Floor Statements

Mr. President, it has now been 1 year and 1 week, 1 year and 7 days since senior White House officials leaked the identity of a clandestine officer of the CIA, Valerie Plame, to Washington journalists. According to the Washington Post, there were two senior White House officials who called a number of reporters--at last count, maybe six--to reveal the name of Valerie Plame as being a covert CIA agent. Of course, only one reporter sought to publish that--was Mr. Novak--in one of his columns.

This criminal act was a brazen act of revenge and retaliation to punish Ms. Plame's husband, who dared to question one of the administration's key justifications for invading Iraq.

One year and 7 days and nothing has been done, nothing.

Here is what the White House had to say yesterday, July 20. Deputy Attorney General James Comey said:

We take issues of classified information very, very

seriously. As you know, we have prosecuted or sought

administrative sanctions against any number of people

throughout the years for mishandling of classified

information.

Say again? After they exposed Valerie Plame, what happened? It took 6 months from the time of the leak of the Plame matter for Attorney General Ashcroft to recuse himself. Not until December 30 was a special prosecutor appointed. The President and Vice President have never appeared to take this leaking of her name and her identity very seriously--or even seriously.

In his only public statement about this leak, here is what the President said:

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 was George W. Bush, October 7, 2003.

If you look at the video of this, he is smiling when he says it. He has kind of a smirk on his face. Does that sound like a matter being taken very seriously? One year and 1 week later we are still awaiting any sign that prosecutions or even sanctions will be brought against anyone in this matter.

This dismissive attitude on the part of the President and the Vice President is not acceptable. We are not talking about a Washington game of gotcha. We are talking about a calculated act of betrayal and treachery against our Nation. A clandestine officer of the CIA was brazenly exposed by a couple of senior White House officials who somehow got access to this information. Who gave them access? Who in the CIA or the National Security Council gave her name to these White House officials? How did they come by it? She was a very deep undercover agent.

This betrayal has real consequences in terms of the national security of the United States. This single act by the White House has undermined the clandestine capabilities of the CIA. It has damaged our national security. It has weakened our country. In this respect, the Valerie Plame incident fits a much broader pattern, a pattern of actions by this administration that have made our Nation weaker, less secure, more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Don't take my word for it, take the word of some former CIA people. Here is Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst and State Department employee:

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.

And here is James Marcinkowski, former CIA operations officer:

The deliberate exposure and identification of Ambassador

Wilson's wife, by our government, was unprecedented,

unnecessary, harmful and dangerous.

Yes, the leaking of Valerie Plame's name weakened our country, made us less secure, more vulnerable to future attacks.

Almost 4 years ago, when President Bush was running for election, he went around the country raising his right hand, saying I swear to restore honesty and integrity to the White House.

It is time for Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney to raise their right hands again and to take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth regarding the Valerie Plame incident and what they know and what they have done to find out who exposed her name.

We had an example of this a few years ago when a President of the United States was put under oath and was filmed. We sat in the Senate and we looked at that film on video monitors during the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton. Regardless of how you felt about the impeachment, whether you thought it was good

or bad or what, the fact that the President of the United States was put under oath sent a clear message to the people of this country. No President is above the law, neither then nor now. It is time for this President and this Vice President to be put under oath. What happened 1 year and 7 days ago is unconscionable, unprecedented, harmful, dangerous to the security of our country.

The President of the United States could have solved this in 24 hours by calling in every one of his top senior officials, have them sign a piece of paper, have them swear under oath that they did not do this and had nothing to do with this. We could have solved it in 24 hours, but the President of the United States dismissed this. He sort of pooh- poohed the whole thing, smiled about it, and said, I don't think we will catch whoever did this.

Where is the sense of outrage by this President and Vice President that two senior officials would so brazenly, with such calculation, expose the cover, expose the person in the CIA with assets around the world, giving human intelligence to our CIA which we need so desperately in our war against terrorism.

I task the Senate this morning, as I will every day, to call upon the President and the Vice President and to call upon the special prosecutor to put the President and Vice President under oath. If this is not resolved, America will become weaker, less secure, and more vulnerable. We cannot allow that to happen to this country.

The people who exposed Valerie Plame are guilty of violating a law and they should be punished to the full extent of that law. That sends the signal to any other administration, be it Democrat or Republican, that this kind of treachery, this kind of violation of our laws, will not be permitted under any administration.

I yield the floor.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. What is the business before the Senate?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to discuss the reasons behind my decision to vote against the Morocco free-trade agreement implementing legislation which the Senate passed earlier today. I want to make very clear that my vote was not in any way against a free-trade agreement with Morocco. My vote, as was my vote against the Chilean free-trade agreement, was a protest against the continued determination by this administration to undermine and to do away with provisions that address labor issues, especially the worst forms of child labor, that we had contained in the Jordan free-trade agreement and relevant provisions in the Generalized System of Preferences.

In fact, I welcome this affirmation of the strong economic and political relationship that exists between the United States and the Kingdom of Morocco which can be strengthened by this agreement. I recognize this legislation is almost certain to pass the House this week very easily, and the United States-Morocco Free-Trade Agreement will go into effect next January.

The Kingdom of Morocco is a politically moderate Muslim nation that has been a long-time friend of the United States, a friendship that has been demonstrated most recently with their support in the aftermath of the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

Morocco has been a valuable partner in fighting the global war on terror, and so it is appropriate for the U.S. Government to reciprocate that support with a bilateral free-trade agreement so long as it leads to expanded economic opportunities for both partners.

Once in place, this agreement will generate significant economic benefits to both Morocco and the United States, and with Morocco's strategic position on the continent of Africa and easy access into Europe through the Strait of Gibraltar, it could serve as a gateway to even more markets.

This bilateral free-trade agreement could also serve as the foundation for a far wider free-trade agreement with the entire region of the Middle East and northern Africa.

With respect to agriculture, this free-trade agreement provides modest but clear opportunities to a wide range of U.S. commodities.

The opportunities provided in the free-trade agreement in nonagricultural goods and services will be substantial as well, and it reflects the determination of the Government of Morocco to modernize their economy to the benefit of the people of Morocco.

So count me as a friend of Morocco. Morocco has been a strong ally of the United States. It is a moderate nation. I have had the privilege of visiting Morocco on at least two occasions, maybe more, and I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the Moroccan people. Nonetheless, I decided to vote against it because I intend to call attention to the decision of U.S. negotiators to retreat from the provisions under the Generalized System of Preferences that requires the U.S. Government to monitor our trading partners on their progress in meeting international standards on the use of child labor, and these provisions in the GSP also provide leverage to encourage those countries to continue to make progress by permitting sanctions to be imposed against those who backtrack.

The Bush administration has taken a weak stand toward child labor in this latest trade agreement. In 2000, I, along with then-Senator Helms of North Carolina, authored an amendment that unanimously passed the Senate that extended GSP benefits to countries that took steps to implement ILO Convention 182 on the worst forms of child labor, and it mandated that the President report on the progress of these countries. If the President determined that countries were not taking steps to implement the ILO Conventions, benefits would be withheld.

The trade agreement that we passed with Chile earlier, and with Morocco, takes a step backward. As I said at the time, I first proposed we have a free-trade agreement with Chile in 1993, 11 years ago. So I had mixed emotions when I had to vote against the free-trade agreement with Chile because Chile's Government is making great progress. But this administration sought to undermine what we had achieved in the Jordanian free-trade agreement and in the Generalized System of Preferences.

Morocco does have problems with child labor. Although not employed in regular manufacturing, child labor is commonly used in cottage industries, such as rug making, and many Moroccan middle-class households use children as domestic servants. The Government of Morocco did pass new labor laws last month which included raising the minimum working age from 12 to 15 and reducing the workweek from 48 to 44 hours, but a recent U.S. Department of Labor report indicates that enforcement of existing laws is severely constrained.

So while Morocco has been a good friend, while they are trying to make progress, I think our trade laws ought to bolster that progress in doing away with the worst forms of child labor.

I take into account these considerations when I determine whether I will support a given trade agreement, as well as the economic gains that may be generated.

As in the case of Chile, my concern about the lack of direct protection against the use of child labor was the overriding factor, so I voted no on the free-trade agreement with Morocco. Again, as I say, I do not want this to be misinterpreted in any way as any lack of support for our mutual friendship and the continued development of relations between the United States and Morocco.

I was watching on the monitor when Senator Byrd was recently on the floor talking about the lack of considering appropriations bills. In 2 days, we are going to adjourn for recess. What do we have to show for it? By this point, the Senate should have passed most, if not all, of the 13 appropriations bills, but this year under the Republican leadership we have only passed one, the Defense bill. We have not even debated the 12 others, much less put them to a vote.

Why is that? Is it because we are so busy in the Senate that we cannot debate these? Hardly. We spent days talking about judges who stand no chance of being confirmed; days on an amendment to ban gay unions that everyone knew would not pass, could not even get a majority vote, let alone 67 votes needed for a constitutional amendment. We spent weeks on a class action bill because Republican leadership did not want to consider amendments on which they thought they might lose.

Meanwhile, the Senate leadership has taken no action on increasing the minimum wage or extending unemployment benefits that could really make a difference for hard-working Americans.

The highway bill, which would create thousands of jobs, is now almost a year overdue, hung up by a veto threat of the White House. The bill to authorize Corps of Engineers projects that are important to farmers in my State was passed by the committee a month ago. There is no sign of any consideration in the Senate.

According to the Senate leadership, there is no time to take up appropriations bills that provide funding for critically important Government services. Passing the appropriations bills ought to be one of our top priorities. These bills pay for everything from roads and veterans health to homeland security and education. But here it is, July 21, with only 21 legislative days remaining in the fiscal year, and we have passed one appropriations bill.

That is all.

As the ranking Democrat on the Labor, Health, Human Services and Education Appropriations Committee, I find this very troubling. It is not the committee chairman's fault. I know Senator Stevens is anxious to pass these bills. The same goes for the chairman of the Labor, Health, Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Specter. Our staffs have worked together closely on a bill. We are ready to mark it up on a moment's notice, but the White House and the Republican leadership in the Senate seem to have no interest in moving any appropriations bill other than Defense.

The reason is simple when one thinks about it. If these appropriations bills get debated on the Senate floor, everyone will see what the Republican Party's priorities are. It will be very clear. The Republican Party is out of touch with middle-class and low-income Americans. Education is a case in point. Two and a half years after President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, it is obvious he has no intention of providing the funding to make it work. President Bush's budget for next year shortchanges the No Child Left Behind Act by a whooping $9.4 billion.

No wonder we hear from school boards, teachers, and principals all over our States complaining about the No Child Left Behind Act. It is an unfunded Government mandate, the biggest of all, telling our local schools what they have to do, and yet we do not provide the funding that was promised by the President, $9.4 billion less than what he promised, and it is shortchanging our schools.

Look at title I in education. That is the Federal program that specifically serves disadvantaged children who are at the most risk of falling behind and being left behind. The President's budget shortchanges this program by more than $7 billion. Now we are up to $16 billion in two cases of education.

It is the same story with kids with disabilities. The President's budget provides less than half of the level Congress committed to paying when the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was passed in 1975. Meanwhile, Mr. Bush continues to oppose the bipartisan legislation Senator Hagel and I have offered to fully fund this law.

On higher education, the President offers virtually no help to low- and middle-income students who cannot afford to go to college. Under President Bush's budget, the maximum Pell grant award would be frozen for the third straight year while college tuitions continue to rise through the roof.

The level of Pell grants in the President's budget next year will be lower than it was in 2002. One wonders why so many students cannot afford to go to college now or why they are borrowing more money and graduating with these big debts. Well, maybe that is the administration's goal: Get these kids to borrow more money from the banks, pay these big interest rates, pay it back, rather than making Pell grants, which they should be providing.

Meanwhile, President Bush's budget eliminates funding entirely for programs like school counselors, arts and education, gifted and talented programs, and dropout prevention, all zeroed out in the President's education budget.

The administration says there is no money to do this, no money to make good on the pledges made only 2 years ago.

Well, I am sorry if I strongly disagree. Bear in mind that in this same budget with all of these cuts to education, the President calls for another $1 trillion in tax cuts.

It seems to me if there is room for $1 trillion in tax cuts, surely there is room for $9.4 billion to fund the No Child Left Behind education bill. That would be less than 1 percent of the proposed new tax cuts.

Time and again we hear this administration say, well, education reform is not about money. It is true, education reform is not only about money, but let's be real: If we are going to modernize school buildings, it costs money. If we are going to buy up-to-date textbooks and school technology, guess what. It costs money. If we are going to reduce class sizes, it costs money. If, under the No Child Left Behind Act, we want highly qualified teachers in the subjects in which they teach, guess what. It costs money. And if we want to ensure all kids with disabilities are learning at the proficient level as required by the new law, guess what. It costs money. If we want to ensure all young people, regardless of income, have a shot at going to college, guess what. It costs money. Unfortunately, money is something we do not get very much of in the President's education budget.

If they want a tax break for the wealthy, they get $1 trillion. If we want to fund education, forget it in the President's budget.

We Democrats tried to increase funding for education during the debate on the budget resolution in March. We offered amendments on the No Child Left Behind Act, on afterschool centers and Pell grants, but the Republican majority rebuffed us every time. Now the Republican leadership in the Senate will not even give us a chance to debate an education appropriations bill and offer amendments on the floor of the Senate. They will not even give us a chance to do that.

A couple of years ago when the President signed the No Child Left Behind bill, he seemed to think that education was an important Federal responsibility--Federal, not local. The President signed the No Child Left Behind Act, a Federal mandate to local schools. If the President thought 2 years ago that education was an important Federal responsibility, why is the President so reluctant to have us take up an appropriations bill that would fund this law?

I believe I know why. The Republicans have backed themselves into a corner. They are doling out so many tax cuts for the rich that they do not have any money left to fund our Nation's schools. They know if they offer an education bill with the limited amount of money they are willing to spend on students, there is going to be a huge outcry across the country. The American people would see what the President really stands for. They would see, in black and white, that this administration has no real interest in leaving no child behind.

Four years ago we were looking at over $5 trillion in surpluses over 10 years, with the Federal Reserve talking about the great economic effects of completely paying off the Federal debt by 2009. That was 4 years ago.

Four years later, now, this year, we are facing a record deficit of over $400 billion just this year. There are many reasons for that turnaround, but the biggest by far is the tax cuts. About half of the tax cuts we have passed here go to people averaging an income of over $1 million a year. Let me repeat that: Over one-half of those tax cuts that we have passed here go to people averaging an income of over $1 million a year.

This administration's misguided tax policies are undermining our Nation's fiscal strength; they are weakening our economy, jeopardizing Social Security, and reducing our ability to provide for the needs of our children and our Nation's education. It is no wonder that the Senate Republican leadership wants to avoid the issue of education funding. They do not want to bring the education funding bill out on the floor for open debate and amendments. They just want to sweep it under the rug and hope that no one notices.

The Republican Party controls the Senate schedule, so they have that power. But I urge them to reconsider. Let's mark up the bill in subcommittee, to the full committee, and bring it to the floor.

As I said, Senator Specter has done his job. My staff worked with his staff. We have a bill that is ready to go. Bring it out here. Let's have a good debate about how much we want to fund education. Give the public a chance to weigh in and see an open debate. Let's have amendments. Let's vote on them. I thought that was the way the process was supposed to work.

Maybe my friends on the other side of the aisle are right. Maybe people

really do care more about tax cuts for the rich than about funding education. I don't think that is so, but there is only one way to find out. That is to bring the education appropriations bill to the floor in open debate and let Senators on both sides of the aisle offer their amendments. Let's vote on those amendments, and let's see how the elected Representatives of the people of this country feel about funding education after those debates and after those votes. As I said, it seems to me this is the way our democratic system is supposed to work.

Again, I urge the Republican leadership: Bring out our appropriations bills. I focus on education because I happen to be the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee dealing with education, health, and labor. There are so many more, as I mentioned, such as the highway bill and homeland security, that we need to get through on the Senate floor. There are 21 days left, and we have passed only one appropriations bill.

The Senate is not doing its business. It is time we do.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, how much time do I have under the order?

Mr. President, I am here on the Senate floor again today to remind my colleagues, and those who may be watching on C-SPAN, that it has now been 1 year and 6 days since two high-ranking White House officials leaked the name of agent Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, to a columnist by the name of Robert Novak, who then published it in his column. Two high-ranking White House officials leaked this name to more than one reporter. It is interesting that no other reporters reported it except Robert Novak.

Here we are 372 days--1 year and 6 days after this crime was committed. We still have no answers about who in the White House was responsible for this leak. We still have no assurance from the President or the Vice President that those who are responsible do not still remain in high-ranking decision making roles in the White House. They are probably still there.

This administration has failed to find and punish the officials responsible for this criminal action. Ms. Plame's identity was leaked by senior White House officials only 8 days after her husband questioned in print one of the key administration justifications for the war in Iraq; that is, that Iraq had sought to buy uranium ore from the country of Niger.

This blatant defiance of public accountability weakens our country. It damages our international credibility and undercuts our human intelligence efforts at a time when they are needed more than ever. It is just one example of the way this administration has weakened America's standing in the world.

I will speak further to this issue during the remainder of the week. Again, I will continue to point out how this has weakened America. Last month, for example, a group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials who worked for Presidents of both parties, Republican and Democrat, issued a compelling statement about the damage the administration has done to our security. Their statement said:

Our security has been weakened.

It said further:

[The] Bush administration has shown that it does not grasp

the circumstances of the new era and is not able to rise to

the responsibility of world leadership in either style or

substance.

When a former Ambassador, Joseph Wilson, raised issues that questioned part of President Bush's rationale for the war in Iraq, this administration attacked him politically, and then went after his wife. And the smear campaign continues, as we have seen in recent columns and four statements this week.

I am not here to criticize or defend former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. I am here to make the point that when he dared to question whether one of the President's justifications for the war in Iraq was correct, the White House was so intent on discrediting him that they were willing to expose the identity of an undercover CIA agent in an act of vicious political retribution. They were willing to break the law, and to damage the relationship between the White House and the intelligence community. This administration purposefully stretched intelligence data they knew to be questionable to justify the war to the American people and to Congress.

According to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, in February of 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Wilson to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had sought to purchase Nigerian uranium ore. His trip and subsequent debriefing neither verified the claim, nor disproved it. Following his trip, the intelligence community continued efforts to verify the claim.

In October of 2002, the White House sought to include that claim-- that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore from Niger--in a policy speech by the President that was to be given in Cincinnati. But the CIA had such serious concerns about this being in his speech that they sent a memo to the White House seeking changes. The CIA did not think these concerns were being taken seriously, so the following day, they sent a second memo that urged the information be deleted from the President's speech.

So now we have two memos to the White House on subsequent days asking that this be taken out of his speech because ``the evidence was weak'' and that the CIA had told Congress that ``the Africa story was overblown.'' That same day, CIA Director Tenet personally called Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to express his concerns about using this information in the speech. And guess what. It was taken out of the President's speech by Stephen Hadley, the Deputy National Security Adviser.

That is how concerned the CIA was about this information and about the credibility of the information: two memos and a personal call from the Director of the CIA to Deputy National Security Adviser Hadley. It was taken out of the President's speech. This is October.

Between October and January, both the State Department and the CIA obtained copies of documents that purported to be a uranium ore purchase agreement between Iraq and Niger. As I heard, these documents came from someplace in Italy. But the State Department determined the documents were probably a hoax.

So between October and January, there was even more reason to doubt the credibility of these uranium ore claims. Nonetheless, when the President took the floor in the House Chamber to give his State of the Union Message, what happened? Those claims were included in his speech.

Who was the person responsible for vetting, for clearing these kinds of statements in the President's State of the Union Message? Guess what, it was Stephen Hadley, the Deputy National Security Adviser. He was in charge of vetting the national security issues for the President's State of the Union speech. This was the same person who just a couple of months before had received two memos and a personal

phone call from Mr. Tenet, the head of the CIA, telling him these claims were highly suspect. But these words made it into the President's State of the Union Message. Thus, the White House, in its determination to wage war, included information they knew to be questionable to justify the war in Iraq.

Six months later, when Joseph Wilson questioned that information, two senior White House officials undertook a campaign to destroy the career of his wife. Who would have known that Valerie Plame was married to Joseph Wilson? Maybe some in the CIA knew it. I don't know who else knew it. They had different names. She was deep undercover. She was not given diplomatic immunity. She was very deep undercover in the CIA.

In the process of blowing Ms. Plame's cover, these White House officials cost the people of this country a 20-year investment in Valerie Plame. They placed into jeopardy her entire network of contacts and CIA operatives. They caused the entire intelligence community to question whether they might be next and be exposed. Thus, they weakened the reputation of this country at home and abroad.

Don't take my word for it; take the words of three former CIA high- ranking officials. Vincent Cannistrano, 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 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 non-

official covered officers.

Or the words of James Marcinkowski, a former CIA operations officer, he said:

The deliberate exposure and identification of Ambassador

Wilson's wife by our own Government was unprecedented,

unnecessary, harmful, and dangerous.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, said:

For this administration to run on a security platform and

to allow people in this administration to compromise the

security of intelligence assets I think is unconscionable.

No one listening to these three men could have any doubts about the damage this act has done to our intelligence community and the extent to which this has weakened America.

We have seen that this administration has put relentless pressure on the intelligence community to justify the war. I have been informed that Vice President Cheney personally went to the CIA headquarters-- personally went across the river in Virginia to the CIA headquarters-- at least eight times in the months when this intelligence data was under review. The Los Angeles Times reported last week that the Vice President's office even prepared its own dossier of all the information they thought should be used by the Secretary of State to justify the war, much of which the State Department rejected.

My question is, what was Vice President Cheney doing visiting the CIA over eight times? This is unprecedented--unprecedented.

And my final question is this: Where is the same drive and determination by the President or the Vice President when it comes to finding those responsible for the breach of national security this leak caused?

The people who exposed Valerie Plame broke the law. Title 50 U.S.C., section 421. It is very clear on this: Any person who has access to classified information that identifies a covert agent shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both.

I ask unanimous consent that the exact words of 50 U.S.C., section 421, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this law does not make any exceptions. It does not say, you can be fined or put in prison unless your spouse has gone against the administration's policy. It does not have that in here. No one is excused, not even, in my opinion, Mr. Novak.

One year and 6 days later we are still waiting for some action to be taken against those who broke the law. I have said repeatedly, if the President wanted to know the identity of these high-ranking officials, he could have done so within 24 hours. Clearly, Mr. Bush does not want to know the identity of the leakers, and when he was asked about it, he just dismissed it out of hand, smiled about it, said: There are a lot of leakers, who knows, a lot of people in the administration, and he just brushed it off. Where is Mr. Bush's sense of outrage that two people would do this and so weaken America's national security?

I think getting these answers means only one thing: The President of the United States, Mr. Bush, the Vice President of the United States, Mr. Cheney, should be put under oath and filmed at the same time and deposed and asked these questions. One might say: Senator, that is an awful drastic step to be taken to put the President and Vice President under oath. I remind my colleagues that just a very few years ago a former President was put under oath and questioned under oath and filmed, and we sat in this Chamber and watched on television sets the deposition of former President Clinton when he was put under oath.

Regardless of how one may have felt about the impeachment one way or the other, I think the fact that the President was put under oath and questioned sent a signal very loudly and clearly to the people of this country: No one is above the law, not even the President of the United States. If it was good enough for a former President, it is good enough for this President.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will help ensure that employees of ``express carrier'' delivery companies are treated like employees who perform the same duties for other delivery, companies when it comes to Federal labor law jurisdiction.

Over the years, there have been many advances made in the way citizens and businesses ship goods from city to city. Numerous air- carrier and cargo services make the delivery of goods speedy, reliable and affordable. Truck, air and rail delivery networks are in place across the country. These operations employ large workforces that perform various types of work in a range of conditions.

Some of the leading delivery companies appear to have similar organizational structure and clientele. But there is a disparity in the terms and conditions of their workers' employment. Some of the companies provide full- and part-time workers with good wages and benefits, including medical plans, dental coverage and paid vacation time. Others take a lower road, in part by using independent contractors and anti-union campaigns.

Unfortunately, Federal law facilitates this difference. It ensures that all of the workers at one of the largest companies which delivers by air are covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), even when those workers do the same jobs as employees at other delivery companies who are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). What is the difference? Under the NLRA, workers can act locally in seeking to organize and bargain collectively. Under the RLA, workers must organize nationally, an enormous challenge in today's labor environment.

Congress created the concept of an ``express carrier'' in 1996, putting all the employees of one large company under RLA jurisdiction, regardless of individual employees' relation to air transportation. That means those workers cannot organize a union chapter locally, weakening their opportunity to bargain for better wages, benefits and workplace conditions.

This bill provides that employees of an express carrier will be governed under the RLA only if they are licensed airmen, aircraft maintenance technicians or aircraft dispatchers. That is consistent with the treatment of other delivery companies' workers.

The bill delivers fairness to responsible employers trying to do the right thing for workers while remaining competitive. It seeks to raise living standards, not encourage a race to the bottom. Workers can decide for themselves whether or not to collectively bargain, but in all businesses similarly situated, workers should be regulated the same.

Let's deliver fairness to those who deliver for us.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will help ensure that employees of ``express carrier'' delivery companies are treated like employees who perform the same duties for other delivery, companies when it comes to Federal labor law jurisdiction.

Over the years, there have been many advances made in the way citizens and businesses ship goods from city to city. Numerous air- carrier and cargo services make the delivery of goods speedy, reliable and affordable. Truck, air and rail delivery networks are in place across the country. These operations employ large workforces that perform various types of work in a range of conditions.

Some of the leading delivery companies appear to have similar organizational structure and clientele. But there is a disparity in the terms and conditions of their workers' employment. Some of the companies provide full- and part-time workers with good wages and benefits, including medical plans, dental coverage and paid vacation time. Others take a lower road, in part by using independent contractors and anti-union campaigns.

Unfortunately, Federal law facilitates this difference. It ensures that all of the workers at one of the largest companies which delivers by air are covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), even when those workers do the same jobs as employees at other delivery companies who are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). What is the difference? Under the NLRA, workers can act locally in seeking to organize and bargain collectively. Under the RLA, workers must organize nationally, an enormous challenge in today's labor environment.

Congress created the concept of an ``express carrier'' in 1996, putting all the employees of one large company under RLA jurisdiction, regardless of individual employees' relation to air transportation. That means those workers cannot organize a union chapter locally, weakening their opportunity to bargain for better wages, benefits and workplace conditions.

This bill provides that employees of an express carrier will be governed under the RLA only if they are licensed airmen, aircraft maintenance technicians or aircraft dispatchers. That is consistent with the treatment of other delivery companies' workers.

The bill delivers fairness to responsible employers trying to do the right thing for workers while remaining competitive. It seeks to raise living standards, not encourage a race to the bottom. Workers can decide for themselves whether or not to collectively bargain, but in all businesses similarly situated, workers should be regulated the same.

Let's deliver fairness to those who deliver for us.

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

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. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ramey Ko of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

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

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

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?

Is it 17\1/2\ minutes?

I will try. Thank you.

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

I understand I have 10 minutes.

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.