Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. If I might I make one comment, I defamed my friend, the Presiding Officer. I suggested some while ago he was from Ohio. He, in fact, is from Indiana. I have known that all along, and those in the Northern Great Plains see everything out there as east. But my distinguished colleague Senator Lugar, to whom I refer, is from Indiana. I talked about Nunn-Lugar and the wonderful work done. I want to make sure I identify it correctly.

Mr. DORGAN. This amendment that I have offered is a sense-of-the- Senate amendment and it deals with this booklet. It is, as published, December 2002, ``A Joint Inquiry Into the Intelligence Community Activities Before and After The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001,'' a report of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, dated December 2, 2002. It was the first evaluation of intelligence related to the attack against this country on September 11, 2001. On page 395, and I will read a portion of it, it begins a discussion about something that is very sensitive and then it turns to 396 and subsequent pages. As we can see, those pages are blank. There are 28 pages in the middle of this book that are blank. They are blank because they are classified at the moment as top secret. Members of Congress can, under certain conditions, go and read this top secret material. I and a good number of my colleagues have. Previously, I and other colleagues have as well brought to the attention of the Senate the need for this information to be declassified. The amendment that I offer is very simple. It says that the President should declassify the 28-page section of the joint inquiry into the terrorist attacks of September 11 that deals with foreign sources of support for the hijackers involved in the September 11, 2001, attack. The American people have been prevented from seeing this. I will, in a moment, quote from Senator Shelby and Senator Graham, then-chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, both of whom felt that this information should be made available to the American people. But it has never been made available to the American people. Let me read the page prior to the 28 pages that have been redacted. Page 395: Finding: Through its investigation, the Joint Inquiry developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The finding says they developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. The joint inquiry's review confirmed that the intelligence community also has information, much of which has yet to be independently verified, concerning these potential sources of support. Instead, the Joint Inquiry referred a detailed compilation of information it had uncovered in documents and interviews to the FBI and CIA for further investigation by the Intelligence Community and, if appropriate, law enforcement agencies. It talks then at the end of this page about the joint inquiry, which states: It was not the task of this Joint Inquiry to conduct the kind of extensive investigation that would be required to determine the true significance of such alleged support to the hijackers. On the one hand, it is possible that these kinds of connections could suggest, as indicated in a CIA memorandum, ``incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists,'' blank, blank, blank. At that point, it is redacted. This was classified at the White House. These documents went to the White House, then to be published publicly, and prior to publication 28 pages were classified top secret. That is why in the middle of this booklet we see 28 pages with no information. There was a call to declassify it because a substantial amount of information in the press and elsewhere raised questions about this issue. I will read from The Washington Post at this point in time, December 12, 2002: Leaders of the congressional panel ending an investigation of the September 11, 2001, terrorism attacks yesterday accused the administration of refusing to declassify information about possible Saudi Arabian financial links to U.S.-based terrorists because the material would be embarrassing and would heighten political tensions with the desert kingdom. Continuing from The Washington Post: In releasing the panel's final report on the intelligence agencies' performance before the attacks, Sen. Bob Graham (D- Fla.), chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, and Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), the vice chairman, said the information on Saudi Arabia should be made public to inform the public about a continued source of support for anti- American terrorism groups. Doing so also would put more pressure on the U.S. government to force the Saudis to sever their financial links to charities and individuals who support terrorism, they said. In other comments, Senator Shelby said that he believed 90 to 95 percent of this should be made available to the American people and would not compromise any intelligence sources. The President was asked about this issue. He was asked actually in a Rose Garden appearance back at that point before a meeting with King Saud, where the President said he had no qualms at all about rebuffing the request to release this information publicly because he said there is an ongoing investigation into the 9/11 attacks, and we do not want to compromise the investigation. Well, even the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia to the United States called for the release of this information because there was substantial speculation about what it said. I cannot say what it said on the Senate floor because it is top secret. I can read what Senator Shelby has said and what Senator Graham said on the Senate floor. I can show that in this report there are 28 pages which the American people are not allowed to see. I can say that there are published reports--and I have read them into the record now from The Washington Post and others and I will read into the record, if it is necessary, the comments from my two colleagues who were the chairman and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, that references Saudi Arabia. The point is even the Government of Saudi Arabia suggested and said publicly that this material should be declassified and made public. Senator Shelby, the vice chairman of the congressional inquiry at that point, reiterated his view that 90 to 95 percent of the classified pages could be released without jeopardizing national security. My point is this. I have reviewed the top secret material. I am sure many of my colleagues have. They all should. It contains information that the American people have a right to see. Let me again read the lead to the 28 redacted pages. Again, I am reading from the Joint Intelligence Committee Report: Through its investigation, the joint inquiry developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. Every Member of the Senate should read that top secret material. But every American citizen should have access, to understand what it says, because it should not be classified. It is unfair. It is unfair to the American people, and I submit it is unfair to Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabian Government has said it ought to be unclassified. I have on a previous occasion offered this amendment to the Senate. There was an objection, so I offer the same amendment again today. It is now 4 years from the date of that attack. It is now long past the time when investigation is ongoing. The President said he would not declassify this because there is an ongoing investigation into 9/11, and we don't want to compromise it. That investigation by the 9/11 Commission, authorized by the Congress--that investigation is over. So this excuse is no longer an excuse. I submit the American people have a right to know if there were those who provided support to the 9/11 terrorists who were in this country and preparing to launch the attack on 9/11. If there were those foreign governments, foreign interests, or as the report indicated simply, ``foreign sources of support,'' then the American people have a right to know. My amendment is a very simple amendment, painfully simple. Once again, I offer it to say it is the sense of the Senate that this information shall be declassified. We ask the President to declassify this information and see that it is made available to the American people. I was intending to read this. I think I shall not--perhaps just a paragraph or two of it. My colleague, Senator Graham from Florida, who in fact stood at this desk and made this statement, he was then-chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Senator Shelby, who I described as chairman, was chairman at one point, and then Senator Graham as the ranking member, and then it switched and Senator Graham was chairman. During this particular time, Senator Graham, as chairman, and Senator Shelby, as vice chairman, both agreed that the bulk of this ought to be made available to the American people. Let me just quote the statement made on the floor of the Senate by our colleague, Senator Graham, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He is describing this. This report makes a very compelling case, based on the information submitted by the agencies themselves, that there was a foreign government which was complicitous in the actions leading up to September 11, at least as it relates to some of the terrorists who were present in the United States. There are two big questions yet to be answered. Why would this government have provide the level of assistance-- financial, logistical, housing, support service--to some of the terrorists and not to all of the terrorists? We asked that question. There has been no response. My own hypothesis--and I will describe it as that-- I am continuing to quote Senator Graham-- is that in fact similar assistance was being provided to all or at least most of the terrorists. The difference is that we happened, because of a set of circumstances which are contained in these 28 censored pages, to have an unusual window on a few of the terrorists. We did not have a similar window on others. Therefore, it will take more effort to determine if they were, in fact, receiving that assistance. I continue to quote Senator Graham of Florida. An even more serious question is what would lead us to believe that if there was this infrastructure of a foreign government supporting some of the 19 terrorists, that as soon as September 11 concluded, as soon as the last flames were put out at the Pentagon, the World Trade Center and on the field in Pennsylvania, all that infrastructure was immediately taken down? Again, this is my hypothesis: I don't believe it was taken down. I believe that infrastructure is likely to still be in place assisting the next generation of terrorists who are in the United States. Those are very fundamental questions, and if the public had access to these 28 pages, they would be demanding answers. That is a response from the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, not some partisan, with sentiments echoed largely by the vice chairman of the committee, about the top secret classification of those 28 pages. My amendment, once again, simply says I believe the American people have the right to know what is on these pages. These 28 pages are blank. I know what is there. Some of my colleagues know what is there because we are able to see top secret material. The American people don't know what is there, and they should. Having read it, I simply say they ought to have the right to see it as well, and my amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that would ask the President to make available, to declassify this material, so there are no longer questions about what it says.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am not finished. I thought you were asking me to yield for a question.

Mr. DORGAN. I have one additional amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. I indicated to my colleague I would be speaking about 20 minutes, but I have one additional amendment that probably will take about 10 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am curious; my sense is that in years past, we have on occasion had the Defense authorization bill on the Senate floor for some significant length of time. The reason for that is this bill is a very large bill, it has significant policy questions engrained in it, and some are very controversial. I observe, as did my colleague from Nevada, I have great admiration for the Senator from Virginia. He provides real leadership, as does the Senator from Michigan. I do hope we will not have cloture filed on this bill. I am going to debate an amendment that will be offered in the morning. I will offer an amendment around lunchtime tomorrow, a separate amendment. I am sure many of our colleagues have amendments they wish to offer. I hope the opportunity for full debate will be available because this area is so critically important. If I might take another moment, the amendment tomorrow deals with, as I understand it, the earth-penetrating bunker buster nuclear weapon, the amendment I will offer with respect to the development of a Truman- type commission to deal with contracting abuses--waste, fraud, and abuse, massive abuses which I will describe tomorrow. These are important issues. These are not small issues. They are big issues that require and demand significant debate and consideration. I hope we will take the time we need as a Senate to sink our teeth into this bill, to improve on the wonderful work that has been done by the chairman and the ranking member. I hope we can avoid cloture. I do not believe it is necessary. I hope we will work through next week and finish a Defense authorization bill that we can all be proud of, that will strengthen and advance this country's efforts.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator McCain in introducing this historic legislation. This bill is a necessary starting point to begin resolution of the longstanding claims in the Cobell v. Norton litigation, which involves the Federal Government's mismanagement of hundreds of thousands of individual Indian money accounts. The bill was drafted in a bipartisan manner and attempts to address the principles recently developed and set forth by Indian Country. I want to thank the National Congress of American Indians and the InterTribal Monitoring Association for leading the consultative process utilized in developing these principles. Those principles helped guide the drafting of this bill. The current language of the bill, however, is not perfect. Rather, it is intended to be a starting point for substantive and productive dialogue between the parties. Recently, the parties engaged in a 9-month mediation process that failed to result in any type of potential resolution. This litigation is nearly a decade old and has no end in sight. It is my hope that this bill will assist the parties in reaching some type of resolution of this litigation. The individual Indian trust account system was not a voluntary system elected by the individual Indians, but rather one imposed upon them by the federal government more than one hundred years ago. The Federal Government serves as trustee of these accounts and the individual Indians are beneficiaries. Unfortunately, the Cobell litigation has brought to light a very disturbing problem: the Federal Government, as trustee, may not be able to provide an accurate and proper historical accounting of these accounts. Moreover, the Federal Government may not know the proper balances of these accounts nor have sufficient documentation to determine the value of these accounts. Further, government officials have stated that a full transaction-by-transaction accounting, presuming one can be performed, would cost more than $10 billion. This cost would not include any monies determined to be unaccounted for or the interest on those monies. The claims in the Cobell litigation on examples of broken promises and trust responsibilities to the Native Americans of this country, but it is my hope and desire that this bill will help us keep those promises, fulfill our responsibilities to Native Americans, and restore trust and faith in our government. If Congress continues to allow the Cobell litigation to proceed, the individual beneficiaries of these accounts will not be alive to reap the benefits these accounts and the trust resource management system were intended to bestow. It is an honor to serve as Vice Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs alongside chairman McCain. We have publicly pledged that we will make our best effort to resolve this long overdue injustice to the first Americans. The introduction of this bill is the first step toward that goal.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask consent that I be recognized following the debate on the Coburn-Boxer amendment to offer my amendment. I would say I only require 15 minutes for myself on my amendment. My guess is we would want to allocate 15 minutes to perhaps the Presiding Officer or others in the Chamber who would oppose the amendment, but that would be acceptable. I want to get it locked in so I could offer that amendment following the debate on the Coburn-Boxer amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. I make that unanimous consent request.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am yielding on the time of the Senator from Florida. I will be happy to.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, since my colleague from Florida is going to oppose my amendment, I will not give him a lot of satisfaction with my answer except to say this: Sending another airplane closer to Cuba to send signals that the Cubans cannot receive does little for the American taxpayer, in my judgment.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, are we in a quorum call?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am waiting a minute for something to be delivered from the cloakroom. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment. The amendment I offer today is very simple. It is an amendment that will eliminate the $21 million in this appropriations bill for something called Television Marti and will instead use that $21 million to restore funding for the Peace Corps. The Peace Corps has been cut by $25 million. This would restore most of that $25 million. It would restore, in fact, the $21 million that is allocated for Television Marti. Let me talk for a moment about Television Marti. It is for the purpose of broadcasting signals into the island of Cuba, apparently to tell the Cubans the truth, to tell them Castro is an awful person. I would agree with that, that they ought to live free. We ought to find a way to move Cuba toward freedom. We have Radio Marti that sends radio signals into Cuba. I have been to Cuba. The Cuban people told me they receive the radio signals. Of course, they can also receive the signals of the Miami radio stations, but Radio Marti is something that is valuable, is important, we should fund and will fund. I support it. Television Marti, on the other hand, is a tragic, complete waste of money. We have now spent a substantial amount of money, $189 million, sending television broadcast into Cuba that the Cuban people cannot see. Let me tell you how we do that. This is a picture of Fat Albert. Fat Albert is an aerostat balloon. We have this balloon go way up into the air and then, on a big tether, it broadcasts television signals into Cuba. Castro, through his technology, blocks the signals so the Cuban people cannot see them. So we have $189 million we have spent to send broadcast signals to Cuba that the Cuban people cannot receive. We will hear people say today: That is not true, the Cuban people are receiving it. I am sorry, they are not. They just are not. There is no evidence they are receiving it, except very sporadically and in only a few spots in Cuba. In fact, there have been some surveys that used to be taken and they have discontinued them because they could not find anyone who saw Television Marti and it was kind of embarrassing. On June 6, 2002, Brian Conniff, the acting director of the International Broadcasting Bureau, testified before the House subcommittee and said this. He is speaking of TV Marti: Transmission to Cuba has been consistently jammed by the Cuban Government. Let me say that again. This is not me. This is the person in the administration who is the acting director of the International Broadcasting Bureau. He said: Transmission of these signals to Cuba has been consistently jammed by the Cuban Government. So we spend $189 million to send television signals that they cannot see in Cuba. Maybe it makes people feel better to waste that money. It does not make me feel any better. There is $21 million proposed in this appropriations bill. I say better use that to restore the funding for the Peace Corps where we need the money. This Fat Albert aerostat balloon was up on a tether broadcasting signals no one could see. Fat Albert actually got loose once. They tracked it down. It flew over by the Everglades. They had to grapple up and find the hooks to get ahold of Fat Albert. In all, $189 million of the taxpayers' money has been spent to send television signals into Cuba that the people cannot see. That was not enough, however. The President announced he was going to get tough with Cuba recently so he restricted the right of people to travel in Cuba. I am talking about United States visitors to Cuba, including, by the way, Sergeant Lazo, who earned the Bronze Star Medal for bravery in Iraq. He came back to this country and had a sick child in Cuba and was denied the freedom by this Government to visit his sick child. We had a vote on that issue on the floor of this Senate. Sixty Senators voted to let him see his child. We needed 63 votes. So this Senate decided to deny a soldier who won the Bronze Star Medal in Iraq the freedom to see his sick child in Cuba. That is another debate for another time, but it shows the obsession of this policy with Fidel Castro. Castro has lived through 10 Presidents. This embargo doesn't work. We understand it. This is a big, fat batch of politics dealing with particularly Florida, also New Jersey, and a couple of other spots in the country. The President announced he is going to get tough. On October 10, 2003, in the Rose Garden, he said: We are going to get tough with Cuba. He says now instead of just Fat Albert, we are going to use Commando Solo C-130s. There are only a few of these planes. These are some real technology-laden airplanes that have been developed to use in combat areas for communications, specific communication areas. And so they fly this airplane. I didn't mention, by the way, that the broadcast signals from old Fat Albert into Cuba occurred from 3:30 in the morning until 8:30 in the morning. Under the best of circumstances--let's assume nobody is jamming signals--one would wonder what kind of audience exists at 3:30 in the morning in Cuba. Notwithstanding that, they come up with this airplane. They expropriate this airplane from the National Guard, one of a few airplanes called Commando Solo. The C-130, with very special equipment, is now flying 4\1/2\ hours a week--let me say that again, 4\1/2\ hours a week--broadcasting signals into Cuba--signals, by the way, which are still jammed. They say this jamming has now been overcome by this Commando Solo, this new airplane. Let me quote Chris Courson, former chairman of the President's Board Of Advisers on Broadcasting to Cuba. He was appointed to that position by the first President Bush. Until 6 years ago, TV Marti used to conduct exit interviews with Cubans coming to the United States on rafts and to determine whether Cubans, in fact, watch TV Marti. From the interviews, it was clear TV Marti was seen by virtually no one in Cuba. And finally, they stopped doing interviews altogether, and they have no idea whether anybody from Cuba is watching these programs. In fact, these programs are being jammed. We are going to hear, I am sure, today somehow somebody in Cuba is picking up the television signal. There is no credible evidence of that, except at most for a few sporadic reports from isolated spots in the Cuban hinterlands. This is a terrible waste of the taxpayers' money. First with a big, old balloon, an aerostat balloon called Fat Albert, and second with Commando Solo. And now to top it off--failure is not anything that slows anybody down around here or at the White House--to top it all off, they want to buy a new airplane. They took one from the National Guard, Commando Solo, a handful of special airplanes, but that wasn't enough. Now they want to buy an entirely new airplane. They get $21 million this year. Better it should be used, in my judgment, for the Peace Corps. I have often wondered whether everything has a constituency in this Congress. It is quite clear, to me at least, that waste has a constituency. Waste has a relentless constituency. This is not the first time we have tried to shut this funding down. I think my colleague Dale Bumpers and I some years ago were trying to shut this down. But this keeps moving along. Waste has an enormous constituency here. Keep doing it. It doesn't matter if they can't see it; if it doesn't work, it doesn't matter what the facts are, keep doing it. It is as if the taxpayers have pockets with no bottoms. Have them ante up for a big balloon, ante up for an airplane, and send signals nobody can see. People in Cuba are jumping on rafts to come here. They deserve to be able to have a new government. They deserve freedom and democracy. Radio Marti gives them the hope of that; it gives them some information. So, too, does Cuban radio off the radio stations in Miami or the regular radio stations in Miami which they can pick up. But Television Marti? If they can't get the signal, do we keep sending it? Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DORGAN. I send this amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Wyden.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Kentucky how we allocate the time. I know we have two Senators who want to speak in opposition.

Mr. DORGAN. How much time remains?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me just say that the case with respect to this country's dealing with Cuba is a case study in failure. I will not debate that at the moment, but it is absolutely absurd. We plead that the way to move China and Vietnam in a more constructive direction, both Communist counties, is through trade and travel and engagement. We take exactly the opposite position with respect to Cuba. This policy is the best friend Fidel Castro ever had, and that is why he is still in office. Aside from all of that, this amendment does not deal with the whole Cuba trade policy. It deals with the issue of Fat Albert, and, yes, the new airplane they want to buy. They say they are going to get a new little airplane, fly it off the coast of Florida, and we will get some television signals into Cuba. The fact is, they have already wasted $189 million. Apparently, now after 10 years, or however many years it is, there is a new approach. I don't believe it will work. Let me read something from the Chicago Tribune Foreign Correspondent, October 2004. He went right to the heart of this. Do the Cubans see these signals with Commando Solo or Fat Albert, the balloon? He says: In interviews on the island, speaking of Cuba, it is difficult to find anyone who says they have ever seen TV Marti, although one Havana resident said she picked up some of the audio portion of a Saturday evening broadcast. That viewer said: There was no picture but I could hear it and the static was very loud. One person hearing a voice without a picture on a television station. My colleague from Florida, Senator Martinez, said at the start of his presentation that Fidel Castro jams these signals. Yes, he does. That is exactly my point. I am willing to do all kinds of things to send additional information to Cuba, to give them additional information, but I am not willing to sit by and say: Let's keep wasting money. If we send big fat balloons up in the air or send Commander Solo or buy a two-engine plane and run it off the coast of Florida and believe we are doing something, all we are doing is wasting the American taxpayers' money. Maybe I am confused. Maybe I am just hopelessly confused and misguided. I thought when you spend money that is not yours--and the money here is the taxpayers' money--I thought you should spend it wisely. When you find somebody wasting it, you stop it. Maybe I am confused about that. I thought surely if all the evidence--I am talking about the evidence of the people who ran this thing, TV Marti--if all the evidence is you are sending television signals that no one can receive and spending $189 million doing it, maybe at some point you would stop and say this doesn't make any sense. This doesn't pass any litmus test. What I suggest is this: $21 million, once again, $21 million more to send a television signal that no one can see. That $21 million is better spent by sending it to the Peace Corps, which is underfunded by $25 million. The Peace Corps is something of which I am enormously proud. It gives me great pride, these people moving around the world representing our country in the Peace Corps in all corners of the world. Underfunding $25 million to the Peace Corps and sticking $21 million into this? Maybe next time it will not be Commander Solo or an aerostat balloon, or maybe they will train an eagle with some sort of transmitter. Who knows? No matter what it is, no matter what the waste is, no matter they spend millions and millions--now $180 million--no matter, there will be people here representing that waste. Vote for this amendment. Move this money to the Peace Corps where it will be used for the good of this country. Have the yeas and nays been requested on my amendment?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.