[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.

                                
