of the most serious threats to our country and its future, and we should be joining with some humility, particularly if you have been victimized, whether in your campaign or in your offices, to understand how far this has gone. The FBI, according to Senator Whitehouse when he came to the floor, found 50 different American businesses that had been compromised and hacked into by the same type of operation. Forty-eight were totally unaware of it. They did not even know it occurred. What we are trying to do is to get these businesses to cooperate with us so that we share information and keep one another safe.
At the end of the day, it is not just about the safety of the businesses--and I think it is important that they be safe--but the safety of the American people. This is really a serious issue.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. I say to my friend from Arizona, I hope we get this done this week. I know it is a big lift, and it is a lot to do. But I believe the threat is imminent, and I believe it is continuous. If we don't find a way through our political differences to make this country safer, shame on us.
I believe Senator Collins is from the Senator's side of the aisle and is proud of that fact. So it is a bipartisan effort. She worked with----
Mr. McCAIN. It depends upon your definition of ``bipartisan.''
Mr. DURBIN. Well, it is clearly bipartisan with Senators Lieberman and Collins. I also say that to raise the question of Dodd-Frank and appropriate government oversight and regulation--I suggest that we reflect on three things: LIBOR, Peregrine Investments, and the Chase loss of $6 billion.
To say that we should not have government oversight of our financial institutions that dragged us into this recession we are still trying to recover from--I see it differently. We vote differently when it comes to that. I think there is a continuing need for government oversight of these financial institutions.
Mr. McCAIN. These institutions are not averse to government oversight. They are averse to legislation that harms their ability to share that information because if they face the threat of being taken into court for that, then obviously there is some reluctance. They also know how much has been lost because of the lack of cyber security to China and other countries. They are the ones who have been most directly affected. They are intelligent people, smart people, and they want this legislation to pass in a way that is the most effective way to enact legislation on this very serious issue.
I look forward to continuing the conversation with my friend from Illinois. I think both of us learn a bit from our conversations, and I thank him for his continued willingness to discuss the issue.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank my friend, the Senator from Arizona. I hope other colleagues will engage in this kind of exchange. I don't know if we convinced one another, but we certainly leave with the same level of respect with which we started. I hope those who have followed the debate have heard a little more about both sides of the issue in the process.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source