[House Report 108-413]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Rept. 108-413
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
======================================================================
REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES NOT LATER THAN 14 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE
ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE
PRESIDENT AND THOSE OFFICIALS RELATING TO THE DISCLOSURE OF THE
IDENTITY AND EMPLOYMENT OF MS. VALERIE PLAME
_______
February 3, 2004.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Goss, from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
submitted the following
ADVERSE REPORT
together with
MINORITY, DISSENTING, AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H. Res. 499]
[Including Committee Cost Estimate]
The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, to whom was
referred the resolution (H. Res. 499) requesting the President
and directing the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense,
and the Attorney General to transmit to the House of
Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the
adoption of this resolution documents in the possession of the
President and those officials relating to the disclosure of the
identity and employment of Ms. Valerie Plame, having considered
the same, report unfavorably thereon without amendment and
recommend that resolution not be agreed to.
CONTENTS
Page
The Resolution................................................... 2
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background for the Legislation................................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 5
Committee Consideration.......................................... 5
Vote of the Committee............................................ 5
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 5
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 5
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 6
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 6
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion....................... 6
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Resolution, as Reported...... 6
Minority Views................................................... 7
Dissenting Views................................................. 9
Additional Views................................................. 13
The Resolution
The Resolution is as follows:
Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of
State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General to
transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days
after the date of the adoption of this resolution documents in
the possession of the President and those officials relating to
the disclosure of the identity and employment of Ms. Valerie
Plame.
Resolved, That--
(1) the President is requested to transmit to the House of
Representatives not later than the date that is 14 days after
the date of the adoption of this resolution, all documents,
including telephone and electronic mail records, logs and
calendars, personnel records, and records of internal
discussions in the possession of the President relating to the
disclosure of the identity of Ms. Valerie Plame as an employee
of the Central Intelligence Agency during the period beginning
on May 6, 2003, and ending on July 31, 2003; and
(2) the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and
the Attorney General are each directed to transmit to the House
of Representatives not later than such date, all documents,
including telephone and electronic mail records, logs and
calendars, and records of internal discussions in the
possession of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense,
and the Attorney General, respectively, relating to such
disclosure during such period.
Purpose and Summary
House Resolution 499, introduced by Representative Holt on
January 21, 2004, requests the President, and directs the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney
General, to transmit to the House of Representatives not later
than 14 days after the date of its adoption all documents,
including telephone and electronic mail records, logs and
calendars, personnel records, and records of internal
discussions, in the possession of the President and those
cabinet officers relating to the disclosure of the identity and
employment of Valerie Plame during the period beginning on May
6, 2003, and ending on July 31, 2003.
Background for the Legislation
House Resolution 499 is a resolution of inquiry, which
pursuant to clause 7 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, directs the Committee to act on the resolution
within 14 legislative days, or a privileged motion to discharge
the Committee is in order. In calculating the days available
for Committee consideration, the day of introduction and the
day of discharge are not counted.\1\ H. Res. 499 was introduced
and referred to the Select Committee on Intelligence, and in
addition referred to the Committees on Armed Services,
International Relations, and the Judiciary on January 21, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and
Procedures of the House'' Ch. 49, section 4, p. 819 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution
of inquiry is a means by which the House requests information
from the President of the United States or the head of one of
the executive departments. According to Deschler's Procedure,
it is a ``simple resolution making a direct request or demand
of the President or the head of an executive department to
furnish the House of Representatives with specific factual
information in the possession of the executive branch.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Deschler's Precedents, H. Doc. No. 94-661, 94th Cong., 2d
Sess., vol. 7, ch. 24, section 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Committee has a number of choices after a resolution of
inquiry is referred to it. It may vote on the resolution up or
down, or amend it. It can report favorable, adversely, or with
no recommendation. The fact that a Committee reports a
resolution of inquiry adversely does not necessarily mean that
the Committee opposes looking into the matter. In the past,
resolutions of inquiry have frequently been reported adversely
for several reasons. The two most common reasons are
substantial compliance and competing investigations.
In the first case, the Executive Branch may deliver
documents which substantially comply with the resolution, thus
making it unnecessary for the Committee to report the
resolution favorably for floor action. In the second case, a
Committee may decide the resolution may impede another
investigation that is regarded as the more appropriate avenue
for inquiry.
This resolution directs the President and the cabinet
officers previously mentioned to turn over documents that are
the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation by the Justice
Department. That investigation was opened by the Justice
Department in September of 2003 and appears to be moving at a
rather expeditious pace. In October of 2003, the White House
Counsel sent a notice to all White House employees to turn over
copies of any documents for the ongoing Justice Department
probe. In late October, the press reported that ``[t]he FBI has
interviewed more than three dozen Bush administration
officials'' as part of the DOJ investigation.\3\ The Associated
Press reported that ``[b]oxloads of documents have been
forwarded to the FBI team, including White House phone logs and
e-mails. More documents are being produced, as the contents of
individual items sometimes lead agents to request additional
materials.* * *'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Curt Anderson, Rove, McClellan Interviewed in CIA Leak Probe,
Associated Press Newswires, Oct. 23, 2003.
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 30, 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft
announced at a press conference that he had recused himself
from the matter and had appointed Patrick Fitzgerald, United
States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, as the
special prosecutor in the case. According to press accounts in
late January, Mr. Fitzgerald began submitting evidence before a
federal criminal grand jury.\5\ Press accounts also indicate
that Mr. Fitzgerald has advised several high-level officials
who have been employed by the White House that they could be
summoned to testify under oath, and that he has asked other
officials to meet with him informally. Mr. Fitzgerald is a
veteran prosecutor known for his aggressiveness and
persistence. He has extensive experience in national security
and criminal matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Eric Lichtblau and David Johnston, Jury Said to Hear Evidence
in C.I.A. Leak, New York Times, January 24, 2004, page A12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A grand jury is a powerful investigative tool that allows
prosecutors to bring an indictment for criminal wrongdoing. It
allows investigators to subpoena witnesses and documents,
including telephone and electronic mail records, logs and
calendars, personnel records and records of internal
discussions--all of the records that this resolution seeks to
obtain. It also allows prosecutors to bring charges for making
false statements to investigators. As a special prosecutor in
the case, Mr. Fitzgerald does not have to consult the Attorney
General or other senior Justice Department officials before
issuing subpoenas or granting immunity, as U.S. Attorneys in
other matters would have to do.
There is precedent for a Committee to report a resolution
of inquiry adversely to avoid jeopardizing a grand jury
investigation. For example, in 1980, H. Res. 571 directed the
Attorney General to furnish the House with ``all evidence
compiled by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation against Members of Congress in connection with
the Abscam investigation,'' which was a Justice Department
undercover operation that led to charges of criminal conduct
against certain Members of Congress. The resolution also asked
for ``the total amount of federal moneys expended in connection
with the Abscam probe.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 126 Cong. Rec. 4071 (1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case, the House Judiciary Committee reported the
resolution adversely.\7\ Committee opposition to the resolution
was unanimous.\8\ The Justice Department ``vigorously
oppose[d]'' the resolution.\9\ The objections raised by the
Department, with which the Judiciary Committee agreed, centered
on the concern that disclosure of evidence to the House would
jeopardize the ability of the Justice Department to
successfully conduct grand jury investigations and to prosecute
any indictments, and that the release of unsifted and
unevaluated evidence ``would injure the reputations of innocent
people who may be involved in no ethical or legal
impropriety.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ H. Rept. No. 96-778, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980).
\8\ 126 Cong. Rec. 4073 (statement by Representative McClory).
\9\ H. Rept. No. 96-778, at 2 (letter to Assistant Attorney General
Philip B. Heymann).
\10\ Louis Fisher, Congressional Research Service, Library of
Congress, House Resolutions of Inquiry, at 14-15 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the present case, the Committee believes that the
criminal investigation being conducted by the Justice
Department into the Valerie Plame matter is the most
appropriate avenue for determining the facts of the case and
any wrongdoing that may have occurred. As of the filing of this
report, that investigation is still ongoing and transmittal of
the evidence to the House would likely jeopardize the ability
of the Justice Department to conduct its investigation. Because
this resolution of inquiry may impede that investigation, the
resolution is reported adversely.
Hearings
No hearings were held on the bill, H. Res. 499, by the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Committee Consideration
On January 28, 2004, a quorum being present, the Committee,
in open session, adversely reported the resolution H. Res. 499
by a roll call vote of 10 ayes, three noes, one Present.
As part of its consideration of this resolution, because
classified information was in fact discussed, the Committee
met, in part, in closed session.
Vote of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives, the Committee sets forth the following
rollcall votes:
1. Representative Harman offered a motion to delay
consideration of H. Res. 499 until February 24, 2004. The
motion was defeated by a rollcall vote of nine noes and six
ayes. On that vote, the Members present recorded their votes as
follows: Mr. Goss (Chairman)--no; Mr. Bereuter--no; Mr.
Boehlert--no; Mr. Gibbons--no; Mr. Lahood--no; Mr. Hoekstra--
no; Mr. Burr--no; Mr. Everett--no; Mr. Collins--no; Ms.
Harman--aye; Mr. Boswell--aye; Mr. Cramer--aye; Ms. Eshoo--aye;
Mr. Holt--aye; Mr. Ruppersberger--aye.
2. Representative Goss offered a motion to report the
resolution, H. Res. 499, adversely. The Committee agreed to the
motion to report the resolution adversely by a rollcall vote of
10 ayes, three noes, and one Present. On that vote, the Members
present recorded their votes as follows: Mr. Goss (Chairman)--
aye; Mr. Bereuter--aye; Mr. Boehlert--aye; Mr. Gibbons--aye;
Mr. Lahood--aye; Mr. Hoekstra--aye; Mr. Burr--aye; Mr.
Everett--aye; Mr. Collins--aye; Ms. Harman--present; Mr.
Boswell--no; Ms. Eshoo--no; Mr. Holt--no; Mr. Ruppersberger--
aye.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of House Rule XIII is inapplicable because
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or
increased tax expenditures.
Committee Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(d)(2) of House Rule XIII, the
Committee estimates the costs of implementing the resolution
would be minimal. The Congressional Budget Office did not
provide a cost estimate for the resolution.
Performance Goals and Objectives
H. Res. 499 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that the rule
does not apply because H. Res. 499 is not a bill or joint
resolution that may be enacted into law.
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion
H. Res. 499 is a resolution of inquiry that requests the
President and directs the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
Defense, and the Attorney General to transmit to the House of
Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of its
adoption all documents, including telephone and electronic mail
records, logs and calendars, personnel records, and records of
internal discussions, in the possession of the President and
those cabinet officers relating to the disclosure of the
identity and employment of Valerie Plame during the period
beginning on May 6, 2003 and ending on July 31, 2003.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Resolution, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes H. Res. 499
makes no changes to existing law.
MINORITY VIEWS
The men and women of the Intelligence Community deserve our
total support and protection. Nothing can more seriously
undermine them, or the effort to understand Iraq pre-war
intelligence, than the exposure of the identity of an
undercover officer. We condemn it absolutely. On this we, the
undersigned, are unanimous.
We may disagree about what tactics are best designed to
find and punish such a leaker. But we do not disagree at all
about the need to do so. As former President Bush said about
such unauthorized disclosures; ``I can't think of anything that
is more traitorous or more offensive to the decency that is the
American way.''
We believe the men and women of the Intelligence Community
deserve reassurance that the Committee understands the gravity
of this security breach and is exercising appropriate and
responsible oversight.
Thus, we were deeply disappointed by the decision to move
immediately into closed session for consideration of H. Res.
499. We believe consideration of this resolution should have
been conducted in open session.
Rule 5 of the Rules for Procedure for the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence states that proceedings shall be open
unless the Committee determines that: ``(A) disclosure of the
matters to be discussed would endanger national security; (B)
compromise sensitive law enforcement information; (C) tend to
defame, degrade, or incriminate any person; or (D) otherwise
violate any law or Rule of the House.''
The resolution of inquiry is public legislation and could
have been debated without endangering national security or
compromising sensitive law enforcement information. The issues
involved in the resolution are well known to the public.
Moreover, moving from the open discussion to a closed session
was an option that could have been taken at some later point in
the meeting, thus permitting Members to state public views on
the public record.
There is ample precedent of the Committee conducting
business meetings and marking-up legislation is open session,
including:
The mark-up of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 on July 11, 2002;
The business meeting to discuss the
Committee's Investigation of Iraq WMD on June 12, 2003,
as well as a number of follow-up discussions on the
inquiry; and
The business Meeting to discuss the handling
of the Iraq Supplemental on September 17, 2003.
We are also concerned by the Committee's failure to request
the information sought in the resolution from the
Administration before mark-up, the usual practice when
resolutions of inquiry are referred to a committee. Even if the
Administration had declined such a request, its reasons for
declining could have enlightened Committee deliberations.
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is
charged with oversight of the Executive Branch to ensure the
protection of America's national security assets, the most
important of which are the hard-working men and women of the
intelligence community. We take this responsibility seriously
and believe that an assertive bipartisan approach is the best
means to achieving this objective.
The Committee's long tradition of bipartisanship was
undermined in the handling of this resolution. The Committee's
hasty action precluded well-informed, thorough and thoughtful
debate, and shrouded its work in any unnecessary veil of
secrecy. It is our hope that the spirit of bipartisanship will
be restored and the Committee can move forward on its important
agenda for the coming year.
Jane Harman.
Alcee L. Hastings.
Silvestre Reyes.
Leonard L. Boswell.
Collin C. Peterson.
Bud Cramer.
Anna Eshoo.
Rush Holt.
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger.
DISSENTING VIEW OF REPRESENTATIVE RUSH HOLD
Mr. Chairman, I offer a dissenting view following the
consideration and adverse report of H. Res. 499 by this
Committee.
More than six months after columnist Robert Novak printed
the name of a former intelligence employee and alleged that she
was a covert agent, the White House and the Department of
Justice have yet to find and hold accountable those officials
responsible for the leak. Answers are overdue.
Last week, I introduced a resolution of inquiry, H. Res.
499, in the U.S. House of Representatives requesting that the
Bush Administration provide Congress with all factual
information in its possession, including phone records,
relating to this leak. If passed, this resolution will provide
Congress with the information it needs to determine
independently the facts surrounding the leak, assess its
damaging effects on U.S. national security and intelligence
gathering, and determine whether legislative action is needed
to prevent leaks of this nature in the future.
Protecting the functioning of our nation's Intelligence
Community, and all who serve in it, is vital to our national
security and to the safety of all Americans. At this time, a
resolution of inquiry is the best tool at the disposal of this
House to determine how this leak occurred and who perpetrated
it.
H. Res. 499 has been referred to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, as well as the Judiciary,
International Relations, and Armed Services Committees. The
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was the first
to act earlier today, albeit prematurely in my estimation.
If we have learned anything from the war against terrorism,
it is that our national security hinges upon human intelligence
and the men and women who gather it. Before I introduced this
resolution, I talked with a number of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle and they told me I was doing the right
thing. I wish all of them had been willing to stand up today
for the men and women in the Intelligence Community who put
their lives at risk to keep our nation safe.
Congress, especially this Committee, has an oversight role.
To say that Congress should not act because the Department of
Justice, another agency, is investigating is like saying that
if the Securities and Exchange Commission is looking at
wrongdoing at Enron, no Congressional inquiry is appropriate.
I am severely disappointed at the lack of bipartisan
cooperation on this Committee on a matter so fundamental to the
national security of this country. I am disappointed that the
Chairman did not even permit an open hearing to allow the
public the ability to assess and judge for themselves our
deliberations. This matter could have, and should have, been
discussed without reference to any classified information. I
must conclude that the hearing was closed to stifle debate,
rather than to protect classified information. I am
disappointed that he did not permit, at the least, opening
statements to be on the public record. And I am disappointed
that a majority of my colleagues voted yes on the motion to
report H. Res. 499 adversely.
Intelligence officers are surely disappointed too, not only
by today's vote, but also by the general lack of public outrage
among senior officials in our Intelligence Community, the White
House, and now in the Congress at the leak of the officer's
identity. To underscore this point, I included with my remarks
the January 22, 2004 letter sent by ten of our retired
intelligence professionals urging an immediate bi-partisan
Congressional investigation of this affair.
I propose that the members of this Committee who did not
want to report H. Res. 499 favorably go with me to stand before
our intelligence officers to explain the Committee's action.
Let us tell them face-to-face not to worry because we believe
that somebody else is looking out for their interest. Let us
tell them that there might be a criminal prosecution at some
time, so Congress need not do anything.
There used to be a strong code of secrecy with respect to
national intelligence. Maybe the days are past when the CIA was
hidden behind the Army Mapping Center, the NSA was ``no such
agency'', and the National Reconnaissance Office did not exist,
but preserving the cover of officers remains essential not only
for them to work and recruit sources, but even to survive.
Our intelligence officers deserve better treatment from
this committee. I am hopeful that members of the Judiciary,
International Relations, and Armed Services committees will
stand up for them in our inexcusable absence.
Attachment.
Rush Holt.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
It cannot be doubted that the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) is dedicated to the
protection of the nation's intelligence assets. It fact, with
one unfortunate exception in the mid-1990s, the HPSCI has
expressed time and again its commitment to the integrity of
classified information provided to it by the Executive Branch.
The reason for this is because we understand very certainly
that exposing sources and methods not just hinders the nation's
ability to protect itself from those who seek to do us harm,
but also because it can mean life or death for our human
assets. It is for this very reason that a substantial portion
of the Committee's business is carried out in closed session.
The Committee takes seriously its responsibilities in this
regard and the Committee closed a portion of the mark up on
this Resolution of Inquiry because, in fact, classified
information was discussed. To not have closed a portion of the
meeting to the public would have been nothing short of
irresponsible.
The HPSCI is committed to strict enforcement of the laws
and regulations that exist to protect the nation's classified
intelligence information, including the enforcement of the
``Intelligence Identifies Protection Act of 1982.'' The HPSCI
has and will continue to engage in dedicated and responsible
oversight of issues relating to any potential leak of
classified intelligence information, as well as other matters
affecting the U.S. Intelligence Community. The fact that much
of the HPSCI's oversight work must take place in closed session
does not mitigate the importance of, or the probing nature of,
the oversight to which U.S. Intelligence Community is subjected
by the HPSCI. To suggest otherwise de-legitimizes the critical
and significant work in which all Members of the HPSCI engage
on behalf of their constituents and their colleagues in the
U.S. House of Representatives.
The facts of the matter underlying the Resolution of
Inquiry establish that the Department of Justice is taking this
investigation very seriously. The Department of Justice is
taking all appropriate steps to resolve the issues presented to
it and using all investigative and prosecutorial tools
available to it to determine, to the extent possible, legal
responsibility for this matter. The HPSCI, of course, will
continue to monitor developments of this matter in the course
of its oversight responsibilities.
The men and women of the U.S. Intelligence Community can be
assured that if there were any proof available that the Justice
Department was not pursing that matter as vigorously as they
should, or that there were any irregularities in the processes
that are being used, there may very well have been a different
outcome on this Resolution in the HPSCI. The vote of the HPSCI
on this Resolution, and the procedure used to dispose of this
Resolution in committee, should in no way he used to
characterize an individual Member's motives.
Regrettably, partisanship does exist in the world. We on
the HPSCI must avoid it in every way possible. It should not
intrude upon the serious and substantive oversight work of the
HPSCI. The vote on the motion to report the Resolution of
Inquiry to the House adversely was a bi-partisan/non-partisan
vote. The HPSCI should be applauded for its continued ability
to act in the best interests of the nation, even during such
political times.
Porter J. Goss,
Chairman.