国会记录：2005年7月14日（参议院）S8248-S8290《国土安全部拨款法》，2006年[...]第1223号修正案弗里斯特先生。总统先生，我现在将修正案发送给办公桌，我要求考虑它。主持人。店员将报告。立法店员所说的如下：来自田纳西州的参议员[先生弗里斯特]提出了编号为1223的修正案。弗里斯特先生。总统先生，我要求一致同意解除对修正案的阅读。主持人。没有异议，它是如此有序。修正案如下：（目的：保护机密信息并保护我们的军人和妇女）在适当的地方插入以下内容：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. [...]