[House Report 108-413]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                            Rept. 108-413
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                      Part 2
======================================================================
 
  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 27, 2004.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Hyde, from the Committee on International Relations, submitted the 
                               following

                             ADVERSE REPORT

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                       [To accompany H. Res. 499]

    The Committee on International Relations, 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.

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     3
Committee Consideration..........................................     3
Vote of the Committee............................................     3
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     4
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     4
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     4
New Advisory Committees..........................................     4
Congressional Accountability Act.................................     4
Federal Mandates.................................................     4
Dissenting Views.................................................     5

                          Purpose and Summary

    House Resolution 499 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 the adoption of this resolution 
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 
officials relating to the disclosure of the identity and 
employment of Ms. Valerie Plame during the period beginning on 
May 6, 2003, and ending July 31, 2003.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    House Resolution 499 is a resolution of inquiry, which 
pursuant to Rule XIII, clause 7, 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. H. Res. 499 was introduced and 
referred to the Committee on International Relations, among 
others, on January 21, 2004, and was ordered reported adversely 
by the Committee on February 25, 2004.
    Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution 
of inquiry is the 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 
Precedents'' 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.''
    On January 21, 2004, Mr. Holt of New Jersey introduced H. 
Res. 499, a resolution of inquiry requesting the President and 
directing the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and 
the Attorney General to transmit to the House of 
Representatives the 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 officials relating to the disclosure of the 
identity and employment of Ms. Valerie Plame as an employee of 
the Central Intelligence Agency during the period beginning on 
May 6, 2003, and ending July 31, 2003.
    H. Res. 499 would direct Executive Branch officials to 
transmit to the House of Representatives documents that are the 
subject of an ongoing criminal investigation. In light of this, 
the Committee voted to report the resolution of inquiry 
adversely on the grounds that a criminal investigation is 
ongoing.
    The Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation 
in September 2003 into whether government officials who 
allegedly identified Valerie Plame to the press violated 
Federal law that prohibits identifying covert agents. Press 
reports indicate that the FBI investigation includes the White 
House, the Departments of State and Defense, and the Central 
Intelligence Agency and that ``boxloads'' of documents have 
been forwarded to the FBI investigation team--including White 
House phone logs and e-mails. Law enforcement officials have 
been quoted indicating that the dozen agents assigned to the 
case have not encountered any stalling tactics.
    In December 2003, the Attorney General recused himself from 
the investigation and the Deputy Attorney General appointed 
United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to lead the 
investigation as special prosecutor. Mr. Fitzgerald, according 
to press reports, has been granted more independence than the 
norm under Department of Justice Regulations. For instance, Mr. 
Fitzgerald, unlike other U.S. Attorneys, reportedly does not 
have to seek approval from Department of Justice officials in 
Washington, DC before issuing subpoenas or granting immunity.
    Mr. Fitzgerald is a veteran prosecutor with experience in 
national security matters and, as reported widely in the press, 
enjoys a stellar reputation.
    The press reports that in January 2004 a grand jury 
convened in Washington, DC to hear testimony on the Valerie 
Plame matter. The grand jury has broad authority that allows 
investigators to subpoena witnesses and documents, including 
the same documents requested in H. Res. 499.
    By all reports, Mr. Fitzgerald is pursuing the 
investigation into the Valerie Plame matter aggressively and 
responsibly. The Committee concluded that it would be unwise to 
allow H. Res. 499 to jeopardize an ongoing criminal 
investigation by the Department of Justice.
    Of equal importance to deliberations of the Committee was 
the action taken by the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence (NPSCI), the Committee of primary jurisdiction 
over the subject matter of H. Res. 499. In a bipartisan vote, 
the Intelligence Committee voted to report the resolution 
adversely. The Chairman of the Intelligence Committee has 
publicly committed that Committee to continue to monitor and 
conduct oversight of this matter. The Committee concluded that 
conducting congressional oversight of the protection of the 
identities of our intelligence agents under the Intelligence 
Identities Protection Act of 1982 is best left to the Committee 
of primary jurisdiction, the House Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence.
    Because H. Res. 499 could impede an ongoing criminal 
investigation and the HPSCI is conducting oversight of this 
matter in its capacity as Committee of primary jurisdiction, 
the Committee ordered it reported adversely

                                Hearings

    The Committee did not hold hearings on H. Res. 499.

                        Committee Consideration

    On January 25, 2004, the Committee met in open session and 
with a quorum being present ordered the resolution of inquiry 
H. Res. 499 reported adversely without amendment by a record 
vote of 24 ayes to 22 noes.

                         Vote of the Committee

    A motion to report H. Res. 499 adversely to the House was 
agreed to by a record vote of 24 ayes to 22 noes.
    Voting yes: Hyde, Leach, Bereuter, Smith (NJ), Burton, 
Gallegly, Ros-Lehtinen, Ballenger, Rohrabacher, Royce, King, 
Chabot, Houghton, McHugh, Tancredo, Smith (MI), Pitts, Flake, 
Davis, Green, Weller, Pence, McCotter, and Harris.
    Voting no: Berman, Ackerman, Faleomavaega, Payne, Menendez, 
Brown, Sherman, Wexler, Engel, Delahunt, Meeks, Lee, Crowley, 
Hoeffel, Blumenauer, Berkley, Napolitano, Schiff, Watson, Smith 
(WA), McCollum, and Bell.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    The Committee held no oversight activities under clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(2) of House Rule XIII is inapplicable because H. 
Res. 499 does not provide new budgetary authority or increased 
tax expenditures.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The rule requiring a statement of performance goals and 
objectives 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 the authority for 
this resolution in article I, section 1 of the Constitution.

                        New Advisory Committees

    H. Res. 499 does not establish or authorize any new 
advisory committees.

                    Congressional Accountability Act

    H. Res. 499 does not apply to the legislative branch.

                            Federal Mandates

    H. Res. 499 provides no Federal mandates.
                            Dissenting Views

    We believe, as should every member of Congress, that the 
intentional disclosure of the identity of a U.S. covert 
intelligence agent poses a grave threat to the national 
security of the nation and imperils the lives of the men and 
women who risk their lives in protecting this nation from 
foreign threats. In the consideration of H. Res. 499, the 
International Relations Committee had a choice on how to 
address this despicable act: whether to stand on record against 
this action and assume the responsibility of oversight of the 
Executive Branch in areas of intelligence that affect U.S. 
foreign policy, as the rules of the House charges it, or 
whether it would simply step aside and accede to the evident 
wishes of the Administration to investigate itself, trusting 
that this inherent conflict of interest will nonetheless not 
play any role in the administration of justice in this matter 
or in consideration of how to avoid leaks in the future which 
threaten our national security. We are gravely disappointed by 
the decision of the Committee, effected by the majority vote of 
all the Republican Members, to choose the latter course.
    Last summer, the American people learned that an 
Administration official, reportedly from the White House, 
exposed the identity of a CIA undercover operative to the 
media, perhaps calling six separate journalists with the 
information. One of these journalists--a conservative 
commentator who alone among the six chose to put personal 
publicity above national security--published the agent's 
identity in a column ostensibly about the charges leveled by 
her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, that the 
Administration's claim that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from 
Niger was false and misleading. This journalist wrote in his 
column that he was told by the White House officials that the 
Ambassador's wife was ``an operative'' of the CIA, presumably 
intending to cast doubt about the Ambassador's motivations; 
other journalists were apparently told this was the ``real 
story'' and that Wilson's wife was ``fair game.''
    As events have borne out, Ambassador Wilson was correct. 
The claims made by the President and others in his 
Administration that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger were 
indeed false. Indeed, clearly and evidently false, based on 
badly-forged documents that even a cursory investigation would 
ascertain. According to press reports, our own intelligence 
agencies had grave doubts about their authenticity as early as 
the summer of 2002. Nevertheless, the President and his 
Administration used it as a vital piece of evidence that Iraq 
was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Even after 
senior intelligence officials insisted the claim be deleted 
from the President's speeches, the claim continued to surface 
in statements by senior Administration officials. The Secretary 
of State, in his presentation before the United Nations 
Security Council in February 2003, wisely refused to repeat the 
claim, recognizing its dubious character.
    Administration officials have since admitted that the Iraq-
Niger uranium claims were unsupportable--admitting this fact 
only reluctantly and in a raft of finger-pointing. And yet, 
someone in the White House could apparently not resist the 
temptation to tarnish the reputation of the one man who had 
actually, personally investigated the claim and who quietly 
told the Administration that the charges were false. When he 
was not heeded, he rightfully stated his opinions and 
information, openly and for the public record, in The New York 
Times in June 2003.
    We find it extremely hard to believe that the disclosure of 
the CIA agent's identity by White House officials was 
inadvertent. How could anyone in the White House believe that 
this public revelation was not criminal or dangerous? Rather, 
we believe that the leaking of Mrs. Plame's identity as a 
covert operative was clearly an intentional effort to discredit 
her husband' s public charges of the Administration's misuse of 
intelligence, conducted to exact political vengeance and 
perform damage control. If we are correct, this was the 
ultimate ``dirty trick'' by an Administration to silence its 
critics.
    The seriousness of this episode cannot be understated. The 
perception that senior U.S. political appointees and officials 
may expose covert CIA operatives' identity for political 
expediency--and escape punishment--may make intelligence-
gathering even more difficult. If foreign sources worry that 
their U.S. agents' identity may be disclosed, possibly exposing 
their own identities, these potential sources may decide not to 
talk to us. In these times of terrorism, we must expand our 
efforts to gather human intelligence about possible terrorist 
attacks at every turn, because we do not know when one vital 
morsel of information may save thousands of innocent American 
lives. To the extent this episode undercuts that effort, we may 
sacrifice the awareness of that vital morsel of information; 
ultimately, we may not learn about another 9/11 in time to 
prevent it. Just as importantly, the danger this type of 
exposure poses to our dedicated covert intelligence officers 
and their sources is self-evident.
    It is true that this matter is already being investigated 
by a special prosecutor, whom we do not intend to demean. But 
it is imperative that Congress fulfill its own oversight 
function in the investigation of this serious matter. U.S. 
Attorney Fitzgerald and the grand jury that is investigating 
this issue may find that while there has been wrongdoing, the 
legal elements of the federal criminal statutes involved here 
have not been met, and no indictment may be handed down. In 
that eventuality, he has no duty to report to Congress on his 
findings. And the fact that there may not be, in the course of 
this investigation, enough evidence to charge a federal crime 
does not mean that our national security is unaffected. Indeed, 
we need to ferret out how such an act, even if unintentional, 
could happen and establish safeguards to ensure that it never 
happens again.
    This resolution of inquiry does not ask for Mr. 
Fitzgerald's or the Justice Department's internal investigatory 
documents or in any way impair grand jury secrecy; it demands 
instead the primary materials that would allow Congress and 
this Committee to conduct its own investigation. Indeed, as we 
prepare for any investigation that is deemed necessary, these 
documents can be kept in complete security and confidentiality 
and need not undermine Mr. Fitzgerald's efforts. We would 
remind our colleagues that even in this Administration there 
have been congressional inquiries conducted while the U.S. 
Government had a criminal investigation open. Just to cite one 
case, in the last Congress both the House and the Senate 
conducted an investigation of the Enron scandal with multiple 
hearings and the subpoena of Justice Department targets, 
including calling all the major corporate officers who have 
been subject to plea agreements and indictments or remain 
targets of the investigation. Allegations of insider trading 
involving Martha Stewart were also investigated by 
congressional committees during the course of a criminal 
investigation. Of course, in the last Administration there were 
numerous congressional investigations of matters under criminal 
investigation (including some where grand juries were active). 
These investigations include those of the Waco Incident, the 
U.S. technology transfers to China, allegations of campaign 
finance violations, the White House Travel office and many 
others.
    Moreover, it is a fact that the Executive Branch is 
investigating itself on what may turn out to be, at least in 
part, a political act. Congress must conduct oversight as it 
has repeatedly in the last ten years, and may need to charter 
an independent investigation.
    We regret that some choose to see this effort at seeking 
the truth as merely a political gambit in an election year. 
They should know us better than that. We note that just last 
month, ten former CIA case officers and analysts, some of whom 
are known to us and are generally sympathetic to this 
Administration, wrote to the Speaker of the House and stated 
``[f]or the good of the country, we ask you to please stand up 
for every man and woman who works for the U.S. intelligence 
community by immediately launching a congressional 
investigation.'' We endorse this plea wholeheartedly, and 
regret that the majority of this Committee chose not to hear 
it.

                                   Tom Lantos.
                                   Howard L. Berman.
                                   Gary L. Ackerman.
                                   Eni F.H. Faleomavaega.
                                   Donald M. Payne.
                                   Robert Menendez.
                                   Sherrod Brown.
                                   Brad Sherman.
                                   Robert Wexler.
                                   Eliot L. Engel.
                                   William D. Delahunt.
                                   Barbara Lee.
                                   Joseph Crowley.
                                   Joseph M. Hoeffel.
                                   Earl Blumenauer.
                                   Shelley Berkley.
                                   Grace F. Napolitano.
                                   Adam B. Schiff.
                                   Diane E. Watson.
                                   Betty McCollum.

                                
