Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have taken the last several days on a daily basis to come to the Senate floor to talk about the treacherous and damaging leak of the identity of a covert CIA operative by the name of Valerie Plame, leaked to a columnist by the name of Robert Novak, reportedly by high-ranking White House officials. I spoke a number of times last year when the events occurred. I spoke about it before a special prosecutor was assigned to investigate. After that special prosecutor was assigned, I did not say much more because I believed things would take their course, the special prosecutor would do his job, and we would get to the bottom of this. July 14 marked 1 year, and this being July 16, it is now 1 year and 2 days since we first learned of the exposing or the outing of Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative. That was the date 1 year ago when this columnist, Robert Novak, publicly exposed Ms. Plame. This was done in an act of political retribution because her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, published a column in the New York Times that questioned one of the key administration justifications for the war in Iraq; namely, that Iraq sought to buy yellow cake uranium ore from Niger. Sadly, Republicans are still at it. They are fixated on Mr. Wilson. They are intent upon destroying his credibility. In columns and editorials and floor statements, the smear campaign continues. Their reason is they want to deflect and distract from the fact someone in the White House--high ranking--appears to have committed a crime, a treacherous crime. I am not here to defend or criticize Joe Wilson. I have tried to follow the debate over his findings and statements and all that. Obviously, we are all concerned about finding out the facts about whether Saddam Hussein's government did try to obtain yellow cake uranium ore from Africa, the country of Niger, in the 1990s. That is a question of importance. But none of that has anything to do with the way we judge an illegal White House action that was used to undermine and endanger human intelligence resources, and was done only to disparage Mr. Wilson. Here is the statute, and it is clear, 50 U.S.C., section 421. It says: Any person who has access to classified information that identifies a covert agent and intentionally discloses that information to an unauthorized person, knowing that the Government is seeking to keep the agent's identity concealed, shall be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. Robert Novak said it in his column. He said it was high-ranking White House officials who gave him the information. We know that one or two high-ranking White House officials called, I think, up to six reporters to give them that information. Interestingly enough, it was only Mr. Novak who published this in a column. Mr. Novak has been around this town a long time. He also had to know this was a violation of law to come out with the name of a covert CIA agent. Yet Mr. Novak put that name in his column. Shame on Mr. Novak. I am not certain that it is totally unclear as to whether he could also be prosecuted under the same provisions of law, 50 U.S.C., section 421. He also identified a covert agent. Now, under the law, there is no exception for cases where a spouse of the agent has questioned administration policy. It doesn't say in the law that a person could be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, unless the spouse of the agent questioned the administration policy. It doesn't say that in the law. I understand the ongoing investigation by prosecutor Fitzgerald has been somewhat thorough. However, I have repeatedly criticized the President and Vice President for refusing to settle the matter quickly, which they could have done a year ago. Again, I am calling for the special prosecutor to put the President and the Vice President under oath--put them under oath and film it. This is what they did to President Clinton. The special prosecutor put him under oath and filmed it. We sat here in the Senate and watched it. That had to do with actually something, I guess, that wasn't even a crime. It may have been immoral, but it wasn't a crime--certain indiscretions committed by the President in the White House. What are we talking about here? We are talking about the exposure of the identity of a covert CIA agent, destroying her credibility, putting at risk all of her contacts and people she had worked with around the world. And, as we have learned from other retired CIA agents, this also puts a cloud over all other covert CIA operatives who may think that sometime in the future they too could be outed. What about all of their contacts who may think that, well, gee, I know someone who was giving information to Ms. Plame. Now, they may know that person was giving information, and I may have another contact. Well, I guess I better not get involved in that because they may out my source or my contact, also. I cannot emphasize enough the seriousness of this crime. Yet the President treated it rather cavalierly when he was asked about it. He said: You know, there are leaks all over the White House. It is a big administration. We may never find out who did it. And he smiled, as if this was not a big deal. It is a very big deal. Someone in the White House--to this Senator's thinking--committed treason. The number of people in the White House with access to this kind of information can be counted on one hand--OK, maybe two hands. Maybe there are 10 people. But what the President should have done was call them into his office, have them sign a piece of paper that they did not do this, put them under oath. The President could have solved this in 24 hours. Yet he sort of dismissed it out of hand, as though it was not a big deal. Well, that is why I think the President and the Vice President must be put under oath and asked about this. Perhaps they do know. Perhaps the President does know who leaked this information and is just covering it up. Perhaps the Vice President also knows and he is just covering it up. You have to look at what happened and how this whole thing progressed, and why the administration obviously is trying to deflect this onto Mr. Wilson and others, because the chronology of events shows that the administration clearly knew these claims were not real. So you have to look at the chronology. Let me summarize it and then I will go through it. Even after CIA Director Tenet told the White House not to use this information in a speech, and even after the State Department later came out and said that some of these documents were forgeries, even after the same individual who had talked to Director Tenet in October and had taken the words out of the speech--that same individual put those words back in the President's State of the Union Message 3 months later. Curious, very curious. By the fall of 2002--let me put it more succinctly. In October of 2002, the White House sought to include the claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa in a policy speech by the President in Cincinnati. What did the CIA do? Here is the chronology. In February 2002, Joseph Wilson travels to Niger to find out whether Iraq had attempted to buy uranium ore. On October 5, 2002, after the President indicated he was going to give a speech in Cincinnati and these claims were in the speech, the CIA sends a memo to the National Security Council concerned about these uranium claims in the Cincinnati speech. That is October 5. They must have clearly felt they were not being taken seriously, because the following day a second memo was sent that urged that the information be deleted because the evidence was weak and the CIA had told Congress that ``the Africa story was overblown, and this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British.'' They must have been still pretty seriously concerned because CIA Director Tenet personally calls Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. He personally called him. Get this, they send a memo on the 5th, they send a memo on the 6th, and the Director himself calls on the 6th. So obviously they were very concerned about it. Guess what. Mr. Stephen Hadley--keep that name in mind--Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley takes the claims out of the speech the President gives in Cincinnati. Then on October 16, the State Department gets copies of uranium purchase documents and forwards them to the CIA. I am told this came from the Italians. I don't know if that is right or not, but that is what I was told. This is what they claim were forgeries. This is what our State Department analyst tells the CIA later on, that the documents are likely forgeries. On January 13, 2 weeks before the State of the Union, a State Department analyst sent an e-mail to the CIA about the documents, outlining his reasons why the uranium purchase agreement is probably a hoax. This is a State Department analyst who sends an e-mail to the CIA saying these are probably a hoax, forgeries. So between the Cincinnati speech in October and the State of the Union speech in January, there is even more reason to doubt the credibility of these uranium purchase claims. Nonetheless, these mysterious 16 words--``The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa''--were left in the State of the Union speech. Here is where we come full circle. Who is the individual responsible for vetting national security issues before the State of the Union speech? Mr. Stephen Hadley oversees the State of the Union speech. Mr. Hadley was vetting national security concerns. Let's loop back. It was Mr. Hadley who talked to Director Tenet in October and who got these memos saying these claims were not real. Stephen Hadley in October took them out of the Cincinnati speech. Mr. Hadley in January leaves them in the State of the Union speech. It is the same individual. He could not have forgotten this. He had to have known this. Why, I ask, was this left in the State of the Union Message? Was it left in to help the President make his case for an invasion of Iraq? After being told it was dubious by the CIA Director himself, after the State Department said these were probably forgeries, the issue is, Why the White House still has not been held accountable for breaking the law and betraying the intelligence community by exposing Valerie Plame, all done in an attempt to discredit her husband Joseph Wilson and his criticism of the uranium claim. The President says he did not know anything about it. Ken Lay of Enron last week claimed he did not know anything about what was going on in his company, either. He is the CEO, and what is his defense? ``I didn't know it was going on.'' Either the CEO of a corporation knows what is going on and he is not being truthful or he did not know anything about it. Either way, it is inexcusable. If the President of the United States says he did not know anything about it, that is inexcusable. If the President did know about it and left that claim in his State of the Union Message, that is inexcusable. Either way, the buck stops on President Bush's desk. It is time to quit passing the buck. It is time for the American people to learn who committed these crimes and to have these people prosecuted. What is going to happen in the future if this is swept under the rug? Does that mean some other administration, the next one, whatever it may be, Democratic or Republican, that a President or his people under him in the White House can break the law and not be held accountable? Again, I take you back several years to when President Clinton was put under oath and filmed. We watched it right here on the Senate floor during the impeachment proceedings. Regardless of how one may have felt about that, it sent a very powerful message to the American people: No President is above the law; no President is above the law, neither Mr. Clinton nor Mr. Bush. So I ask, Why hasn't President Bush, why hasn't Vice President Cheney been put under oath and asked these questions under oath? Again we will let the American people know that no President is above the law and no one who works for a President is above the law. This is serious business. I see that in a column by Mr. Novak of July 15--Mr. Novak's whole column is about Joe Wilson--he said: It's as though the Niger question and Joe Wilson have vanished from the Earth. No, they have not, Mr. Novak; no, they have not. But Mr. Novak is all on whether Mr. Wilson was telling the truth, whether he was misinterpreted, whether his wife recommended that he be sent to Niger. Nowhere is it claimed Ms. Plame was in a position of authority to actually send him to Niger, but Mr. Novak goes on about how a State Department analyst told the committee about an interagency meeting in 2002 by Wilson's wife who had recommended that he go there because he had contacts there. What does all this mean? It means what Mr. Novak is trying to do is to take the focus off of a clear violation of the law by individuals in the White House in exposing a covert agent's identity; take it off that and focus it on all this stuff about whether she recommended her husband, or whether her husband gave an honest analysis. I am sorry, Mr. Novak, that is not the issue. The issue is, someone in the White House broke the law, clearly, unequivocally. The point is, the President of the United States has expressed not one iota of outrage. The point is, the President and the Vice President, neither one, have sought to get to the bottom of this. Neither the President nor the Vice President have been put under oath to be questioned about this. The point is, Mr. Novak, a year and 2 days have passed, and this lawbreaking activity in the White House has not been dealt with. No one is saying Ms. Plame broke any law, violated any ethics. No one is claiming Mr. Wilson broke any law or violated any ethics. You can say they may have made a mistake, he may have been wrong, he may have been wrong in his analysis--fine. I am not saying he was right or wrong. I don't know. What I do know is, two individuals in the White House broke the law--to my way of thinking, basically committed treason--and no one is getting to the bottom of it. And Mr. Novak continues to try to deflect the attention from that, to try to talk about whether Mr. Wilson was right in his analysis. That is not the point. You can debate that issue if you want. What is not debatable is that someone in the White House broke the law, and they should be held accountable. As I took the floor yesterday and the day before and the day before, I take the floor today, and I will every day that we are in session, to ask that simple question: Why isn't the President coming clean? Why isn't he getting to the bottom of this? Why, 1 year and 2 days later, has nothing happened in the White House to find the identity of these lawbreakers? The sooner we get to the bottom of it, the sooner we can allow the criminal justice system to do its job. I call upon the President and the Vice President to get to the bottom of this. I call upon the special prosecutor to put them under oath and to ask them these questions. That may be the only way we get to the bottom of it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. We have an opportunity to address one of the most significant health threats of our lifetime; and that is tobacco use. Quite frankly, we have been trying for some time to get FDA jurisdiction so they could better control advertising. I have a couple charts to show why we need to do that. The tobacco companies continue to say they do not advertise to minors, but here is Kool cigarettes. They have advertisements for hip-hop and rappers and all that. They are not going after me. They are going after kids. This is what Big Tobacco is doing. That is why we need to regulate tobacco. Here is another one: Liquid Zoo flavored cigarettes. This happens to be strawberry. They are not going after adults. They are going after kids to get them hooked on tobacco. Then we get this fraudulent kind of advertising. This is Eclipse cigarettes: The best choice for smokers who worry about their health is to quit. Here's the next best choice. But there is absolutely nothing to back up their claim that it is some kind of a healthier cigarette, of which I say there is no such thing. That is why we do need to get FDA authority. Secondly, as a member of the Agriculture Committee, and as ranking member, I am sorry this did not come to the Agriculture Committee. It is the committee of jurisdiction. But I will say this, that we have a lot of farmers who hold quotas on tobacco. They have held them for many, many, many years. They are now seeing that the amount of tobacco they can produce under the quotas is being reduced, so their future and their ability to earn a living from tobacco is slipping away. This buyout will help them to build a better future. For many, it will not be in tobacco growing, and they need help to move to something else. But at least this tobacco buyout will give them some equity, some hope. Many of these farmers are growing tobacco because their parents did. Many of them have small plots of tobacco. They are using that for their family income. Now, as we try to phase out tobacco use in this country, to get people to smoke less and less because of the health costs and health risks, we cannot forget about a lot of these farmers who, let's face it, their family incomes are based on this, so they need help. That is why I have been for a tobacco buyout in the past, to help these farm families. As they transition out of growing tobacco--maybe into other crops--they need help. I hope those of us on the Agriculture Committee will help them to do so. I think this amendment is a good amendment. It will tend to move us in the right direction on both fronts. I say, in closing, in my estimation, the FSC bill needs this. The House approached it the wrong way. They put it on the backs of taxpayers, when it ought to be paid for by the manufacturers, which I assume would pass the cost on to users of tobacco. That is the way it ought to be done. That is the way we had agreed upon doing it prior to the House adding that amendment. So I say the conference committee must adopt the approach that insists on combining a strong FDA regulation with an industry supported buy-out for tobacco farmers unlike the approach the House took by putting the buy-out on the backs of the taxpayers and completely disregarding FDA regulation. So again, this amendment moves us in the right direction, both to help a lot of family farmers but also to help our kids, to help future generations so they will not be bombarded with this kind of phony advertising we are seeing from the tobacco companies.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask the floor leader, the Senator from Ohio, did I hear correctly, there is only 17\1/2\ minutes left on the side that is for the amendment?

Mr. HARKIN. Is it 17\1/2\ minutes?

Mr. HARKIN. I will try. Thank you.

Mr. HARKIN. I would ask for 15 minutes, if I could have it.

Mr. HARKIN. We only have 17\1/2\ minutes left on the whole debate?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have a chance today to address one of the most significant public health threats of our lifetimes--tobacco use. For my entire tenure in Congress I have been working to protect our children from big tobacco and the horrendous health risks associated with the deadly habit. It was in 1977 that I first introduced legislation calling for repeal of the tax deductibility of tobacco advertising and marketing so taxpayers would not have to subsidize billions to promote smoking. Back in 1998, I introduced the KIDS Deserve Freedom Act to give FDA authority to regulate tobacco and more specifically set up a plan to cut the number of kids who start smoking in half. More recently, I introduced the HeLP America bill to reform our health care system to focus more on prevention and wellness. It would require tobacco companies to reduce teen smoking rates or instead face a stiff financial penalty. Unfortunately, victories in the tobacco wars have come few and far between. But I am more hopeful now than ever that we can pass a comprehensive plan that would once and for all change how this Nation deals with tobacco and dramatically cut the number of our kids addicted to this deadly product. More that 400,000 Americans die of tobacco related illness at a cost of over $100 billion. And the tobacco industry has been engaged in a systematic campaign of distortion and deceit to hook kids and hide the facts from the American people. Our goal is to be on the Senate floor 3 years from now announcing that, indeed, child smoking has been cut in half. The time is ripe for regulation. Every day, 4,000 children under age 18 start smoking, of which 1,000 will ultimately die of smoking-related diseases. Almost 90 percent of adult smokers started using tobacco at or before age 18; the average youth smoker begins at age 13 and becomes a daily smoker by age 14\1/2\. We cannot wait another day to end these senseless and preventable statistics. The Dewine-Kennedy-McConnell amendment will once and for all give the FDA the authority they need to regulate this industry while at the same time give tobacco farmers the ability to get out. I want to be clear, though, there has already been a tremendous amount of compromise to get to this deal and this FDA authority/buyout combination must be kept together for any FSC conference to occur. But the time has come for desperately needed regulation. Five years after the multi-billion-dollar settlement with big tobacco, I think we can all agree that we still have a great deal of work to do to protect our Nation's children from tobacco. While the tobacco settlement prohibits television and billboard marketing of tobacco and direct advertising to children, the end result has been less than perfect. The tobacco companies have perceived kids as young as 13 years of age as a key market. As an RJR Tobacco document put it, ``Many manufacturers have `studied' the 14-20 market in hopes of uncovering the `secret' of the instant popularity some brands enjoy to the almost exclusion of others. . . . Creating a `fad' in this market can be a great bonanza.'' The tobacco industry spent an estimated $10 billion on advertising and promotion in 2001. That is $30 million every day. This number is more alarming in light of the fact that this $11 billion is a 67 percent increase in spending from 1998 when the settlement took effect. I suppose the tobacco industry can respond by saying that none of this spending was directed specifically at young people. But we do know that in 2000, $60 million was spent on advertising in youth-oriented magazines. We know that, while promotional items such as t-shirts, backpacks, and CD players are ostensibly for smokers over 21 the end result is that 30 percent of kids 12 to 17 years old own at least one of these promotional items. This is frightening because students who own a promotional item are 4 times more likely to be smokers than kids who don't own these items. Even though we don't see tobacco packaging as blatant as Joe Camel, the industry has become more sophisticated in their approach. Let's take a look at some of these products. You tell me a hip-hop picture on Kool cigarettes is not directed at kids. A package of Liquid Zoo cigarettes looks more like a candy package than anything. And there is more. Big tobacco is using promotions and more creative marketing strategies but they are also using slicker tactics than that. Take for example a study that found 50 percent of tobacco retailers had tobacco ads at young kids' eye level. That is tobacco marketing at three feet or lower. Twenty-three percent of these tobacco retailers had cigarette product displays within 6 inches of candy. How can we say that this is not marketing directed at our kids? These are the kinds of tactics that are unconscionable and must be stopped. The FDA must be given the necessary authority to regulate tobacco. And what about disclosing ingredients? Tobacco can make claims that their cigarette is safer, and we have no way of proving that. Today, the Senate will consider an amendment that is critical to the health of both the kids and the adults in our country. This amendment would give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to protect ourselves from the dangers of starting smoking. This amendment would give the FDA the authority to regulate the sale, distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco in order to stop tobacco company marketing practices that target children and mislead the public. It would also give the FDA the authority to crack down on vendors who continue to sell cigarettes to kids. HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson testified just this morning that over $150 billion was spent on tobacco-related illness last year. That is only the monetary cost of this lethal product. Forty-seven million Americans smoke, and 400,000 people a year die because of it. Smokers have a one in three chance of dying from smoking-related conditions. This is not the future that we want to doom our children to. I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in protecting the health of our youth by supporting this important amendment. This quota buyout is far from perfect, but I can go along with it as long as it is inextricably bound together with the FDA authority. It is absolutely essential that these two components remain tied together in any final legislation that is sent to the President for signature. The quota buyout has been sought by tobacco growers and by the tobacco companies. Basically, they say that the current system, begun in the Great Depression, is out of date. It cannot accommodate the present-day global market in tobacco and tobacco products. A new system without quotas will be easier for tobacco growers and the tobacco companies to operate under. The buyout of quota will help farm families who face a bleak economic future in tobacco farming make the transition to other opportunities. Clearly, ending the quota and price support system will lower the cost to the tobacco companies of acquiring tobacco for manufacturing. If we are giving the tobacco companies an easier system--a less costly system--in which to procure tobacco and conduct their business of manufacturing and selling tobacco products, then it is absolutely critical--even more critical--that the FDA have basic authority to regulate the marketing of tobacco to the public--and to children most importantly. It is also essential that the quota buyout be paid for through assessments on the tobacco companies, as it is in this amendment. That is so for several reasons. In essence, the funding approach in this amendment is a continuation of the principle that has been in effect for over two decades, called the No-Net-Cost Tobacco Program. The No-Net-Cost principle--although it has not been followed 100 percent--is that the taxpayers do not bear the cost of operating the tobacco quota and price support loan program. By the same token, if we are ending the tobacco quota and price support loan program in this amendment then the taxpayers should not be forced to bear that cost. If the taxpayers pay for the quota buyout that would take our policy backwards and abandon the principle established, as I say, more than 20 years ago. We have learned much in the intervening years since the No-Net-Cost principle was adopted in 1982 about the actions and behavior of the tobacco companies. In the face of the companies' infamous record, it would be a blatant travesty of justice to use taxpayer dollars now for the benefit of the tobacco companies through ending the quota and price support loan program. In any case, the taxpayers don't have the money to fork over for a tobacco quota buyout. The House of Representatives has adopted a quota buyout spending $9.6 billion of taxpayer money. In this time of record budget deficits, it would be irresponsible to saddle our children and grandchildren with another nearly $10 billion in debt plus interest costs for years into the future. And it would be even more irresponsible to use taxpayer funds for that purpose when critically important farm bill programs for conservation, rural development, research and renewable energy have been cut. One last point. This legislation should have been considered by the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry prior to floor action. It is unfortunate that something as significant as the elimination of an existing agricultural program and the creation of a new program did not benefit from consideration by the committee of jurisdiction. I would like to turn my attention very briefly at this time to the issue of overtime. We are about to go to conference on the FSC/JOBS bill, and as we all know, our Senate version of that bill contains my overtime provision, which passed this body with 52 votes. We voted in the Senate to ensure that any worker who currently has the right to earn overtime as a result of his or her job duties, would not lose that right under the Bush administration's new rules, due to take effect next month. When we debated the new rules back in May, I and others argued that they represented a shameful assault on the paychecks of millions of hard-working Americans. We were right. Earlier this week, three former Department of Labor, DOL, officials, who worked under Republican and Democratic administrations, released a report that detailed their assessment of the new rules. It states unequivocally that in every instance where DOL has made a change to existing rules, with the exception of the salary-level adjustment, it has weakened the criteria for overtime exemptions. The portion of the rule that expands overtime eligibility for low- income workers by raising the minimum-salary threshold is a good step. My amendment allows that portion of the rule to go forward. I believe the salary threshold should be raised even higher than in DOL's proposal, to take inflation into account. Also this week, the Economic Policy Institute, EPI, released its analysis of DOL's final rule, which found that 6 million workers will lose their right to overtime when the new regulations take effect. EPI's analysis of the administration's new rules include these findings: Nearly 2 million administrative workers will lose overtime rights under a rule change that makes ``team leaders'' ineligible, even when they don't supervise others on the team. A change in the definition of who is a ``learned professional'' will mean the end of overtime eligibility for about 920,000 workers without a college or graduate degree. Overtime rights will end for about 1.4 million workers reclassified as executives under the new rules, even though they do little supervision and a great deal of manual or routine work, and they only recommend ``changes in status'' of other workers. Others who will lose their current overtime rights under various provisions of the new law are: 130,000 chefs, sous chefs, and cooks (to be reclassified as ``creative professionals''); 160,000 financial services workers; 117,000 teachers and computer programmers. The stakes for workers--and for our economy--are high. Time-and-a- half pay accounts for about 25 percent of the total income of Americans who work overtime. I hope the conferees will retain our provision. Millions of American workers deserve an iron-clad guarantee that their overtime rights are safe. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Julie Huen of my staff be granted floor privileges during the remainder of the day.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on July 11, the 15th Annual International AIDS Conference began in Bangkok, Thailand. The theme of this year's conference is ``Access for All,'' meaning access to lifesaving medications. As many of my colleagues know, the current AIDS pandemic threatens approximately 38 million people worldwide. Last year, 5 million more became infected. Sixty percent of all cases are in sub-Saharan Africa, but the virus is spreading almost unchecked in Asia and Eastern Europe. Twenty million people world-wide have died since the first case was diagnosed in 1981. Unfortunately, the theme of the Bangkok conference--``Access for All''--is a hope and aspiration that bears little resemblance to the harsh reality we confront today. In reality, most newly infected people will not receive anti-retroviral drugs in time to do any good. There are many barriers to progress: developing countries lack the trained physicians, nurses, or support staff to properly distribute anti-retroviral drugs and to monitor patients' progress. In addition, contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS are not sufficient. Some countries are falling far short of what is needed. And on July 1, the Wall Street Journal reported another big reason why drug distribution has been difficult. Simply put, the United States government will not purchase effective generic drugs; it insists on brand-name pharmaceuticals. Let me give you an example of why this matters. On April 6, The Washington Post reported on pricing agreements negotiated by the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation with pharmaceutical companies that produce generic drugs. These agreements, in cooperation with the Global Fund, the World Bank, and UNICEF, will provide access to affordable AIDS drugs in 100 developing nations around the world. As a result, as many as 3 million additional people will be tested and treated for AIDS than before. Under negotiated pricing agreements with five generic-drug companies--four in India and one in South Africa--the Foundation will reduce the cost of fixed-dose generic AIDS drugs by as much as half. Fixed-dosage drugs combine several drugs in one pill. This makes the treatments simpler to take. Research tells us that simplified treatment programs have more successful outcomes. The cost to test and treat a patient will drop from more than $500 per year down to $200 per year. The drugs themselves will cost only $140 per person, per year. These are significant savings. And the savings have positive results. More people can be tested and treated than with existing programs. This is progress. These negotiated agreements will save lives. In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush announced a $15 billion plan to combat HIV/AIDS worldwide. Certainly, this was an admirable initiative. Authorizing legislation passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate. But, the administration has taken a different approach in implementing this plan than the Clinton Foundation has with their negotiated pricing agreements. I am concerned the $15 billion AIDS policy the President is pursuing is not nearly as effective as these negotiated agreements. Why? Because instead of negotiating for the most effective drugs for the lowest cost, the administration purchases brand-name pharmaceuticals from western countries at twice the cost. For example, at a hospital in Zimbabwe, the Centers for Disease Control will soon implement a program that calls for patients to take six pills per day, from a variety of brand-name manufacturers, at a cost of $562 per patient, per year. Yet at the very same hospital, using the very same procedures, Doctors Without Borders purchases fixed-dosage retroviral drugs --two pills per day--from an Indian generic manufacturer. The treatment program costs $244 per patient per year--$318 less than the price the CDC pays. The programs have the same goals, at the same hospital, but the program sponsored by the U.S. Government costs more than twice as much. This is not the most effective use of taxpayer money. The administration could use fixed-dosage, generic drugs, but won't. Instead it chooses to purchase multiple brand-name drugs, and implement a more complicated treatment regimen at more than twice the price. If the goal is to treat the AIDS epidemic, then why are we spending twice- as-much money on more complicated, less effective treatment? Where is the outrage about waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government-- not to mention plain old-fashioned stupidity? Unfortunately, the answer is all too familiar. The administration has chosen to side with the brand-name pharmaceutical industry-- despite the cost, and despite the efficacy. We have seen this behavior before. This brings us back to the Clinton Foundation's negotiated agreements with generic firms. My colleagues will be interested to know the man in charge of the Bush administration's AIDS initiative is Eli Lilly's former Chief Executive Officer, Randall Tobias. Recently, Mr. Tobias told Congress he had doubts about the quality of cheaper generic AIDS drugs made in India--the same drugs which the Clinton Foundation negotiated the pricing agreements. But, the World Health Organization approved the drugs and has an approval process similar to our own Food and Drug Administration. In fact, WHO's approval process was borrowed from the FDA. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 7, Dr. LuLu Oguda of Doctors Without Borders stated that she was ``bewildered by the debate'' about the use of generic fixed-dosage drugs to combat AIDS in Africa. She noted that the generics used were not ``substandard'' as claimed by the Bush Administration. Rather, they were made in some of the same facilities as generic drugs sold every day in the United States. As a volunteer in Malawi, a country where one fifth of the population lives with HIV, she knows the value of these quality generics. I am left to conclude that the Bush administration has made a conscious choice. Cheaper, effective drugs are put aside in order to purchase more complex treatments from domestic pharmaceutical manufacturers. Fewer HIV/AIDS patients are treated, and more inefficiently. This is no different than refusing to support negotiation authority for Medicare beneficiaries. Fewer drugs can be purchased because prices remain high. Beyond the burden to taxpayers, these policies have grave human consequences. People's lives are at stake. Prescription drugs are not like other consumer products. They are not optional or discretionary. For people with HIV/AIDS, lack of access to drugs can mean debilitating illness and even death. It's not like buying a car--the customer can't walk away from the deal with his or her health in tact. So the choices that we make here in Washington, the choices that the pharmaceutical industry makes, are fateful choices. And let's be clear, the pricing practices favored by the administration and the pharmaceutical industry will cost countless lives in Africa and here at home. I fully appreciate the need to preserve the pharmaceutical industry's ability to perform research and development. The Federal Government already supports this through rich tax incentives. Likewise, I certainly do not dispute the industry's right to make a profit. But we are quickly coming to the point where the pursuit of reasonable profits turns into flat out profiteering. Diseases are viewed as marketing opportunities, not as scourges to be eliminated as rapidly and as cost- effectively as possible. There is no question in my mind that we need to reopen the issue of how we negotiate drug prices in the program to combat HIV/AIDS worldwide. If we take the Clinton Foundation's approach, we can reach roughly twice as many patients. It is also time for us to reopen the issue of negotiations with pharmaceutical companies in our own country. It is time for our choices to put people ahead of profits. I ask unanimous consent that an article from this morning's Washington Post and a transcript of a recent radio program on the International AIDS Conference in Bangkok be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I understand I have 10 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today we observe a sad milestone in the scandal and tragedy that some have labeled ``leakgate.'' It has been exactly 1 year, July 14, since two senior White House officials leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a covert operative at the Central Intelligence Agency. Last July 14, 2003, 8 days after Ms. Plame's husband published an op- ed in the New York Times which questioned information in the President's 2003 State of the Union message regarding a supposed effort by Iraq to purchase uranium from Africa, her identity was revealed in print by columnist Robert Novak. This illegal act should have outraged everyone at the White House. It should have moved President Bush immediately to demand the identity of the perpetrators. Instead, in his only public statement about this act of betrayal, Mr. Bush smiled--yes, he smiled--and said: This is a town that likes to leak. I don't know if we are going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. Again, he said it with kind of a smirk and a wry smile on his face. I consider that statement to be disingenuous. The number of senior White House officials with the appropriate clearances and access to knowledge about Ms. Plame's identity can probably be counted on one hand, two at the most. If Mr. Bush was serious about identifying the perpetrators, those officials could have been summoned to the Oval Office and this matter would have been resolved in 24 hours. Now, we are not talking about some little thing happening. This is an illegal action under the law. Mr. Bush did not question his staff in the Oval Office. There was no outrage at the White House. There were no internal investigations. There was no angry President Bush demanding answers from his senior aides. There was only a cavalier dismissal, followed by a year of virtual silence. Three decades ago, a previous occupant of the Oval Office, President Nixon, was recorded on audiotape saying to a senior White House official: I don't give an [expletive] what happens. I want you to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up or anything else, if it'll save it, save this plan. That's the whole point. We're going to protect our people if we can. That was Richard Nixon almost 30 years ago. This White House has now delayed any accountability for this damaging and illegal leak for a full year. White House officials who committed this act of treachery presumably are still exercising decisionmaking power. Who is the White House protecting? Why? Do we now have a modern day Richard Nixon back in the White House? And what was the cost of exposing Ms. Plame? Not only her job. As Vincent Cannistraro, former Chief of Operations and Analysis at the CIA Counterterrorism Center, told us: The consequences are much greater than Valerie Plame's job as a clandestine CIA employee. They include damage to the lives and livelihoods of many foreign nationals with whom she was connected, and it has destroyed a clandestine cover mechanism that may have been used to protect other CIA nonofficial cover officers. Valerie Plame's cover was blown to discredit and retaliate against her husband Joseph Wilson. The recent report by the Senate Intelligence Committee provides some insight. It states that back in 2002 when the CIA was searching for someone with connections to Niger to find out about a possible purchase or attempt to purchase uranium by Iraq, she suggested that her husband, former Ambassador Wilson, go as a factfinder. Mr. Wilson was sent there. He reported the claim's lack of credibility to the CIA. Later that year, the President was to give a speech in Cincinnati mentioning the claim. On October 6, CIA Director Tenet personally called Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to outline the CIA's concerns that this claim was not real. And it was then deleted from the President's Cincinnati speech. Between October 2002 and January 2003, concerns about the claim increased. In January, the State Department sent an e-mail to the CIA outlining ``the reasoning why the uranium purchase agreement is probably a hoax.'' Here is the troubling aspect: The same official, Stephen Hadley, who spoke with George Tenet and took the claim out of the October speech in Cincinnati, was also in charge of vetting the State of the Union Address. Amazing. If he knew it was a problem and took it out in October, why was it put in for the State of the Union message? A lot of questions need to be answered. Mr. Bush seemingly does not want to know the identity of the leakers. The White House occupies a small area. The number of employees who are suspect in this matter is small. This should not be like trying to find nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. One year has passed. Perhaps the President and others have already told Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald who is responsible. Perhaps that has happened. If not, I believe it is clear that the President and the Vice President should be put under oath. They need to tell the special prosecutor and the American public who committed these acts. They should be put under oath, questioned, and filmed. Remember, this happened just a few years ago when another President, President Clinton, was put under oath and questioned by the special prosecutor, on film, which we witnessed right here on the Senate floor. Also, by putting the President and the Vice President under oath and questioning them as they should be questioned, it sends another powerful message to the people of this country: No President, no Vice President, is above the law. President Clinton was not above the law. This President should not be above the law. I call upon the special prosecutor: Put the President under oath. Put the Vice President under oath. Question them about their knowledge of this incident and let's get this matter cleared up. Find those responsible and prosecute them to the full extent of the law. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tim Castelli and Carolina Gutierrez of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, last week I noted here in the Senate that it has been almost a year since the identity of a covert CIA agent was revealed in print by a columnist, Robert Novak. It has now been 365 days, 1 year, and yet we still don't know who blew her cover, who leaked her name, who in the NSC, National Security Council, CIA, gave this information to people in the White House. It is clear that Valerie Plame's cover was blown as part of an effort at that time to discredit and retaliate against critics of the administration, especially anyone who dared to suggest that some of the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq was fraud or fabricated. If the administration were to try to continue this campaign of vengeance today, I suppose they would have to go after the entire Senate Intelligence Committee. I believe its report that it just put out verifies the fact that this was done in a vengeful manner. As we all know, Ms. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was sent by the CIA on a factfinding mission to Niger early in 2002 to examine claims that Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Wilson said he found the claims lacked credibility. The Intelligence Committee report provides an interesting new perspective on these events. It indicates that in October of 2002, CIA Director Tenet called the Deputy National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, to express the CIA's serious concerns about references to uranium and Africa in a speech the President was going to give in Cincinnati. Guess what. The references were removed. Then in December of 2002, the State Department officials advised that the documents underlying the claim were likely forgeries. That is in December. However, the President comes before a joint session in January and says that the ``British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'' One thing that remains unclear throughout this series of events is exactly how and why the same NSC officials--National Security Council officials--who heard Director Tenet's concerns in October, who removed that language from the speech the President was giving in Cincinnati, who also knew the State Department in December had said these were probably forgeries, how did they allow this back into the State of the Union Message in January 2003? We still don't have a full picture of how the administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq. The Intelligence Committee report stops short of that inquiry. But it is clear that the intelligence community felt a great deal of pressure to conform its views to the administration's public characterizations of certainty about Iraqi production of weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's connections to terrorism. The minority views of the report note that former Director Tenet confirmed that agency staff raised with him the matter of ``repetitive tasking'' and the pressure that it created. The CIA ombudsman told the committee that he believed ``the `hammering' of the Bush administration on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had previously witnessed in his 32-year career.'' The minority views went on to say: By the time American troops had been deployed overseas and were poised to attack Iraq, the administration had skillfully manipulated and cowed the intelligence community into approving public statements that conveyed a level of conviction and certainty that was not supported by an objective reading of the underlying intelligence reporting. That was the fundamental point that Ambassador Wilson made in his op- ed in the New York Times: Intelligence was stretched to fit a predetermined course of action. One year later--365 days later--we still don't know who was involved in leaking this name and exposing a covert CIA agent. We don't know who gave this classified information to the leakers in the White House. The disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity was malicious and probably criminal. Mr. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, has been conducting a thorough investigation but with very little assistance from the person who could easily get to the bottom of it--the President of the United States. I believe the President has been too cavalier, too dismissive of the situation. He has made only one statement on this issue. Here is what he said: This is a town that likes to leak. I do not know if we are going to find out the senior administration official. Now this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. That is the President of the United States. Where is his outrage? What about the Vice President? We know he can be relentless when he is on a quest for information to justify the war in Iraq. Vice President Cheney personally journeyed to CIA headquarters repeatedly--I have heard up to eight or nine times--to meet directly with analysts on Iraq. I am further told that was unheard of before, that Vice Presidents have never done this before. Here is Vice President Cheney personally going to CIA headquarters across the river eight or nine times to sit down with analysts to tell them to get their story straight. Where is that kind of determination when it comes to finding the people who committed treasonous acts against this country and leaked Ms. Plame's identity? This administration has used the power of the Presidency to bend facts to fit predetermined views and then to suppress dissent. That is why so much rests on the outcome of Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation. We need to send a clear message to any President that sacrificing intelligence assets and breaching national security is wrong and it is against the law. We should be as vigorous and determined and unrelenting in finding these perpetrators, finding those who broke this law, finding those who undermined the security of our country as we are in going after any drug pusher or drug dealer anywhere in the United States. This President, President Bush--yes, President Bush--has got to come out and help the special prosecutor. Quit hiding behind executive privilege. Quit hiding behind the fact that this is a large administration, and maybe we will never find out who did it. It is time for the President to come clean, and for the Vice President to come clean; otherwise, I fear for the future of our intelligence community and what kind of freedom they will have to give correct analysis to future Presidents of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as a Member of the Senate who has worked in the area of medical research and health care, I draw the attention of the Congress--and Nation--to the retirement of a truly outstanding civil servant: Kent A. Smith. For the past quarter century, Mr. Smith, as deputy director, has managed the day-to-day operation of the National Library of Medicine, a part of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The National Library of Medicine is the largest medical library in the world, and it serves as the indispensable hub of national and international scientific medical communication. The administrative and managerial astuteness of Mr. Smith has converted the vision of the Library's directors, Donald A.B. Lindberg, M.D., and his predecessor, Martin M. Cummings, M.D., into outstanding operational programs. There are many examples. One of the great success stories at the Library and the National Institutes of Health in the last decade is the National Center for Biotechnology Information. This institution, which serves as the collector and disseminator of molecular sequence data resulting from the Human Genome Program, is absolutely indispensable to the conduct of 21st century biomedical science. Its various web services are used almost a billion times each year by people around the globe. Mr. Smith provided invaluable support to members of the House and Senate, and their staff, in developing the legislation that created the center. He has also been closely associated with the amazingly successful entry of the National Library of Medicine into the world of web-based consumer health information relied on by millions of Americans. His skill at managing people and budgets has allowed the Library to move beyond its traditional emphasis on serving exclusively scientists and health professionals. Today, such heavily used consumer information services as MedlinePlus, ClinicalTrials.gov, NIHSeniorHealth.gov, and the Household Products Database are testimony to his success in administering such a diverse institution as the Library now is. Kent Smith, trained in mathematics, economics, and management, is known to medical librarians around the world. In our country he has had close ties to the 5,000 member institutions of the National Network of Libraries of Medicine, and he has championed their cause in many venues. His leadership and tireless efforts have had great impact on the development of federal information policies that ensure broad public access to an expanding universe of electronic government health information resources. He is also known for his strong leadership of national and international organizations in the information field. He has served as President of the National Federation of Abstracting and Indexing Services, President of the International Council of Scientific and Technical Information, Chair of the Policy Group of the Federal Library and Information Center Committee, Vice President of the UNESCO General Information Program, and Chairman of CENDI, a group of federal scientific and technical information and technology managers. I am aware that there are many far-sighted and dedicated managers serving the people of the United States. It is a pleasure for me to honor one with whom I am personally acquainted and who, on the occasion of his retirement, richly deserves our thanks for a job well done.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I want to take a few minutes to remember Ronald R. Mazik and pay tribute to the many contributions he has made to his community, to his profession, and to this country. Ron played many roles and achieved much in his lifetime. As an athlete, engineer and businessman, he excelled in a wide array of endeavors. Of his many achievements, one is particularly deserving of mention: as a pioneer in the field of telehealth. Ron conceptualized and initiated innovations in the use of video and advanced communication systems, which are revolutionizing the way health services are provided to people with exceptional needs. His seminal work in interactive video promises to improve both the accessibility and quality of supports to those with developmental, mental and physical challenges, and brings us closer to our dream of insuring that all citizens lead a full and healthy life. The intellect and energy that Ron applied toward that goal must be regarded as an olympic performance. Of Ron's contributions to the field of telehealth and to society, those close to him knew that he most valued his role as a father to his sons, Ron and Ken. With his many accomplishments, he unfailingly looked to his sons as his greatest source of pride and of joy. It is an honor to recognize Ronald R. Mazik for his contributions to all of our lives.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the Food for Peace and concessional credit programs established in the Agricultural Trade and Development Act of 1954 enacted on July 10, 1954, Senator Cochran and I are submitting a Senate Resolution to honor those programs' many achievements over the past half century. The 83rd Congress, working with the Eisenhower administration, recognized that the productive capacity of the U.S. agricultural sector was outstripping the food and feed needs of our domestic economy and that citizens of many war-torn countries had need for our food but could not afford to pay for it. They saw that the abundance of food available in the United States could be utilized as an instrument in building a durable peace after the Second World War. Through the past 50 years, the various programs established under the Agricultural Trade and Development Act of 1954, known as P.L. 480, have helped billions of people in developing countries. According to USDA estimates, the Title I program, which provides concessional credit to developing countries to purchase U.S. agricultural commodities, has enabled the sale of $30 billion worth of commodities to nearly 100 countries. In addition, the Food for Peace program, authorized under the provisions of Title II of the Act, has helped an estimated 3.4 billion people through 2003. These figures represent accomplishments we should be proud of. Behind these figures lie many years of commitment and hard work by employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and their partners in private voluntary organizations and intergovernmental organizations such as Catholic Relief Services, CARE, World Vision, and the UN's World Food Program. Their crucial efforts include delivering food and development projects on the ground in developing countries, assembling and shipping commodities from the United States under the program, and evaluating project requests and monitoring the programs in Washington, DC. The successful implementation of the programs also requires the cooperation of governments and non-governmental organizations in the developing countries in which the projects occur. With such a record of achievement in the past half century, it is crucial that Members of Congress and the administration do all they can to make sure these programs remain vigorous over the next half century and beyond.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Is this Senator allotted a certain amount of time?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, yesterday I stood before the Senate and noted that it had been almost a full year since the identity of a covert CIA agent was revealed in print by the columnist Robert Novak. It has been 360 days and counting. Next Wednesday, it will be 1 full year. It is time to ask, Why hasn't the White House cleared this up? Madam President, 360 days have gone by since a CIA agent's name was revealed by top White House officials. We know how agent Valerie Plame's coverage was blown. Back in September, the Washington Post reported that two senior White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity of a covert CIA agent. It has also become fairly clear why the agent's cover was blown. It was part of an ongoing effort to discredit and retaliate against critics of this administration, especially those who revealed that intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq was flawed or fabricated. Now Ms. Plame, as we know now, is married to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Ambassador Wilson was sent on a factfinding mission to Niger to examine claims that Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase uranium from that nation. He found no evidence to support the claim. But President Bush, nonetheless, made that claim in his State of the Union Address. How those famous 16 words read by the President to the listening Nation about the efforts by Saddam Hussein to purchase uranium from Niger made it into the State of the Union Address remains a great literary mystery. Who lied in President Bush's State of the Union speech? We still don't know. We do know that Ambassador Wilson published an article disputing the uranium claim in the New York Times. Apparently to discredit and punish Mr. Wilson, senior White House officials leaked the identity of Wilson's wife and the fact that she was a CIA operative. One day Ms. Plame was a valued human intelligence asset; the next day she was political cannon fodder. What we still don't know almost 1 year later is who the senior White House officials responsible for this destructive leak were. We still don't know who it was that gave this classified information to the White House, to the leakers. Was it someone at the NSC? Was it someone at the CIA? Was it the same person who made the decision to include the false claims about uranium from Niger in the State of the Union Message? Madam President, 20 years of training and experience and millions of dollars were invested in this agent. Leaking her identity violated the law and constituted a betrayal of this country. Yet, for all we know, the person responsible for this betrayal could at this very moment still be exercising a senior decisionmaking role in this administration. This apparently is an administration where the buck never stops, an administration where abuses occur, but no one at the top is ever forced to accept responsibility. In her 20-year career, Valerie Plame operated with unofficial cover, which means she had no diplomatic immunity. Effectively, her only defense was a painstakingly created and maintained cover. She worked closely with undercover operatives and a network of contacts. All were potentially placed in jeopardy and exposed to danger by the disclosure of her status. Last November, we heard testimony from three former CIA experts. They all agreed on the far-reaching damage this disclosure represented for Ms. Plame's broader network of contacts and for the intelligence community as a whole. After all, what guarantee does any intelligence agent now have that they could not be the next victim of some administration's smear campaign? Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of operations and analysis at the CIA Counterterrorism Center, said of the Plame disclosure: The consequences are much greater than Valerie Plame's job as a clandestine CIA employee--they include the damage to the lives and livelihoods of many foreign nationals with whom she was connected and it has destroyed a clandestine cover mechanism that may have been used to protect other CIA nonofficial cover officers. James Marcinkowski, a former CIA operations officer, seconded this by saying: The deliberate exposure and identification of Ambassador Wilson's wife, by our government, was unprecedented, unnecessary, harmful and dangerous. Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and State Department employee, said: For this administration to run on a security platform and allow people in the administration to compromise the security of intelligence assets, I think is unconscionable. No one in this Chamber, after listening to these three men, could have any doubts about the damage this act has done to the relationship between the intelligence community and the administration. From all reports, the special prosecutor, finally appointed the day before New Year's, Mr. Fitzgerald, has been conducting a very aggressive investigation. He has issued subpoenas, called witnesses before a grand jury, and interviewed the President and Vice President. I inquired as to whether the President or Vice President were put under oath. I am informed they were not. Now I find this more than passing strange that the previous President of the United States, President Clinton, when he was being questioned about his relationship with a White House intern, was put under oath and filmed, and yet this President and this Vice President, the head of an administration where people leaked the identity in clear violation of the law of a CIA operative, are interviewed; they are not put under oath; they are not filmed. Would someone please explain the priorities? In fact, the President has been kind of cavalier and dismissive of this entire situation. In his only public statement about the leak, he told reporters, and this is a direct quote from President Bush: . . . I don't know if we are going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. That is what George Bush said on October 7, 2003. What I would like to know is, where is the President's outrage? Where is the recognition that this is not the same as leaking promising numbers on the economy? Where is the President's fury that one of his own valuable intelligence assets has been destroyed? And what about the Vice President? We know he can be relentless when he is on a quest for information to justify the case for the war in Iraq. Where is his determination to find the people who have destroyed the confidence of the intelligence community in this administration? All we hear from the President and the Vice President is silence on this issue, as if they do not want to know who leaked this information, or they know and they do not want to be held accountable. In either case, it is inexcusable for the President or Vice President. The disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity represents an extremely damaging breach of national security. She worked gathering human intelligence, exactly the type of intelligence we have heard over and over again since September 11, 2001 that is so critical to our fighting terrorism. Only 2 days ago, National Public Radio reported on the fact that there is a growing consensus on the need to improve our human intelligence capacity. There is a recognition that after years of increasing reliance on intercepts and satellite imagery, only solid human intelligence can help us deal with the type of insurgency we face in Iraq in effectively fighting al-Qaida. The other critical point that was made is that sending troops to a training course on intelligence gathering is not enough. According to one CIA agent, he said it takes 10 years to season somebody as a case officer in order to judge the information and the people they are dealing with, check on bona fides. That is the kind of asset Valerie Plame used to be, and, as Mr. Cannistraro pointed out, the damage that was done was not only to her but to her network and potentially to all CIA human intelligence operatives. One publication reported after reading of her own blown cover, Ms. Plame immediately sat down to make a list of all of her contacts and associates who could be in jeopardy. I can only hope when we find out the identity of this leaker or leakers, that person is forced to see this list and be confronted with the full extent of their betrayal of this country and our citizens. Usually when the cover of agents like Valerie Plame is blown and their contacts placed in jeopardy, it is a result of espionage. The perpetrators, when convicted, face life in prison or even death. In many ways, it is almost worse that this was done as an act of political revenge. The disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity was unquestionably a vicious act of political intimidation and retribution, but it is much more than that. It is part of a clear pattern of coverup, concealment, and contempt for the truth. That is why so much rests on the outcome of Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation. We need to identify and prosecute those responsible for this damaging episode, and in so doing we need to send a clear message to the President and the Vice President that sacrificing intelligence assets and breaching national security is too high a price to pay for maintaining the issue of deceit that was used to justify the war in Iraq to the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Sam Kang and Ryan Ball for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. That is correct. As I understand it, she operated----

Mr. HARKIN. Absolutely. Their lives would be at risk, and their lives are at risk, I believe. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Nevada, that is the damage that has been done. But think about the damage that will be done in the future if we do not resolve this matter. Because other CIA operatives who operate without diplomatic immunity, like Valerie Plame, will have this cloud hanging over them. They will fear that they, too, could be outed in the future; that their name could be made public if their husband or wife or someone such as that disagreed with official administration policy. To me, that is the real damage. The leak has undermined the human intelligence assets we have developed over years and years. I am told it takes over 10 years of CIA training to develop a good covert operative such as Ms. Plame. There are over 10 years of training and seasoning and intelligence gathering before they are a solid source of intelligence. So when we think of that, we think about all of this thrown away because someone had a vendetta against Mr. Wilson, her husband. I say to my friend from Nevada, it was a vicious act, political intimidation and retribution, and I think it is a clear pattern that we have seen over 359 days of coverup, concealment, and contempt for the truth by this administration. It is time to resolve this issue. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on a matter of utmost importance to the national security of the United States, I want to point out that it has now been almost a full year since the identity of a covert CIA agent was revealed in print by columnist Robert Novak. In fact, it has been 359 days, 1 week short of a year. Next Wednesday will be 1 year exactly. It has been 10 months, exactly 285 days, since the Washington Post reported that a senior administration official said that two ``senior White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity of a covert CIA agent.'' We still do not know the identity of those ``senior White House officials'' responsible for this destructive leak. It is simply astounding to me that as I stand here, the person or persons responsible for destroying the 20 years and millions of dollars invested in this agent and for jeopardizing the lives of other agents in the field could at this very moment still be exercising a senior decision making role in this administration. In late December, I welcomed the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney for Illinois, as a special prosecutor to investigate this matter. I don't understand why it took almost 6 months for this appointment to be made, but from all reports I have heard, Mr. Fitzgerald has been conducting a very aggressive investigation over the past 190 days. But what I still don't understand is how this administration can claim to be cooperating with this investigation when the only public statement the President has made on this matter was to say: I don't know if we're going to find out [who] the senior administration official [is]. Of course, that statement was an obvious wink and a nod to the leaker or leakers. The subtle message seems to be, don't worry. Sit tight. We can stonewall this and get it behind us. So while I welcome the investigation of the special prosecutor, I find it hard to believe that the President and the administration are serious about getting to the bottom of this grave breach of national security. If they were serious, they would have resolved this matter immediately, without the aid of a grand jury, subpoenas, experienced prosecutors, polygraphs, and, most likely by now, millions of dollars of expense. The President has never demanded answers from his White House staff. I remind my colleagues that the pivotal Washington Post article was published on a Sunday in late September. On Monday morning, the President could have, and should have, demanded answers from his staff. He could have, and should have, called his senior staff members into the Oval Office, put them under oath, and asked them one by one if they were involved in the leak of the CIA agent's name to the media. He could have, and should have, laid down the law and resolved this matter immediately. Indeed, that is exactly the way a President who truly wanted to identify the leakers would have acted. But President Bush took no such action. Instead, the President joked about the leak with reporters. Judging from his statements, he doesn't seem all that eager to find and punish the people responsible. He said he has no idea whether the leakers will ever be identified. The disclosure of the identity of the agent, Valerie Plame, as a covert CIA operative represents an extremely damaging breach of national security. In her 20-year career, we now know, she operated with ``nonofficial cover,'' meaning she had no diplomatic immunity. Effectively, her only defense was a painstakingly created and maintained cover. She worked gathering human intelligence, the kind of intelligence we have heard over and over since September 11, 2001, is so critical to fighting terrorism. She ran agents and worked closely with other undercover operatives and contacts. These people were also potentially placed in jeopardy and exposed to danger by the disclosure. One publication reported that after reading of her own blown cover, Ms. Plame immediately had to make a list of all of the contacts and associates of hers who could be in jeopardy. I only hope when Mr. Fitzgerald discovers the identity of the leaker, that person is forced to see this list and be confronted with the full extent of their betrayal--yes, betrayal--of this country and its citizens. That is what it is. More important, Mr. Fitzgerald needs to discover how the information on Ms. Plame's status came into the hands of these leakers, or senior White House officials. Is someone in the CIA responsible for identifying Ms. Plame as a means of discrediting her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson? Is someone in the National Security Council responsible? We cannot stop at identifying the individual or individuals who leaked her identity and her status to the press. We also need to identify the person or persons who gave this classified information to the leakers in the first place. This is about discovering those in our Government who have so little respect for the value of our intelligence assets that they are willing to use those assets as political weapons. Both the President and the Vice President have been questioned by the special prosecutor's office in this matter, but almost a year after the leak we still don't know who is responsible. Valerie Plame was a seasoned covert operator, we are told. She performed the kind of human intelligence gathering that is crucial to our national security. So why was her identity compromised? Why was the identity of a valuable intelligence asset treated so cavalierly and recklessly by senior officials in the White House? Was it done as part of an ongoing effort to discredit and retaliate against critics of the administration--especially anyone who dared to suggest that the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq ranged from flawed to fabricated? Let me recap. Since 2002, the administration's top officials, including Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Rice, and the President himself, have all claimed Saddam Hussein was actively developing weapons of mass destruction, and that he tried to buy uranium from the nation of Niger. These claims persisted despite conflicting intelligence reports, including one by Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Ambassador Wilson, we later learned, is Valerie Plame's husband. Ambassador Wilson was sent on a fact finding mission by the CIA to Niger. After an investigation, he found no evidence to support the claim that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq. Still, the President made the Niger claim in his State of the Union message. A few months later, the New York Times published Mr. Wilson's op-ed piece, which questioned the President's assertion and indeed refuted the President's assertion that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq. It was after that--at least in this Senator's opinion--that in order to discredit and punish Wilson, two senior White House officials leaked to the press the identity of Wilson's wife and the fact that she was a covert CIA operative. In doing so they broke the law and undercut our national security in time of war. One day Ms. Plame was a valued human intelligence asset; the next day she was political fodder. What guarantees does any other intelligence agent have he or she could not be next? It is not enough to find out who leaked the names; we have to find out how senior White House officials were given the classified information about Valerie Plame's status as a covert CIA agent. Who did this dastardly deed? Who betrayed our country and our intelligence asset? It is not only Ms. Plame, it is all of the other CIA agents we have who do not have diplomatic immunity and are operating undercover, collecting human intelligence for the safety of our country. What is there to give them assurance they are not the next Valerie Plame? What is there to give them the assurance they won't be fingered at some time in the future? What happened here is not only confined to Ms. Plame, bad enough as that is. It sends all of the wrong signals to our CIA operatives that they could be next. Some future administration could finger them if they disagree or if their husband or wife, brother or sister, or maybe a friend, disagreed with official administration policy; they could be outted. And what does it say to all of the contacts these people we have developed and nurtured over years and years, in countries where their lives would be at risk if they were identified as giving intelligence to our CIA people? What assurance do these networks have they won't be uncovered similarly at some time in the future? I have waited, and we have all waited to get answers; 359 days is too long. One year is too long for this to drag on. It is time for the administration to come clean. It is time for those who leaked Ms. Plame's identity to be identified and to suffer the consequences. It is also time to find out who gave them this highly classified information, how it was they came to have the name of Ms. Plame. Only a thorough airing of this, only prosecuting those who were involved, finding out who gave this name to these people in the White House, making sure they no longer have positions, wherever they are, in the National Security Council or in the CIA--only then will we send a clear signal we are not going to let this happen again. We must send a clear signal to those who would betray this country in order to get political retribution against somebody who disagreed with an administration's position. Only then will we be able to send a clear signal that these kinds of actions will never be tolerated.