The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“MOTION TO CLOSE SENATE SESSION” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Senate section on pages S12465-S12466 on Nov. 8, 2005.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
MOTION TO CLOSE SENATE SESSION
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was a week ago today when the Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, made a motion that the Senate move into closed session under rule XXI. It is a rule that is rarely used, but I was glad it was used that day because the purpose was absolutely essential for America to learn the truth about what happened before the invasion of Iraq.
Senator Reid made that motion in order to make certain that the Senate Intelligence Committee keeps its word to the American people. Some 20 months ago, the Senate Intelligence Committee promised they would have a thorough professional investigation of several major elements relative to intelligence. One of the most important is whether any elected official or member of this administration in any way used intelligence or made statements that were not substantiated. In other words, were we misled, purposely or deliberately, by any elected official or member of the administration before the invasion of Iraq. It is an absolutely critical question.
I am glad the Senate Intelligence Committee made a commitment to initiate this investigation. We found, after waiting 20 months, little or nothing was happening. Fifteen months ago, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, called this phase II investigation a top priority. Yet, on March 11 of this year, speaking to the Woodrow Wilson Center, Senator Roberts said this investigation was ``on the back burner.''
Then a few days later on March 31, Senator Roberts issued a press release, after we had the report of a commission relative to this intelligence, in which he said all prewar intelligence--it would be a monumental waste of time to replow the ground.
It was very unclear whether the commitment was still there from Senator Roberts and the Intelligence Committee to keep their word to the American people to investigate this critical question.
Yesterday, the junior Senator from Texas came to the floor arguing, I believe, that it was unnecessary to go forward with this investigation. I think he is wrong. He argued that if we find any member of the administration misled the American people into believing a war in Iraq and an invasion were necessary, somehow this would discredit the bravery and heroism of America's troops. I cannot follow his logic.
The men and women in uniform are doing their country proud every day. They are risking their lives for America. They stand up for values that are essential, such as family, faith, and truth. Why would this Senate be reluctant to tell the American people the truth?
This is not just a test of the Intelligence Committee; this is a test of the Senate. It is a test of our constitutional responsibility, the responsibility of Congress, to protect the American people from an abuse of power by the executive or any elected official. It is a matter of the gravest importance. If an elected official deliberately or recklessly misled the American people into believing there was cause for the invasion of Iraq, that is a serious abuse of power.
We know Senator Roberts promised this investigation almost 2 years ago. Because of our motion to go into closed session, a bipartisan agreement was reached, and under that agreement, in 6 days, Senator Roberts and two of his designees will announce with three Democratic designees the schedule for completing this important investigation.
When we closed the Senate, we accomplished more in 2 hours than we had accomplished in 2 years in moving this investigation forward. When the junior Senator from Texas came to the floor and said this investigation was unnecessary because an earlier group had investigated it, he referred specifically to the Silberman-Robb Commission. What he did not put into the record should be included, and I quote from the commission:
[W]e were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community. Accordingly, while we interviewed a host of current and former policymakers during the course of our investigation, the purpose of those interviews was to learn about how the Intelligence Community reached and communicated its judgments about Iraq's weapons programs--not to review how policymakers subsequently used that information.
That is the question. That is the issue. For the Senator from Texas to say the Silberman-Robb Commission has dealt with that issue is not factual and it is not accurate, based on the words of that commission.
He went further to say that the phase I investigation of the Intelligence Committee about the failings of the intelligence agencies to understand the threat in Iraq also took care of the question before us. It did not. I served on the Intelligence Committee. We purposely divided this into two investigations: First, any failings or shortcomings of intelligence agencies; second, any misuse of this intelligence information by policymakers and elected officials. That is the responsibility we have to go forward.
It is not clear when the Senate Intelligence Committee would have finished its work had we not filed this motion to have a closed session in the Senate. Now the promise has been made not just to fellow colleagues, not just to the Congress, but to the American people. I think we need to know the truth. If a policymaker in this administration deliberately misled the American people, we should know that. If we find from the evidence it did not occur, we should also know that.
Let us pursue the truth. Let us make sure the Senate Intelligence Committee keeps its promise to the American people.
We know there are many areas of statements made by the President, by the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense that were just plain wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction. When it came to the aluminum tubes, there was a serious disagreement within the administration, between the CIA and the Department of Energy, as to whether those aluminum tubes were evidence of a buildup of nuclear weapons. We also know that statements by the administration about a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 were false. There was no evidence to back it up. We know now about the notorious statements in the President's State of the Union Address about whether Iraq obtained yellowcake from Niger to develop nuclear weapons turned out to be totally false and bogus.
The obvious question that has to be asked is whether this administration and its spokespersons knew ahead of time the information they were giving to the American people was not accurate. That is the essential inquiry that must take place.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
____________________
