Floor Statement of Sen. Daschle
on the Abuse of Government Power




Mr. President, last week I spoke about the White House's reaction
to Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9-11 Commission.
I am compelled to rise again today,
because the people around the President are systematically
abusing the powers and prerogatives of government.

We all need to reflect seriously on what's going on.
Not in anger and not in partisanship,
but in keeping with our responsibilities as Senators
and with an abiding respect for the fundamental values
of our democracy.

Richard Clarke did something extraordinary
when he testified before the 9-11 Commission last week.
He didn't try to escape blame, as so many routinely do.
Instead, he accepted his share of responsibility
and offered his perceptions about what happened
in the months and years leading up to September 11.

We can and should debate the facts and interpretations
Clarke has offered. But there can be no doubt
that he has risked enormous damage to his reputation
and professional future to hold both himself
and our government accountable.

The retaliation from those around the President
has been fierce. Mr. Clarke's personal motives
have been questioned and his honesty challenged.
He has even been accused, right here on the Senate floor,
of perjury. Not one shred of proof was given,
but that wasn't the point.
The point was to have the perjury accusation on television
and in the newspapers.
The point was to damage Mr. Clarke in any way possible.

This is wrong–and it's not the first time it's happened.

When Senator McCain ran for President,
the Bush campaign smeared him and his family
with vicious, false attacks.
When Max Cleland ran for reelection to this Senate,
his patriotism was attacked.
He was accused of not caring about protecting our nation
-- a man who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam,
accused of being indifferent to America's national security.
That was such an ugly lie, it's still hard to fathom
almost two years later.

There are some things that simply ought not be done
– even in politics.
Too many people around the President
seem not to understand that,
and that line has been crossed.
When Ambassador Joe Wilson told the truth
about the Administration's misleading claims about Iraq,
Niger, and uranium, the people around the President
didn't respond with facts.
Instead, they publicly disclosed
that Ambassador Wilson's wife
was a deep-cover CIA agent.
In doing so, they undermined America's national security
and put politics first.
They also may well have put the lives
of Ambassador Wilson's wife,
and her sources, in danger.

When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill
revealed that the White House was thinking
about an Iraq War in its first weeks in office,
his former colleagues in the Bush Administration
ridiculed him from morning to night,
and even subjected him to a fruitless federal investigation.

When Larry Lindsay,
one of President Bush's former top economic advisors,
and General Eric Shinseki, the former Army Chief of Staff,
spoke honestly about the amount of money
and the number of troops the war would demand,
they learned the hard way that
the White House doesn't tolerate candor.

This is not "politics as usual."
In nearly all of these cases,
it's not Democrats who are being attacked.

Senator McCain and Secretary O'Neill
are prominent Republicans,
and Richard Clarke, Larry Lindsay,
Joe Wilson, and Eric Shinseki
all worked for Republican Administrations.

The common denominator is that
these government officials said things
the White House didn't want said.

The response from those around the President
was retribution and character assassination
-- a 21st Century twist to the strategy
of "shooting the messenger."

If it takes intimidation to keep inconvenient facts
from the American people,
the people around the President don't hesitate.
Richard Foster, the chief actuary for Medicare,
found that out.
He was told he'd be fired if he told the truth
about the cost of the Administration's
prescription drug plan.

This is no way to run a government.

The White House and its supporters
should not be using the power of government
to try to conceal facts from the American people
or to reshape history in an effort
to portray themselves in the best light.

They should not be threatening the reputations
and livelihoods of people simply for asking
– or answering – questions.
They should seek to put all information
about past decisions on the table for evaluation
so that the best possible decisions
can be made for the nation's future.

In Mr. Clarke's case,
clear and troubling double standards are being applied.

Last year, when the Administration
was being criticized for the President's
misleading statement about Niger and uranium,
the White House unexpectedly declassified portions
of the National Intelligence Estimate.
When the Administration wants to bolster its public case,
there is little that appears too sensitive to be declassified.

Now, people around the President want to release
parts of Mr. Clarke's earlier testimony in 2002.
According to news reports,
the CIA is already working on declassifying that testimony
– at the Administration's request.

And last week several documents were declassified
literally overnight, not in an effort to provide information
on a pressing policy matter to the American people,
but in an apparent effort to discredit a public servant
who gave 30 years of service to his American government.

I'll support declassifying Mr. Clarke's testimony
before the Joint Inquiry, but the Administration shouldn't be selective.
Consistent with our need to protect sources and methods,
we should declassify his entire testimony.

And to make sure that the American people have access
to the full record as they consider this question,
we should also declassify his January 25 memo to Dr. Rice,
the September 4, 2001 National Security Directive
dealing with terrorism,
Dr. Rice's testimony to the 9-11 Commission,
the still-classified 28 pages from the House-Senate inquiry
relating to Saudi Arabia,
and a list of the dates and topics
of all National Security Council meetings
before September 4, 2001.

I hope this new interest in openness
will also include the Vice President's Energy
and Terrorism Task Forces.
While much, if not all,
of what these task forces discussed
was unclassified, their proceedings
have not been shared with the public.

There also seems to be a double standard
when it comes to investigations.

In recent days leading congressional Republicans
are now calling for an investigation into Mr. Clarke.
As I mentioned earlier,
Secretary O'Neill was also subjected to an investigation.
Clarke and O'Neill sought legal and classification review
of any information in their books
before they were published.

Nonetheless, our colleagues tell us these two
should be investigated,
at the same time
there has been no Senate investigation
into the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity
as a deep cover CIA agent;
no thorough investigation into whether
leading Administration officials misrepresented
the intelligence regarding threats posed by Iraq;
no Senate hearings into the threat
the chief Medicare Actuary faced
for trying to do his job;
and no Senate investigation
into the reports of
continued overcharging by Halliburton
for its work in Iraq.

There is a clear double standard
when it comes to investigating or releasing information,
and that's just is not right.
The American people deserve more from their leaders.

We're seeing it again now in the shifting reasons
the White House has given
for Dr. Rice's refusal to testify under oath
and publicly before the 9-11 Commission.

The people around the President first said
it would be unprecedented for Dr. Rice to testify.
But thanks to the Congressional Research Service,
we now know that previous sitting National Security Advisors
have testified before Congress.

Now the people around the President
are saying that Dr. Rice can't testify
because it would violate
an important constitutional principle:
the separation of powers.

We will soon face this debate again
when it comes time for President Bush
and Vice President Cheney
to meet with the 9-11 Commission.
I believe they should lift the limitations
they have placed on their cooperation
with the Commission and be willing to appear
before the entire Commission for as much time
as the Commission deems productive.

The all-out assault on Richard Clarke
has gone on for more than a week now.
Mr. Clarke has been accused of "profiteering"
and possible perjury. It is time for this to stop.

The Commission should declassify
Mr. Clarke's earlier testimony.
All of it. Not just the parts the White House wants.
And Dr. Rice should testify before the 9-11 Commission,
and she should be under oath and in public.

The American people deserve to know the truth
-- the full truth --
about what happened in the years
and months leading up to September 11.

Senator McCain, Senator Cleland, Secretary O'Neill,
Ambassador Wilson, General Shinseki,
Richard Foster, Richard Clarke, Larry Lindsay ...
when will the character assassination, retribution,
and intimidation end?

When will we say enough is enough?

The September 11 families
– and our entire country – deserve better.
Our democracy depends on it.
And our nation's future security depends on it.