Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and leader, Senator Reid. Let me respond to a couple of points. I had not intended to get involved deeply in this debate, but a couple things strike me, Mr. President, as this debate evolves.

First of all, this is an appropriate discussion on this bill. On what more appropriate piece of legislation could you have discussion than this one regarding intelligence matters that deal with the very issue of homeland security. So I don't understand the objection. You may object to the amendment, but the idea that on the Homeland Security bill where security plays a critical role, it seems to me discussing this matter has relevancy.

Secondly, it is our responsibility as Members of Congress to draft legislation to try to deal with these matters. Certainly what the Senator from Nevada has raised is responding to what is a national story, one that has been around now for the last several years, a matter, I might add, that could have been resolved probably a couple of years ago had Mr. Rove at the time said, Look, I am the person who spoke to Matt Cooper. I am the one who used Mr. Wilson's wife, describing her in those terms, and maybe explained at the time he didn't intend to do it. We might not be talking about this matter as extensively as we are today. But the fact is they covered it up for the last 2 years rather than coming clean and saying, I had that conversation.

I am perplexed at what the response of this is. Are my colleagues on the other side suggesting as the alternative to what Senator Reid proposes a better suggestion that people who do reveal highly classified information, the names of covert agents, should be allowed to continue to keep their secret classification? I don't think so.

That is really what the point of this is, to make the case that when anyone reveals, including Members of this body, highly classified information, the names of covert agents, you lose the privilege of having a security clearance. It is not a criminal indictment. It just says if you do that, you don't have the privilege of having that kind of a classification. I don't know why there is such a protest. This ought to be adopted unanimously.

Where is the objection? This does not mention Karl Rove, although certainly his actions have provoked this discussion. If in fact it turns out that he is indicted, then he will have to face those allegations. But to suggest that somehow we should do nothing about this, despite the fact that everyone is talking about it across the country--it has been a serious problem, it needs to be addressed, an investigation is ongoing--that should not deprive this body of responding to a situation where classified information, the name of a CIA agent, has been revealed and we ought to say something about it.

So, Mr. President, I think what Senator Reid has proposed is eminently reasonable. It is applying to everyone here. And Senator Rockefeller, our friend from West Virginia, is absolutely correct. It is an ongoing problem, almost on a daily basis, and we need to speak loudly and clearly, it has got to stop. If we are going to be more secure as a people, then we need to stop revealing important information and the identities of people who we depend upon to make us more secure. That is what the Reid amendment does.

My hope is we would have 100 Members supporting this amendment instead of a divisive debate over whether this is about an employee at the White House who, in my opinion, probably ought to voluntarily step aside pending the investigation and voluntarily give up his security clearance.

If he were a police officer in any department in the United States who had been accused of such a transgression, the chief of police would ask him to step aside temporarily, not to resign, not to retire but to step aside pending the investigation to determine whether the allegations were true.

That is what ought to happen here. But Mr. Rove is not directly the subject of this amendment. It is simply a response to a problem that exists in our country and one that needs to be addressed. Senator Reid is right, and if our colleagues were smart, they would endorse this amendment and support it unanimously at the appropriate time when the vote occurs.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/