Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. Call for Appointment of Special Counsel Mr. President, I take the floor again today, as I said I would do every day, until this matter is resolved, until the individual or individuals who leaked the name of a CIA undercover agent to the press are identified and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. So I take the floor again today to again recap what has gone on, and also to ask the President to become more fully engaged in finding out who did this. As I said earlier this week on the floor, President Bush can resolve this matter, literally in an hour, by calling his senior staff members in the Oval Office and asking them one by one if they were involved. It would be very simple. Call them in and ask them: Were you involved in this, yes or no? Bear in mind, the Washington Post story on Sunday--this is when it all came out in the open--reported a senior administration official revealed two other ``senior White House officials'' had leaked the undercover CIA agent's identity to six reporters before the so-called Novak column ran in July. So again, a whistleblower in the White House revealed--and this is according to the Washington Post--a senior administration official. In the Post on September 28, last Sunday, they quoted the senior official who said: Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge, the senior official said of the alleged leak. It was purely and simply for revenge against Mr. Wilson, obviously. So we know now a whistleblower in the White House, a senior administration official--we don't know who--revealed two other senior White House officials had leaked the undercover CIA agent's identity to six reporters prior to the Novak column running in July 14. Someone was pretty busy in the White House calling six reporters. And the senior administration official said it was ``purely and simply for revenge.'' Why doesn't Mr. Bush simply call them into the Oval Office and ask them one by one: Were you involved in these leaks? We know at least three of these senior administration officials know the full story. We know now at least three senior administration officials know the full story. The odds are many more know the story as well, that there was some talk around the White House back in July about doing this. I find it hard to believe some low-ranking individual called six reporters without having this cleared at the highest echelons in the Bush administration. Obviously, we know there are three. There may be more. Mr. Bush could resolve this matter literally by lunchtime if he were to call the senior officials in the Oval Office, lay down the law, and get some answers. I was driving in to work this morning and I heard on the radio that the President is flying to Wisconsin this morning for yet another fundraiser. People have their priorities, I guess. I think our priority should be getting to the bottom of this as soon as possible and finding out who made these leaks, not flying off for yet another fundraiser in Wisconsin. Again, instead of a serious, straightforward approach, the President now is trying to make light of the matter. He was joking and laughing about it yesterday with some foreign journalists. I refer to a story that appeared in the Washington Post this morning, Friday, October 3. Headline: ``Justice to Begin Leak Interviews Within Days.'' I will have more to say about that. I will quote directly from the article in the paper this morning: As pressure built on his aides, --regarding finding who leaked this information-- Bush joked about the matter. During a roundtable discussion with reporters for African news organizations, he was asked about three reporters in Kenya who were detained this week in what some journalists saw as an effort to intimidate them into revealing sources. The detention drew a condemnation from the International Federation of Journalists which complained that the government has been harassing and brutalizing journalists. "I'm against leaks,'' Bush said, to laughter. ``I would suggest all governments get to the bottom of every leak of classified information.'' Turning to the reporter who asked the question, Martin Mbugua of the Daily Nation, Kenya's largest daily newspaper, Bush said ``By the way, if you know anything, Martin, would you please bring it forward and help solve the problem.'' I guess I find this remarkable, a matter as serious as this, disclosing the identity of an undercover agent in the midst of our war on terrorism, where we have to rely upon good intelligence, we have to rely upon the security of these individuals, and to let them know that at no time, now or in the future, will they be outed, which could do serious harm not only to them but to their sources and to others. Rather than approaching this in that serious manner, the President is joking about the matter as if this is ha-ha, some kind of a lighthearted little diversion from his fundraising activities. I will say this: This is not a laughing matter. The President may take it lightly, but I don't believe our intelligence agencies, nor do I believe those of us here in the Congress will take it lightly either. And neither do the American people take it lightly. This is a deadly serious matter of national security. The President of the United States should make it his personal business to resolve it as soon as possible. In fact, I would suggest the President should publicly commend the individual who told the Washington Post last Sunday about the leak, promise to protect that whistleblower's job, give that person a certificate of merit for being truthful and honest and helping to expose those who may have leaked this information, rather than joking about it with foreign journalists and asking them if they know anything about it, would they please help him out. I understand from today's news reports that the Justice Department has set a deadline for White House documents related to the matter. That is great. But I still don't understand why it has taken at least 2 months for them to request this information since exposing the identity of an undercover CIA agent is a violation of Federal law punishable with up to 10 years in prison. Also I believe it goes further than just releasing classified information. This is an issue, as I said, about compromising the safety of our undercover agents and the investigative efforts to prevent future threats to the United States. Again, let me just go back to this timeline. On July 6, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's op ed appears in the New York Times, questioning President Bush's assertion that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. On July 14, Robert Novak publishes a column saying ``senior administration officials'' have identified Wilson's wife as ``an agency operative of weapons of mass destruction.'' On July 24, Senator Schumer calls on the FBI director to open a criminal investigation based on that call. In late July, the FBI notified Senator Schumer they sent an ``inquiry'' to the CIA. Then it appears that nothing happens for 2 months. On September 23, the Attorney General says he and CIA Director Tenet sent a memo to the FBI requesting an investigation. So in July the FBI says they sent an inquiry to the CIA. In September the Attorney General says they sent a memo to the FBI requesting an investigation. On September 26, the Department of Justice officially launches its investigation. But interestingly, it took 4 days after that official launch for the Justice Department to call White House Counsel Gonzales and notify him of the official investigation and to tell them to preserve documents, phone logs, et cetera. Today, October 3, according to the newspaper, we understand the Attorney General wants to quickly move the investigation along. Again, I don't understand why it took President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft so long to get moving on this investigation, when they appeared to move so quickly in wanting to question our congressional Intelligence Committees last year for allegedly leaking ``classified information.'' In fact, the FBI was coming down, as Senator Durbin said on the floor, asking them to take lie detector tests. But now we don't seem to be moving very rapidly in trying to get to the bottom of this real--not alleged, but real--leak of classified information. I have other concerns as well, and that has to do with the clear conflict of interest Mr. Ashcroft has with this administration. I refer to this chart. There was a story in the newspaper about the close connections Mr. Ashcroft has had with senior White House officials. This chart kinds of shows it. We have Attorney General Ashcroft, then Mr. Karl Rove, senior assistant to the President, who was a paid consultant for Ashcroft for Governor in 1984. Mr. Rove was a paid consultant for Ashcroft for Governor in 1988. Mr. Rove was a paid consultant for Ashcroft for the Senate in 1994. Today, he is political director and senior advisor to President Bush. Then there is Jack Oliver. He was campaign manager for Mr. Ashcroft in 1994. Mr. Oliver was deputy chief of staff in Senator Ashcroft's office in the Senate. Mr. Oliver now is a deputy finance chair for the Bush-Cheney reelection team for 2004. Now we understand that, with these connections, these people so high up in the administration, such as the Attorney General--President Bush is his boss. The Attorney General says he can do the investigation. Give me a break. That is why we need a special counsel. That is why the American people see this as an inherent conflict of interest, with all of these people so closely tied together. That is why we need an appointed special counsel. Some argue this is purely politics, that we are blowing this incident out of proportion. Well, what makes this so serious is this administration released its classified information for revenge to punish those who told the truth at the risk of national security and the safety of others. I have been hearing all of these spins coming out of the White House about Mr. Wilson and politics, and so I was looking at this and I wanted to get to the bottom of it. I looked at this and I saw the spin coming out of the White House and the Republican Party. Here is Mr. Gillespie, RNC chair: The fact is that Ambassador Wilson is not only a, you know--a former foreign service officer, former ambassador, he is himself a partisan Democrat who is a contributor and supporter of Senator Kerry's Presidential campaign. That is Ed Gillespie, RNC chair, on September 30. Then, here is the former RNC communication director, Cliff May. He said: Wilson is no disinterested career diplomat--he's a pro- Saudi, leftist partisan with an ax to grind. And too many in the media are helping him and allies grind it. What are the facts. The fact is we found out Mr. Wilson has given money to the Presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry. But he also contributed money to George Bush during the 2000 election. GOP Representative Ed Royce, a Republican from California, received $1,000 from Wilson between 2000 and 2001. I don't know Mr. Wilson; I never met him in my life, but it looks as though he is one of those independents who gives to both sides depending on who he thinks is best qualified. The fact is former President Bush--the first President Bush--praised Wilson for his courageous leadership when he was Ambassador in Baghdad in 1990. He praised him for his courageous leadership, saying: What you are doing day in and day out under the most trying conditions is truly inspiring. Keep fighting the good fight. You and your stalwart colleagues are always in our thoughts and prayers. Yet spokesmen for the Republican Party want to make Mr. Wilson some leftist partisan with an ax to grind. No, don't get to the bottom of it, you see. Don't find out who leaked it. Attack Mr. Wilson's character. Have we seen this before? We sure have. So, again, this is no laughing matter. Quite frankly, I just don't understand the President joking lightheartedly about this, but he did. The President needs to take it seriously. The American people take it seriously; we take it seriously. He can take care of it very quickly, as I said, by calling in those senior advisors and asking them, one by one, if they have knowledge of this. Mr. Ashcroft can hardly investigate his own boss, with all of the connections he has. He can hardly be asked to investigate. That is why under ``recusals'' in the Department of Justice Resource Manual it says: If a conflict of interest exists because a United States Attorney has a personal interest in the outcome of the matter or because he/she has or had a professional relationship with parties or counsel. . . . Where there is the appearance of a conflict of interest, the United States Attorney should consider a recusal. I can think of no better example of an appearance of a conflict of interest, nor where the U.S. Attorney has had a professional relationship with parties or counsel. They should recuse themselves. That is what the Attorney General should do, and he should appoint a special counsel to proceed further to investigate this matter to find out who leaked it. I will close with this. As I said yesterday, it is not just the person or two persons who leaked this to six reporters; how did these individuals get that classified information? Who gave that to them? Did it come from the NSC? Is that now politicized? Did it come from the CIA? Did someone in the White House request this kind of classified information in order to put it out? That is why I said yesterday, and I repeat again today, there is a cancer growing on this administration, and the best way to get rid of a cancer is to excise it. The best way to excise it is for the President himself to get involved, for the Attorney General to recuse himself, appoint a special counsel, and let's get to the bottom of this, not in a matter of weeks or months but in the next few days. Nothing less will suffice for those brave men and women working all over the globe to get the intelligence and the information we need to fight global terrorism and to reassure them that this will never happen again. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. It is time we have a special counsel. I am honored to yield to my friend from Nevada.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, many of my colleagues and I have been urging the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to review and investigate the leak that revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have responded by saying that we are blowing things out of proportion, that our motives are political. I have to disagree. This is a serious issue, and it is not just those on my side of the aisle who have concerns about the obvious conflict of interest for the Justice Department to investigate this matter on its own. I am referring to the Washington Post-ABC poll that was released. The poll found that nearly 7 in 10 Americans believe a special type of prosecutor should be named to investigate allegations that the Bush administration officials illegally leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent. The survey found that 81 percent of Americans considered the matter serious, while 72 percent thought it was likely that someone in the White House leaked the agent's name. It's clear the people of this country want a full, fair and independent investigation. I would also like to take a minute to respond to comments from my colleague from Minnesota that were made earlier Wednesday. I believe he may have been misinformed. I wanted to make sure my colleague from Minnesota was clear on the difference between an independent counsel and a special counsel. Yesterday I had again stated the need for the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to investigate this leak regarding an undercover CIA agent. We all know that a Federal law was broken--that is clear--a law that provides for stiff penalties, imprisonment, and fines. It is a Federal crime, under the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982 to intentionally disclose information identifying a covert agent to anyone not authorized to receive this classified information. Columnist Robert Novak printed that information. We need to know who the senior administration official or officials were that gave him that information. But we also need to find out who gave that information to the administration officials. Let me be clear about this. There is a cancer spreading in this administration. Most have focused only on who it was who gave the name of the undercover agent to Mr. Novak, the columnist. Clearly that is illegal. But there is another question behind that. How did that individual or individuals get access to this classified information about this undercover agent? Who gave that individual this information? Did it come from the National Security Council? Did it come from the State Department? Did it come from the CIA itself? Did someone in the White House request this dossier on Mr. Wilson and his wife? Or was it voluntarily given to them by someone in the CIA or the National Security Council or somewhere else? This is an even deeper question because it goes to what they wanted this information for. Why would individuals high in the administration want the information about who was an undercover agent and who was not, unless they had the intention of using that information to intimidate Mr. Wilson, to put a chilling effect on those who might want to disagree with this administration's position on Iraq. That, I believe, is another concern we have--the chilling effect. The greatest weapon we have in our fight against international terrorism is not a ballistic missile, it is not this missile defense shield that people want to build over this country, it is not our laser-guided bombs; the best weapon we have against international terrorism is the intelligence and information we get from agents in the field around the globe, working with our friends and allies and others, so that we can get to the terrorists in their incubation, before they are able to carry out their dastardly deeds, break up their cells, break up their lines of communication. It is the intelligence and information that we need to win this battle against terrorism. If, however, one of our agents in the field and all that agent's contacts now think that at some time this administration, or an administration in the future, can ``out'' them, release their name, then that puts kind of a damper on whether or not they are going to get information. That could put people's lives in jeopardy, put them at risk in the future. For example, the woman who was outed, Valerie Plame, had in fact traveled overseas as an undercover agent. I assume now people will be looking at whom she contacted, whom she talked to, who were her sources of information. This is not, as I said the other day, some little real estate deal out in Arkansas. This is not just some President philandering with some White House aide. This has to do with the security of our country. According to the Washington Post, a senior administration official told the Post that before Novak's column appeared, two top White House officials called at least six journalists and disclosed the identity of the CIA agent. Now the Justice Department is investigating. So let's get this straight. The Attorney General, appointed by the President, is investigating the President's office. As I said yesterday, and I say again this morning, if an investigation ever cried out for a special counsel, this is it. Again, I point to an article that appeared on the front page of the New York Times today, which said: Attorney General is closely linked to inquiry figures. Rove was a consultant. Deep political ties between top White House aides and Attorney General John Ashcroft have put him into a delicate position as the Justice Department begins a full investigation into whether administration officials illegally disclosed the name of an undercover CIA agent. Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political advisor, whose possible role in the case has raised questions, was a paid consultant to three of Mr. Ashcroft's campaigns in Missouri--twice for Governor and for United States Senator in the 1980s and 1990s. Jack Oliver, the deputy finance chairman of Mr. Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, was the director of Mr. Ashcroft's 1994 Senate campaign and later worked as Mr. Ashcroft's deputy chief of staff. Does anyone really believe that this Attorney General can, with a straight face, say they are going to investigate these people when they work for them and they have close ties? As I said, a special counsel is needed desperately. In response yesterday morning, when I called for this, my colleague from Minnesota accused some of my colleagues and me of ``rank political hypocrisy'' when it comes to calling for a special counsel. He said this, and I quote from the Record today: I'm a slight student of history. I believe in 1999 there was an effort in this body, led by Senator Collins from Maine, a bipartisan effort to put in place a provision to allow for a special prosecutor. And it was blocked. It was stopped by the very same folks today that are talking about needs for a special prosecutor. I think, and I am going to be very blunt here, what we are hearing is a little rank political hypocrisy when it comes to calls for a special prosecutor. That is in the Congressional Record today from Senator Coleman of Minnesota. I think Senator Coleman needs to brush up on his history. In 1999, the independent counsel law expired. Republicans were in charge of the Senate and they chose not to reauthorize it. This law allows the Attorney General to recommend an independent counsel, to lead an investigation, and a three-judge panel chooses that counsel. That independent counsel was accountable to no one. It had its own staff, budget, and missions. The investigations could go on indefinitely. My main problem with the Office of Independent Counsel was that the investigations could go on forever, with a bottomless budget that taxpayers had to pay. The Collins alternative was a step in the right direction, which limited the time on these investigations. But the Republican leadership never scheduled a vote--never scheduled a vote. By the way, former independent counsel Kenneth Starr opposed renewing that law. Regardless, appointing an independent counsel or prosecutor is not what I have been talking about. I don't believe I've ever mentioned appointing an independent counsel. I have said the Attorney General should appoint a special counsel. There is a big difference. The Attorney General alone can appoint an outside special counsel if he believes there is an inherent conflict of interest or if he deems it is in the public interest for a special counsel to be appointed. The special counsel reports to the Attorney General, who pays the counsel's salary and the salary of his or her staff. The key to the special counsel is this. At the end of the investigation, the Attorney General must report to Congress all instances where he blocked the special counsel from taking an action, such as subpoenaing documents or putting a witness before a grand jury. That is the kind of balance we need in this kind of situation, when the administration is obligated to investigate itself. So I think the Senator from Minnesota not only needs to brush up on his history but also definitions. It was an entirely different issue in 1999. The law had expired. The Republican majority did not move to reauthorize it and to even call for a vote to reauthorize the independent counsel law. Quite frankly, I am one of those who don't believe in these independent counsels because they go on forever and they are accountable to no one. They can investigate whatever they want. That is not what I am calling for. What I am calling for is the Attorney General to use the authority he has under the law to appoint a special counsel, someone of prominence, someone of integrity, someone who would assure the American people the investigation will be done fairly, objectively, and thoroughly, and let the chips fall where they may. It would not go on forever. The Attorney General decides the salary and the pay and how much staff. But the key is this: The special counsel would have, under the auspices of the Attorney General, the ability to subpoena witnesses, to subpoena documents and records, to take a person before a grand jury. The Attorney General could say no and stop it, but at least we would know that. The people of America would know whether or not the Attorney General stopped the special counsel from getting certain documents or referring a witness to a grand jury. Therein lies the check and balance that is so important to making sure we have an open and transparent system of Government.

Mr. HARKIN. I know the person would be subject to criminal penalties. I am not certain I know the definition of a ``traitor,'' but I think it would be closely akin to that. I don't want to make a statement. I don't know the absolute definition of ``traitor,'' I say to my friend. Obviously, it would be subject to penalties. We have Aldrich Ames right now spending his life in prison without parole because he divulged the name of operatives, undercover agents, whose associates and others were killed in the former Soviet Union, and Aldrich Ames today is where he ought to be: in prison for life without parole. The same applies here, it would seem to me, I say to my friend from Nevada, that this is a case where not only someone in the CIA but anyone in a position who has access to this classified information would be subject to this. Again, I say to my friend from Nevada, since he is on the floor, I really think many of the people who are inquiring about this are stopping short because they are only focusing on who gave the information to Mr. Novak. There is a deeper and I think even more profound question to be asked: How did those individuals in the administration get that classified information? How did they come by that information to know this Valerie Plame was an undercover agent? That raises very serious questions.

Mr. HARKIN. I accept that definition. I say to my friend, my feelings and my senses are that someone with this kind of information who leaked it I think has violated the law and betrayed the government and the citizens of the United States.

Mr. HARKIN. I think the Senator from Nevada has it exactly right. That is true, they would be considered the same. I thank the Senator for asking the question because it does clarify a point. If I can take off from what the Senator from Nevada just asked me-- and it is a good point, it should be made--what would happen in the administration if someone in the CIA had leaked this kind of information about an undercover agent. What would happen? I will tell you what would happen. They would have that person locked up in jail before nightfall, and they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. My friend from Nevada raises a good question: What is the difference between that and someone in the White House or administration doing the same thing? Again, it is time for a special counsel. As the New York Times said this morning on the front page, both Mr. Rove and Mr. Oliver have close connections with Mr. Ashcroft. I don't know whether they are involved in this or not, but they are both very high in the administration. There are too many close ties between Attorney General Ashcroft and people high in this administration for the people of this country to be assured that we are going to have a fair, independent, full, and thorough investigation. Let the chips fall where they may and prosecute--yes, prosecute--the people responsible for leaking this information. Mr. President, I intend to take the floor of the Senate every day to talk about this issue. We cannot allow this to be swept under the rug. We cannot allow a coverup to go on day after day. This is a President elected by the people, a servant of the people. And I don't think it is enough for any President to say: We will let the Attorney General investigate. The buck stops on the President's desk. I can only say if an allegation had been made about someone on my staff doing something like that, I would call them in, and I would have them sign a notarized legal document right there: I, so and so, had nothing to do with any leak and know no information about it whatsoever. Sign it. That is what the President can do, and we can have this information out about who called Mr. Novak, who called these other reporters. We would know it before the sun went down today. That is why this coverup cannot continue to go on. The American people deserve better than this, and they are going to get it. We are going to find out who put our country at risk, who committed these treasonous activities. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask between now and the time the vote is called, if we are in a quorum call, the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. HARKIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand the vote is to take place at 3:45.

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have some good news. The House of Representatives just a little while ago passed, by a substantial margin, a motion to instruct their conferees to adhere to the Senate's position saying that the administration cannot go ahead to implement the rules on overtime which would take away overtime pay protection for over 8 million Americans. The vote in the House was 221 to 203. This is a great victory for American workers today. It sends a very clear message to the administration: Don't mess with overtime pay protection. Don't take away from American workers the overtime pay protection that we have had in the law since 1938. This is a clear and unequivocal message from both the House and the Senate. I hope the administration has the message. I now call upon the Secretary of Labor to forthwith, today, by sundown tomorrow, go ahead and extend overtime pay protections to hundreds of thousands of Americans on the low-income side of the scale. Right now, the low-income threshold is $8,060 a year. Part of the proposal the administration sent down would have raised that level to $21,100 a year. This is an issue on which we all agree. This is something the Secretary of Labor can do today, tomorrow, before the week is out. This can be done with a stroke of a pen. I call upon the Secretary of Labor to immediately issue a new regulation that would raise the low-income threshold from $8,060 to $21,100 a year and thus cover many more Americans with overtime pay protection. What the House has spoken so loudly today is what we did in the Senate a few weeks ago. We want to extend overtime pay protection to more Americans. We do not want to talk it away. Let us move forward together, call upon the Secretary of Labor to issue these regulations to raise that threshold. Now the administration can take those proposed rules they came out with this spring and put them in the fireplace. Get rid of them. Then, if we want to move ahead, we can do it in two stages. Raise the threshold right now, and then if we need to modify and change some of the overtime regulations to reflect more accurately the modern day workplace, let's do it together, do it with open public hearings, have our witnesses, and do it in a deliberate manner that reflects the will of the American people, not under the cover of night, putting out proposed regulations without any hearings whatever. I stand ready as a member of the Labor Committee, and on both the authorizing and appropriations side, to work with the Secretary of Labor and others to set up a route by which we can, if we need to, change and modify some of the regulations to more accurately meet today's workforce. But in no case should we diminish the overtime pay protections in the law today for people, in no way. We need to extend and raise that threshold immediately. That is what I call upon the Secretary of Labor to do. It would be a great victory today for American workers who are lacking in a lot of good news coming out of Washington these days for working families. This is one bit of good news for American working families today. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senate is in morning business?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Absolutely. The Senator from Illinois is correct. This points to the need for a special counsel, someone independent of the Justice Department. This is serious stuff. I notice that the columnist, Mr. Novak, said, well, this woman is just an analyst for the CIA. I don't know. I never met these people. But now I understand she was indeed an undercover agent overseas. She may be doing something at the CIA right now, but prior to that she was. Again, I have no knowledge of this. I only know what I have been reading in the papers. It seems to me, in our war on terrorism, our best asset is not a missile; it is not a nuclear device; it is the information we get. And if there is a chilling effect out there--that is what this is, a chilling effect--on getting information, it is a serious blow to our fight against terrorism.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Illinois, I am not serving on the Intelligence Committee. I had heard and been aware, and now the Senator has validated that fact, the FBI did ask members of the Senate Intelligence Committee to take polygraphs. Again, it is a fair question the Senator asks: Will the FBI ask all senior members of this administration to sit down and take a polygraph test? If they asked Senators, why would they not ask the White House? I don't know. Will they?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I also wanted to again comment on the stories appearing in the media about the leaked information regarding an undercover CIA agent. As we all know by now, a law was broken. It is a Federal crime under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act of 1982 to intentionally disclose information identifying a covert agent by anyone not authorized to receive classified information. Conviction under this crime is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $50,000. What do we know so far? We know a columnist, Mr. Robert Novak, received this information. He printed it in his column in the newspaper. It is interesting that we now find there were other journalists given that information, but they did not write this. They did not print it. That raises questions in itself as to why Mr. Novak went ahead and wrote this. We know this was put out into the public. We know--at least it has been alleged--that Mr. Novak said he got the information from a ``high administration official.'' The other journalists, I guess, who got this information said the same thing. We don't know whether it is in the White House or where it is. But there are all kinds of rumors and allegations floating around. Now I see the Justice Department is starting to investigate. Isn't that a sweetheart deal? Attorney General John Ashcroft, appointed by this President, investigating the President. If a situation ever cried out for a special counsel, this is it. Yet yesterday when the Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, wanted to just have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that a special counsel should be appointed, the other side raised a nongermane objection to this. We will continue to bring up this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. In fact, when we have the opportunity, we will ask to have a vote on whether a special counsel ought to be appointed, someone more independent than Mr. Ashcroft. There is a piece missing from the puzzle. We know a law was broken. We know Mr. Novak, a journalist, printed in his column that it came from somewhere in the administration. But here is the missing part of the puzzle that no one is writing about. Whoever gave that information to Mr. Novak got that information somewhere. This is classified information. The question is, Did someone in the CIA voluntarily give that information to this individual? If that is the case, we have a real problem in the CIA. If, however, someone in the administration is saying the National Security Council, which has access to this kind of classified information, then gave this information to another individual in the administration, then we have a real problem in the National Security Council of someone deliberately leaking this classified information. It is not enough just to find out who gave the information to Mr. Novak. We have to find out how that individual got the information in the first place.

Mr. HARKIN. Again, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his question. Why was this name leaked to this columnist? It was to somehow discredit her husband. What had her husband done? He told the truth about the lack of any evidence showing Iraq had gone to Niger to obtain basically uranium or yellow cake. He had gone there to investigate, said there was nothing to it. So he told the truth. And now the administration, because a truth did not comport with their imagination about what was going on in Iraq, obviously put Mr. Wilson on their enemies list. I say to the Senator from Illinois, this really does bring back memories of enemies lists. The administration will go to any length, to the length of breaking a law, to try to discredit anyone who tries to point out the truth about what went on in Iraq.

Mr. HARKIN. Let me finish this. Did that individual have that information given by the CIA? Was it given to him by the National Security Council? How did that individual come by this classified information? That is the missing part of this puzzle. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and our assistant minority leader, the Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, for bringing up this issue today. Again, more disturbing news has come out this week, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts. He has covered the increase in poverty in this country. More and more people are being left behind and unemployment continues to go up. At that very time, this administration wants to pull the rug out from underneath people who work hard, to take away their overtime protection. That is coming to a head this week, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, because the House of Representatives, the other body, is going to be appointing conferees to go to conference with us. I understand the motion will be made to instruct the conferees to yield to the Senate position which, as you know, is to deny the administration the funds necessary to carry out these proposed changes in overtime. So I am hopeful the House will again vote right on this and make sure we keep the Senate provisions and deny the administration the ability to go ahead and just yank away the overtime protections for millions of Americans. Again, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts why is it--I don't know if there is any real answer. Why is it this administration is so intent on keeping the minimum wage as low as it is? Why are they so intent on that? What do they gain by doing that, by denying hard-working Americans an increase in the minimum wage? What does the administration gain for themselves or for this country by taking away the overtime protections for our workers which have been there since 1938? Why would the administration be doing this if we are facing at this time higher rates of unemployment, poverty going up? I don't know what the Senator's response to that will be, but in my view, this is so ideologically driven. This administration, I think, if it had its way, would take away all overtime protections, take away the minimum wage. They don't even believe in a minimum wage. They wouldn't even have a minimum wage. They would have our workers compete at the lowest possible level with workers from the Third World countries. It is not enough they are shipping our manufacturing jobs out of this country, they are now shipping into this country labor standards from Third World countries. Again, I don't know. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for pointing this out this morning. I think we need to discuss this more. We are going to be discussing a supplemental appropriations bill on the floor today and for the next few days of $87 billion. That is for rebuilding Iraq. Some of that is for the military, but with $21 billion we are going to build sewer and water systems, we are going to build new schools, we are going to rebuild some swampland--there is everything in there to rebuild the economy of Iraq. At the same time this administration wants to keep minimum wages low. They will not help us get the minimum wage up. And they want to take away overtime protection. What kind of fairness is there in that?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his kind remarks, but he has been the leader in terms of workers' rights for all of his time in the Senate. I am honored to be able to work with him to make sure we continue to support our working families. I say to my friend from Massachusetts that the Secretary of Labor just wrote a recent editorial which ran in the Omaha World Herald, which is across the river from Iowa. It is interesting that she wrote my amendment ``if enacted, would be a huge setback for U.S. workers from getting overtime pay for the first time.'' What she is talking about there is part of this proposal would increase the threshold for guaranteed overtime pay from $8,060 a year to $22,100 a year. My amendment does not affect that. What we passed here in the Senate protecting overtime pay does not even remotely affect it. If the Secretary of Labor wants to increase the threshold from $8,060 a year to $22,100 a year, what is she waiting for? She can do that tomorrow. She could have done that this spring in the rules and regulations. It is because certain friends of this administration and industries say they wouldn't support it unless we made other changes to take away overtime protection from other workers. It is true the proposed regulation does increase the threshold. That is fine. Our amendment doesn't touch that. With the other hand they take away overtime pay protection for over 8 million Americans. Then they say they want to simplify the rules. The proposal is far from simple. It is as complex as ever. The Society for Human Resource Management was quoted in the Chicago Tribune: It looks like they're just moving from one ambiguity to the next. These rules and regulations can be simplified and updated without taking away workers' overtime pay protection. Again, don't take my word for it. Here is what industry says from a May 2003 analysis by Hewitt Associates, a global human resources outsourcing and consulting firm, to its clients on their Web site. They said: These proposed changes-- by the Secretary of Labor-- --likely will open the door for employers to reclassify a large number of previously nonexempt employees as exempt. Exempt from overtime pay protection. The resulting effect on compensation and morale could be detrimental, as employees previously accustomed to earning, in some cases, significant amounts of overtime would suddenly lose that opportunity. That is not me saying that. That is a May 2003 analysis by Hewitt Associates, a global human resources outsourcing and consulting firm, to their clients which include more than half of the Fortune 500 companies. There you have it. This is industry driven to take away the overtime pay protection so they can work people longer and not pay them any more. As I pointed out on the floor previously, and as the Senator from Massachusetts did, this is antiworker and it is antifamily. Many of these people are women. They are already paying for child care. Now they are going to have to work longer and pay more for child care, and they don't get a nickel more for overtime. It is not fair. It is not right. I hope the House of Representatives will vote strongly to instruct their conferees to adopt the Senate provision. Let us have the administration go back and let us have a fair and reasonable updating of overtime regulations. Yesterday, on Tuesday, September 30, there was a lead editorial in the Washington Post entitled ``Fighting Over Overtime.'' It said: Despite a veto threat from President Bush, the House should vote to block the rules. While the overtime regulations need updating-- We all agree with that. --the administration proposal tilts too far in the direction of employers. It ought to be redrawn in a more balanced way. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized on my own time.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that. I will not take that much time.