[House Report 109-230]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    109-230

======================================================================

 
      DIRECTING 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 ATTORNEY GENERAL 
   RELATING TO THE DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY AND EMPLOYMENT OF MS. 
                             VALERIE PLAME

                                _______
                                

 September 22, 2005.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                             ADVERSE REPORT

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                       [To accompany H. Res. 420]

                  [Including Committee Cost Estimate]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
resolution (H. Res. 420) directing 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 Attorney General relating to the 
disclosure of the identity and employment of Ms. Valerie Plame, 
having considered the same, reports unfavorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the resolution not be agreed to.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     8
Committee Consideration..........................................     8
Vote of the Committee............................................     8
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     9
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     9
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................     9
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     9
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     9
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     9
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     9
Markup Transcript................................................    10
Dissenting Views.................................................    21

                          Purpose and Summary

    House Resolution 420, introduced by Rep. Holt on July 29, 
2005, directs the Attorney General to transmit to the House of 
Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of 
adoption of the resolution all physical and electronic records 
and documents in his possession related to the disclosure of 
the identity of Ms. Valerie Plame as an employee of the Central 
Intelligence Agency during the period May 6, 2003 through July 
31, 2003.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

                      HOUSE RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY

    House Resolution 420 is a resolution of inquiry. House of 
Representatives Rule XIII clause 7 provides that if the 
Committee to which a resolution of inquiry is referred does not 
act on the resolution within 14 legislative days, a privileged 
motion to discharge the Committee is in order on the House 
floor. In calculating the days available for Committee 
consideration, the day of introduction and the day of discharge 
are not counted.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\William Holmes Brown, House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, 
Precedents and Procedures of the House 819 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Upon introduction, H. Res. 420 was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. Similar resolutions have been 
referred to the Committees on Armed Services, International 
Relations, as well as the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.\2\ These resolutions are substantially similar to 
H.Res. 499, which the Committees on the Judiciary, Armed 
Services, and International Relations and the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence reported adversely in the 108th 
Congress.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\See H.Res. 417, 109th Cong. (2005); H.Res. 418, 109th Cong. 
(2005); H.Res. 419, 109th Cong. (2005).
    \3\See H.Rpt. No. 108-413, Parts I-IV (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution 
of inquiry allows the House to request information from the 
President of the United States or to direct the head of one of 
the executive departments to provide such information. 
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.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\7 Lewis Deschler, Precedents of the House of Representatives, 
ch. 24, Sec. 8, p. 407 (1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A Committee that receives a referral of a resolution of 
inquiry may act on the resolution in a number of ways. It may 
vote on the resolution without amendment, or it may amend it. 
It may report the resolution favorably, adversely, or with no 
recommendation. A Committee that adversely reports a resolution 
of inquiry does not necessarily oppose the resolution under 
consideration. In the past, resolutions of inquiry have been 
reported adversely for various reasons, including that the 
request would compete with an ongoing investigation, or that it 
seeks sensitive documents or information.
    Under the first scenario, a Committee may decide to report 
a resolution of inquiry adversely because it may compete with 
another investigation that is regarded as the more appropriate 
avenue for inquiry. In addition, a Committee may deny the 
request because it seeks sensitive information without any 
demonstrated need. The Committee on the Judiciary reports 
H.Res. 420 adversely for both of these reasons.
    H. Res. 420 would direct the Attorney General to transmit 
to the House of Representatives all documents on a matter that 
is subject to an ongoing criminal investigation by the 
Department of Justice and United States Attorney Patrick 
Fitzgerald. There has been no credible allegation that Mr. 
Fitzgerald has in any way been derelict in his duties. Indeed, 
the Ranking Member of this Committee has stated that Mr. 
Fitzgerald ``appears to have undertaken a nonpartisan, 
aggressive and leak-free investigation'' in this matter, and 
suggested that the Attorney General appoint him to lead other 
investigations.\5\ Moreover, the investigation may involve 
classified information, such as the work Ms. Plame may have 
done for the Central Intelligence Agency. Additionally, the 
resolution requests other sensitive information, such as 
personnel records and records of internal deliberations, for 
which there has been no demonstrated need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Letter from The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, 
Committee on the Judiciary, to Attorney General John Ashcroft (June 2, 
2004) (requesting that the Attorney General appoint United States 
Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to lead the ongoing investigation of 
allegations that Pentagon officials have engaged in certain criminal 
wrongdoing), available at http://www.house.gov/judiciary--democrats/
fitzgeraldpentagonltr9304.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        COMPETING INVESTIGATION

    The ongoing criminal investigation stems from a July 14, 
2003 article by syndicated columnist Robert Novak, questioning 
why retired diplomat Joseph Wilson would be sent to Niger on a 
CIA mission.\6\ Mr. Novak wrote that ``Wilson never worked for 
the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on 
weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration 
officials told [Novak] Wilson's wife suggested sending him to 
Niger to investigate. . . .''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Robert Novak, Editorial, Mission to Niger, Chi. Sun-Times, July 
14, 2003, at 31.
    \7\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response to questions raised by his article, Mr. Novak 
wrote an explanation on October 1, 2003 that ``[t]his story 
began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as 
the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 
2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from 
Niger.''\8\ He went on to state that he ``was curious why a 
high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National 
Security Council was given this assignment.''\9\ Mr. Novak 
explained that ``[d]uring a long conversation with a senior 
administration official, [he] asked why Wilson was assigned the 
mission to Niger.'' [The Senior Administration official] said 
Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section 
at the suggestion of one of its employees, [Wilson's] wife. It 
was an offhanded revelation from this official, who is no 
partisan gunslinger. When [Novak] called another official for 
confirmation, [that official] said: ``Oh, you know about 
it.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Robert Novak, Editorial, Columnist Wasn't Pawn for Leak, Chi. 
Sun-Times, Oct. 1, 2003, at 49.
    \9\Id.
    \10\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In late September, the Department of Justice opened an 
investigation as to whether officials who revealed Ms. Plame's 
identity violated Federal law that prohibits identifying covert 
agents.\11\ On October 3, 2003, the White House Counsel sent a 
notice to all White House employees to turn in copies of 
documents for the ongoing probe into who leaked the name of a 
CIA operative.\12\ That same day, the media reported that the 
investigation had moved beyond the White House and CIA to 
include the State and Defense Departments.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Justice Dept. Probes White House Leak Charge, FOXNews.com 
(Sept. 29, 2003), available at http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2933,98522,00.html (last viewed Jan. 29, 2004).
    \12\White House Staff Put On Notice, CNN.com/Inside Politics (Oct. 
3, 2003), available at http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/03/
leak.main/ (last viewed Jan. 29, 2004).
    \13\Leak Probe Moves Beyond White House, CIA, FOXNews.com (Oct. 3, 
2003), available at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98930,00.html 
(last viewed Jan. 29, 2004); Steve Turnham, Leak Probe Widens To 
Include State, Defense Departments CNN.com/Inside Politics (Oct. 23, 
2003), available at http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/
leak.main/ (last viewed Jan. 29, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In late October, media accounts stated that ``[t]he FBI has 
interviewed more than three dozen Bush administration 
officials, including political adviser Karl Rove and press 
secretary Scott McClellan, in its investigation into the leak 
of an undercover CIA officer's identity.''\14\ 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, one official said.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Curt Anderson, Rove, McClellan Interviewed in CIA Leak Probe, 
A.P. Newswires, Oct. 23, 2003.
    \15\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Attorney General Ashcroft recused himself from the case in 
December 2003,\16\ and Deputy Attorney General James Comey 
appointed United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to lead the 
investigation soon thereafter.\17\ USA Today reported that Mr. 
Comey gave Mr. Fitzgerald ``more independence than required 
under Justice Department regulations. Fitzgerald will not have 
to seek approval from Justice officials in Washington before 
issuing subpoenas or granting immunity. U.S. attorneys must get 
approval before taking such steps.''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Toni Locy, Attorney General Recuses Himself from CIA Probe, 
USATODAY.com (Dec. 30, 2003), available at http://www.usatoday.com/
news/washington/2003-12-30-cia-leak--x.htm (last visited Jan. 29, 
2003). Attorney General Alberto Gonzales similarly recused himself from 
this matter shortly after being sworn into office. See Mark Sherman, 
Gonzales Recused From Probe, Char. Obs., February 12, 2005, at 12A.
    \17\Id.
    \18\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In late January, the press reported that a grand jury had 
convened in Washington, D.C., to hear testimony in this 
matter.\19\ Further confirmation that a grand jury is 
investigating is found in a February 10, 2004 Washington Post 
article which says that a ``Federal grand jury has questioned 
one current and two former aides to President Bush, and 
investigators have interviewed several others, in an effort to 
discover who revealed the name of an undercover CIA officer to 
a newspaper columnists, sources involved in the case said 
yesterday.''\20\ It further states that: ``White House press 
secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday that he talked to the 
grand jury on Friday. Mary Matalin, former counselor to Vice 
President Cheney, testified Jan. 23, the sources said. Adam 
Levine, a former White House press official, also testified 
Friday, the sources said.''\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\John Dickerson & Viveca Novak, Grand Jury Hears Plame Case, 
+Time.com, Jan. 22, 2004, available at http://www.time.com/time/nation/
article/0,8599,581456,00.html (last visited Jan. 29, 2004).
    \20\Mike Allen & Susan Schmidt, Bush Aides Testify in Leak Probe, 
W.Post, Feb. 10, 2004, at A01.
    \21\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Press reports in the spring of 2005 indicated that Mr. 
Fitzgerald completed the bulk of the preliminary investigation 
by October 2004, except for testimony from two reporters 
(Matthew Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of the New York 
Times) who had challenged a court order requiring them to 
provide testimony in the probe.\22\ The United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the order 
in April 2005.\23\ The reporters then appealed to the Supreme 
Court, which declined to hear the case.\24\ Time, Inc. then 
agreed to comply with the court order to deliver Mr. Cooper's 
notes to investigators,\25\ and Cooper later testified before 
the grand jury.\26\ Ms. Miller refused to testify, was held in 
civil contempt, and has been ordered to be detained in a 
Federal facility until she agrees to testify or until the 
expiration of the grand jury.\27\ The grand jury investigation 
apparently remains ongoing, and press reports have suggested 
that Mr. Fitzgerald may be examining whether certain witnesses 
may have committed perjury or obstructed justice.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\Mark Sherman, CIA Leak Probe Complete Since October, Except for 
Reporters' Testimony, Prosecutor Says, Associated Press, April 7, 2005.
    \23\In re Grand Jury Subpoena: Judith Miller, 397 F.3d 964 (D.C. 
Cir. 2005), aff'd per curiam, 405 F.3d 17 (D.C. Cir. 2005), cert. 
denied, 125 S.Ct. 2977 (2005).
    \24\Miller v. United States, 125 S.Ct. 2977 (2005).
    \25\Pat Milton, Time Magazine to Hand Over Reporter Notes, 
Associated Press, June 30, 2005.
    \26\Matthew Cooper, What I Told the Grand Jury, +Time, July 25, 
2005, at 38.
    \27\Richard Schmitt, Judge Orders Reporter Jailed, +L.A. Times, 
July 7, 2005 at B01.
    \28\David Johnston, et al, For Two Aides in Leak Case, Second Issue 
Rises, +N.Y. Times, July 22, 2005, at A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED THOROUGHLY AND PROFESSIONALLY

    By all public accounts, United States Attorney Fitzgerald 
has conducted this investigation with complete thoroughness and 
professionalism. According to one United States Senator, Mr. 
Fitzgerald is ``the straightest shooter I've ever known as a 
prosecutor,'' someone who ``calls them as he sees them'' and 
who ``if he believes the law has been broken, then I'll stand 
by him. If he believes it has not, then I'll stand by him 
still.''\29\ Another Senator has noted that Mr. Fitzgerald's 
appointment has meant that the investigation would be pursued 
``without fear or favor,'' and that the Senator ``has some 
faith that we would get to the bottom of this.''\30\ In fact, 
the Ranking Minority Member of this Committee wrote to the 
Attorney General last year to request that Mr. Fitzgerald be 
appointed to lead another investigation involving alleged 
criminal wrongdoing by Pentagon officials in the handling of 
classified information.\31\ According to the request, Mr. 
Fitzgerald had ``undertaken a nonpartisan, aggressive and leak-
free investigation'' in this matter sufficient to justify his 
appointment in the Pentagon investigation.\32\ Mr. Fitzgerald 
has conducted his investigation aggressively and in a 
nonpartisan manner. The Committee determines that he should 
continue to do so unimpeded by H.Res. 420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\United States Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), Press 
Conference on Karl Rove and Valerie Plame, July 13, 2005.
    \30\United States Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Press 
Conference on Karl Rove and Valerie Plame, July 13, 2005.
    \31\Letter from The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, 
Committee on the Judiciary, to Attorney General John Ashcroft (June 2, 
2004) (requesting that the Attorney General appoint United States 
Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to lead the ongoing investigation of 
allegations that Pentagon officials have engaged in certain criminal 
wrongdoing), available at http://www.house.gov/judiciary--democrats/
fitzgeraldpentagonltr9304.pdf.
    \32\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           PRECEDENT FOR DEFERRING TO ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS

    ``The Federal grand jury enjoys sweeping authority''\33\ 
that allows investigators to subpoena witnesses and request the 
same documents requested in H. Res. 420, including telephone 
and electronic mail records, logs and calendars, personnel 
records, and records of internal discussions. This Committee 
has previously reported a resolution of inquiry adversely to 
avoid jeopardizing a grand jury investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\Charles Doyle, Congressional Research Service Report for 
Congress: Federal Grand Juries: the Law in a Nutshell 1 (Feb. 5, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1980, for example, 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.'' [126 Cong. Rec. 4071 (1980).] The 
House Judiciary Committee reported the resolution adversely. 
[H. Rept. No. 96-778, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980).] Committee 
opposition to the resolution was unanimous. [126 Cong. Rec. 
4073 (statement by Rep. McClory).] The Justice Department 
``vigorously oppose[d]'' the resolution. [H. Rept. No. 96-778, 
at 2 (letter to Assistant Attorney General Philip B. Heymann).] 
The objections raised by the department, with which the 
Committee agreed, centered on the concern that disclosure of 
evidence to the House would jeopardize the ability of the 
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.'' [id.]\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\Louis Fisher, Congressional Research Service Report for 
Congress: House Resolutions of Inquiry 14-15 (May 12, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As previously noted, this Committee also reported adversely 
H.Res. 499 in the 108th Congress, which requested substantially 
the same information from the Attorney General as H.Res. 420, 
because it would compete with the ongoing grand jury 
investigation.
    This Committee has also adversely reported a resolution of 
inquiry because of other types of competing investigations. For 
instance, on July 17, 2003, this Committee adversely reported 
H. Res. 287, a resolution of inquiry, due to an ongoing 
competing investigation of the Inspector General of the 
Department of Justice. That resolution of inquiry directed the 
Attorney General to transmit all physical and electronic 
records and documents in his possession related to any use of 
Federal agency resources in any task or action involving or 
relating to Members of the Texas Legislature in the period 
beginning May 11, 2003, and ending May 16, 2003, except 
information the disclosure of which would harm the national 
security interests of the United States. The Committee's report 
stated:

        According to a May 12, 2003, press release issued by 
        the Texas Department of Public Safety, the public was 
        asked for assistance in locating 53 Texas legislators 
        who had ``disappeared.'' According to the release, 
        under the Texas Constitution, the majority of members 
        present in session in the Texas State House can vote to 
        compel the presence of enough members to make a quorum. 
        Members of the House did so and directed the Sergeant-
        at-Arms of the House and the Department of Public 
        Safety to locate the absent members and bring them back 
        to the State capital.

        On May 27, 2003, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut 
        sent a letter to the Office of the Inspector General of 
        the U.S. Department of Justice asking for ``a full 
        investigation into this matter.'' After receipt of the 
        letter from the Senator, in a statement to the press, 
        the Office of the Inspector General disclosed that on 
        June 4, 2003, it began investigating what, if any, 
        Department of Justice resources were expended in 
        connection with this matter. As of the filing of this 
        report, that investigation is still ongoing.

        The Committee believes that an investigation by the 
        Inspector General of the Department of Justice is the 
        more appropriate avenue. . . .\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\H.R. Rep. No. 108-215 at 3 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             SENSITIVE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED

    The second reason the Committee reports this resolution 
adversely is because it requests sensitive documents and 
information from the Department of Justice without any 
demonstrated need. Among other items, H.Res. 420 seeks 
``personnel records, and records of internal discussions'' 
relating to the disclosure of the identity of Ms. Plame. Such 
documents could reveal classified information regarding Ms. 
Plame's work at the Central Intelligence Agency. The documents 
also could contain private personnel and employment information 
about individuals, including Ms. Plame, typically protected 
from public disclosure. Finally, the resolution specifically 
requests documents and information reflecting any internal 
Department of Justice discussions of this matter, which, if 
such deliberative information exists, may be privileged. 
Although the Committee reserves the right to request similar 
information from the Department of Justice or other sources in 
the future, in the absence of a demonstrated compelling need, 
it will not do so here.

                               CONCLUSION

    The Committee continues to believe that the current grand 
jury investigation is the more appropriate avenue for 
determining the facts of this case and any criminal wrongdoing. 
Because this resolution of inquiry competes with that 
investigation, because there have been no allegations that the 
investigation has been anything other than nonpartisan, 
aggressive and leak-free, and because the resolution requests 
sensitive documents and information without a compelling need, 
the resolution is reported adversely.

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held in the Committee on the Judiciary on 
H. Res. 420.

                        Committee Consideration

    On September 14, 2005, the Committee met in open session 
and adversely reported the resolution H. Res. 420 without an 
amendment by a rollcall vote of 15 yeas to 11 nays, a quorum 
being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth the 
following rollcall vote that occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H. Res. 420:
    Final Passage. The motion to report the resolution, H. Res. 
420, adversely was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 15 yeas to 
11 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Inglis......................................................
Mr. Hostettler..................................................              X
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................                              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             15              11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      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 Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives 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 Rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, 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. 420 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. 420 is not a bill or joint 
resolution that may be enacted into law.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    H. Res. 420 directs the Attorney General to transmit to the 
House of Representatives not later than the date that is 14 
days after the date of the adoption of the resolution, all 
documents, including telephone and electronic mail records, 
logs and calendars, personnel records, and records of internal 
discussions in the possession of the Attorney General 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.

            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 that H. Res. 
420 makes no changes to existing law.

                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2005

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable F. 
James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A 
working quorum is present.
    Pursuant to the order, we will now call up House Resolution 
420, directing the Attorney General to transmit to the House of 
Representatives no later than 14 days after the date of 
adoption of this resolution documents in the possession of the 
Attorney General relating to the disclosure of the identity and 
employment of Ms. Valerie Plame for purposes of markup and move 
that it be reported adversely to the House of Representatives.
    Without objection, the resolution will be considered as 
read and open for amendment at any point, and the Chair 
recognizes himself for 5 minutes to explain the resolution.
    [The resolution, H. Res. 420, follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. This morning the Committee 
considers House Resolution 420, a resolution of inquiry 
relating to Ms. Valerie Plame.
    Under clause 7 of rule 13 of the House rules, we are 
required to report this resolution within 14 legislative days 
after its introduction or a privileged motion to discharge the 
Committee from consideration would be in order on the House 
floor.
    This resolution is substantially similar to House 
Resolution 499 from the previous Congress, which the Committee 
considered and reported adversely on February 27, 2004.
    Like its predecessor H.Res. 420 again requests that the 
Attorney General transmit to the House all documents in his 
possession, including personnel records and records of internal 
deliberations relating to the disclosure of the identity of Ms. 
Plame as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency during 
the period May 6 through July 31st 2003.
    Again, today, I have moved that the Committee report the 
resolution adversely for the same reason I did the last time 
the Committee took up this issue. The investigation is still 
ongoing and the transmittal of evidence to the House would 
likely jeopardize the ability of the Justice Department to 
conduct and complete its investigation.
    As has been made abundantly clear in published reports and 
statements of the Department of Justice, there is and has been 
for many months an ongoing active grand jury investigation in 
this matter.
    According to recent press accounts, the investigation is 
moving toward completion and the Committee has not received 
credible allegations that the special counsel, or the grand 
jury have in any way been derelict in their duties. We should 
let the special counsel and the grand jury complete their work 
without interference, just as we have done since last year.
    Four Committees, including Judiciary, Armed Services, 
International Relations, and the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, have reviewed a similar resolution during the 
previous Congress and rejected it for substantially the same 
reason. Nothing has occurred in the last year which supports 
changing that conclusion.
    I urge the Members once again to support the motion to 
report adversely. I yield back the balance of my time, and 
recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee.
    We are gathered here today because this present 
administration refuses to police itself in the midst of ethical 
and criminal misconduct.
    We are here because this Congress continues to turn a blind 
eye to the wrongful and wrongdoing of this Administration.
    Now, over 2 years ago, we've been investigating. In July 
2003, a Bush administration official committed one of the most 
serious and treacherous breaches of national security in recent 
American history by disclosing to the press the identity of an 
undercover Central Intelligence Agency operative.
    And even worse, it likely was done for political reasons to 
retaliate against the operative's husband for successfully 
challenging the President's claim that Iraq had sought nuclear 
material in Africa.
    And so we are confronted with this resolution of inquiry 
filed by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt, in which we 
examine it and it is very simple. The purpose of the resolution 
is to get to the bottom of what happened and why the Justice 
Department is still slow walking this investigation.
    We know that, despite urgent pleas from the Central 
Intelligence Agency for a criminal investigation into the 
leaker, the Department of Justice and the White House dragged 
their feet. The Department waited 3 days before notifying the 
White House of the breach and subsequent investigation.
    The White House then waited 11 hours more before telling 
the staff to preserve evidence. Despite these serious 
irregularities early last year, my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle rejected a similar measure. They apparently did 
not believe that the Judiciary Committee, whose job is to 
police the Justice Department, should look into a national 
security breach, and they delayed the investigation.
    There have been significant developments in this case, 
though, since the last time that I believe should lead them to 
support it this time.
    Things have changed. More evidence has come to light. 
First, for the past 2 years, the White House has denied that 
any of its top officials, specifically Deputy White House Chief 
of Staff, Karl Rove; Vice Presidential Chief of Staff, Lewis 
Libby; or National Security Council official, Elliot Abrams, 
were involved in any way in the leak of Mrs. Wilson's covert 
identity. We now know that both Rove and Libby spoke to 
reporters about Mrs. Wilson's identity. Public information.
    Second, when the Justice Department first started 
investigating, the President made it clear that he'd fire 
anyone involved in the leak. But when it became obvious that 
his top political advisor, Mr. Rove, was implicated, he changed 
his ethical standards. This past July the President said he 
would fire someone only if that person committed a crime, 
raising the bar for firing someone like Mr. Rove.
    Further, we now know that Attorney General Ashcroft 
insisted on being briefed on Department reviews of Mr. Rove 
that were conducted in connection with the leak, despite his 
longstanding ties to Mr. Rove.
    What were they? Well, Mr. Rove had paid--Mr. Ashcroft had 
paid Mr. Rove nearly $750,000 for work on several campaigns. 
And Mr. Ashcroft eventually recused himself, demonstrating that 
there were conflicts----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Conyers. I ask for one additional minute, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection. The gentleman is 
recognized.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. It's time for 
Congress to exercise its duty to oversee the Executive Branch. 
I plead with my colleagues this morning. Although some will 
claim that we shouldn't look into a matter that's being 
investigated by the Justice Department, but that has never been 
our standard. This year alone we've held hearings on 
allegations of numerous claims of criminal misconduct. For 
example, in the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program, the same 
misconduct was being reviewed by the U.S. Attorney for the 
Southern District of New York. Congress has been looking into 
the Jack Abramoff scandal at the same time as the Justice 
Department.
    So let's not forget the endless hearings in this Committee.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has once 
again expired.
    Mr. Conyers. I ask unanimous consent to put my statement in 
the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection. So ordered.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 
 in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 
                            on the Judiciary
    We are here because the Bush administration refuses to police 
itself in the midst of criminal and ethical misconduct. We are here 
because this Congress continues to turn a blind eye to the wrongdoing 
of this administration. In July 2003, over two years ago, a Bush 
administration official committed one of the most serious breaches of 
national security in recent history by disclosing to the press the 
identity of an undercover Central Intelligence Agency operative. Even 
worse, it likely was done for political reasons, to retaliate against 
the operative's husband for successfully challenging the President's 
claim that Iraq had sought nuclear material in Africa.
    The purpose of this resolution is to get to the bottom of what 
happened and why the Justice Department slow-walked the investigation 
at the beginning. We know that, despite urgent pleas from the CIA for a 
criminal investigation into the leaker, the Justice Department and 
White House dragged their feet. The Department waited three days before 
notifying the White House of the breach and subsequent investigation. 
The White House, then waited eleven hours before telling staff to 
preserve evidence.
    Despite these serious irregularities, early last year, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle rejected this same measure. 
They apparently did not believe that the Judiciary Committee, whose job 
it is to police the Justice Department, should look into a national 
security breach and delayed investigation.
    There have been significant developments in the case since that 
time that I believe should lead them to support it this time. First, 
for the past two years, the White House has denied that any of its top 
officials, namely Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, vice 
presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby, or National Security 
Council official Elliot Abrams, were involved in any way in the leak of 
Mrs. Wilson's covert identity. We now know that both Karl Rove and 
Lewis Libby spoke to reporters about Mrs. Wilson's identity.
    Second, when the Justice Department first started investigating, 
the President made it clear that he would fire anyone involved in the 
leak. But when it became clear that his top political advisor, Mr. 
Rove, was implicated, he changed his ethical standards. This past July, 
the President said he would fire someone only if that person 
``committed a crime,'' raising the bar for firing someone like Mr. 
Rove.
    Further, we now know that then-Attorney General John Ashcroft 
insisted on being briefed on Department interviews of Mr. Rove that 
were conducted in connection with the leak. He did so despite his long-
standing ties to Mr. Rove; Mr. Ashcroft had paid Mr. Rove almost 
$750,000 for work on several campaigns. That Mr. Ashcroft eventually 
recused himself demonstrates there were conflicts of interest with his 
continued involvement.
    It is time for Congress to exercise its duty to oversee the 
Executive Branch. Some will claim that we should not look into a matter 
that is being investigated by the Justice Department. That is not and 
has never been our standard. This year alone, Congress has held 
hearings on allegations of criminal misconduct in the United Nation's 
Oil-for-Food Program; the same misconduct being reviewed by the U.S. 
Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Congress also has been 
looking into the Jack Abramoff scandal at the same time as the Justice 
Department.
    Let us not forget the endless hearings in this Committee and others 
on alleged Clinton-Gore campaign finance violations, the Whitewater 
claims, and Clinton White House Travel Office firings. These were 
matters all under Justice Department review at the time of our 
hearings.
    Finally, I must remind my colleagues of the numerous House and 
Senate hearings on Watergate that were simultaneous with the Justice 
Department's own investigation.
    I urge my colleagues vote ``Yes'' on this resolution.

    Mr. Conyers. And I thank the Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments? Are there 
amendments?
    If there are no amendments, the question occurs----
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Delahunt. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman, I can tell by the numbers here 
that this--that the proponent of the measure before us will not 
prevail.
    But I genuinely believe that we're making a mistake. I 
think we're making an error, and I say that not just as a 
Committee, but as an institution and by the institution I mean 
the institution that was created by article I of the 
Constitution.
    Again and again and again, there are examples of Congress 
either refusing or hesitating to exercise its oversight 
responsibilities. The suggestion has been made that somehow if 
we should secure these documents that we would be interfering 
with a criminal investigation. That's far from the truth. It 
just is simply inaccurate. Can problems emerge when there are 
simultaneous investigations? Yes, they can. The best evidence 
of that, of course, was the investigation conducted by Congress 
better than a decade ago involving Colonel Oliver North. But 
that's when the use of immunity was implicated. That's not the 
case here. We know that this is a political decision, because 
there is potential embarrassment to the Administration.
    That will always be the case, however, when a Committee of 
Congress exercises oversight. That's just the way our system 
works, and it's not working now. It just isn't.
    Mr. Conyers alluded to two instances where there have been 
investigations by congressional Committees and by Department of 
Justice, whether independent prosecutors or Department of 
Justice attorneys.
    In 2005, the Government Reform Subcommittee on the Federal 
Workforce investigated allegations that scientists falsified 
information regarding the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository. 
The Justice Department is and was investigating the same matter 
simultaneously.
    In 2000, 2001, the House Government Reform Committee 
investigated the Boston FBI field office use of confidential 
informants.
    There was a Department of Justice Task Force investigating 
that situation simultaneously. In fact, a former--an FBI 
agent--or a former FBI agent was indicted, prosecuted, and 
convicted.
    The record is replete, replete, with simultaneous 
investigations. I'm concerned about the perception of the 
American people that Congress is abrogating its oversight 
responsibilities. And I say this to my friends and colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle.
    If we continue in this direction, the American people I 
dare say will reach a conclusion that these--that this reality 
is a result of a single-party state, where there are no checks 
and balances. Here you have a situation where the House 
majority is Republican. The Senate majority is Republican. And 
Republicans control the White House. And we are failing in our 
obligation as an independent branch of Government by not 
pursuing these matters.
    And we will be held accountable sooner or later by the 
American people as an institution. This is about the role of 
Congress. Let's put aside the political consequences here, and 
have the courage to support the resolution.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired. 
Without objection, all Members may place opening statements in 
the record. Are there amendments?
    There are no amendments. A reporting quorum is present. The 
question occurs on the motion to report House Resolution 420 
adversely. All those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no?
    The ayes appear to have----
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I'd like a record vote, please.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A record vote will be ordered. 
Those in favor of reporting the resolution adversely will, as 
your names are called, answer aye; those opposed, no. And the 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, aye. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. Aye
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, aye. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, aye. Mr. Pence?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, aye. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, aye. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, no. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, no. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, no. Mr. Wexler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no. Ms. Sanchez?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, no. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their votes. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The other gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members in the chamber who 
wish to cast of change their votes?
    If not, the Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 ayes and 11 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the motion to report the 
resolution adversely is agreed to. Without objection, the staff 
is directed to make any technical and conforming changes and 
all Members will be given 2 days as provided by the House rules 
in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental, or 
minority views.
    Relative to the remainder of today's schedule, Ranking 
Member Conyers has expressed his opposition toward bringing up 
for consideration the three Katrina-related measures that were 
scheduled for today's markup.
    Judiciary Committee rule 2(d) provides that the Chairman, 
with such notice as is practicable, the authority to call and 
convene as he considers necessary additional meetings of the 
Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution 
pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other 
Committee business.
    While this Committee rule permits us to consider the three 
Katrina-related bills before the Committee this morning, we 
will not be taking up these three Katrina-related measures at 
today's markup in response to Mr. Conyers' objection.
    The business before the Committee having been concluded. 
Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                            Dissenting Views

    We strongly dissent from the Majority's decision to report 
unfavorably H. Res. 420, a resolution of inquiry directed to 
the Attorney General regarding the leak of the identity of a 
covert operative. By doing so, the Majority has abdicated the 
Committee's responsibility to oversee the Justice Department 
and to ensure the faithful execution of the laws.
    Over 2 years ago, in July 2003, a Bush administration 
official committed one of the most serious breaches of national 
security in recent history by disclosing to the press the 
identity of an undercover Central Intelligence Agency 
operative. Even worse, it likely was done for political 
reasons, to retaliate against the operative's husband for 
successfully challenging the President's claim that Iraq had 
sought nuclear material in Africa.
    The purpose of this resolution was getting to the bottom of 
what happened due to the total absence of a good faith effort 
at an investigation by the administration. We believe that the 
Justice Department and White House slow-walked the 
investigation in its beginning stages. We also believe that, 
despite numerous White House denials early on, senior White 
House officials were involved in the leak. Furthermore, the 
President first promised that he would fire anyone involved in 
the leak but then changed the standard when his top political 
advisor was implicated. Finally, then-Attorney General John 
Ashcroft insisted on being briefed on Department interviews 
conducted in connection with the leak, notwithstanding his ties 
to individuals who were questioned.
    This resolution of inquiry was a necessary step for getting 
to the truth. From Watergate to Whitewater, Congress has 
exercised its constitutional authority to hold the Executive 
accountable for its actions. A breach of national security by a 
Republican White House demands no less and, in fact, demands 
even more.

                             I. BACKGROUND

A. LThe Leak
    In February 2002, the CIA sent former ambassador Joseph 
Wilson, IV, to Niger on behalf of the Bush administration to 
investigate claims that Iraq was attempting to buy yellow cake 
uranium in that country.\1\ When Ambassador Wilson returned, he 
informed the CIA and the State Department that the claims were 
unsubstantiated.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Mike Allen & Dana Priest, Bush Administration is Focus of 
Inquiry, Wash. Post, Sept. 28, 2003, at A1. Ambassador Wilson was a 
diplomat for twenty-two years and served as President Clinton's 
Director of African affairs on the National Security Council.
    \2\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nearly a year later, during his 2003 State of the Union 
address, the President stated that Iraq tried to purchase 
uranium in Africa: ``The British government has learned that 
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of 
uranium from Africa.''\3\ In response, Ambassador Wilson 
published an op-ed in July 2003 publicizing his findings, or 
lack thereof.\4\ Approximately 2 weeks later, Robert Novak used 
his syndicated column to defend the administration's invasion 
of Iraq and to call the Ambassador's credibility into 
question.\5\ Painting the Ambassador's assignment to Niger as a 
favor to his wife, Mr. Novak stated, ``Wilson never worked for 
the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on 
weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration 
officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger 
to investigate.''\6\ It soon was revealed that those 
administration officials called at least six members of the 
press to disseminate Mrs. Wilson's undercover identity. It is 
widely suspected that the motivation was revenge for publicly 
discrediting the President's primary justification for invading 
Iraq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\The President, State of the Union (Jan. 28, 2003).
    \4\Joseph C. Wilson, IV, What I didn't Find in Africa, N.Y. Times, 
July 6, 2003.
    \5\Robert Novak, The Mission to Niger, Chicago Sun-Times, July 14, 
2003, at 31.
    \6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. LPotential Violations of Federal Statutes and Regulations
    Disclosing the identity of a covert U.S. agent can be a 
violation of numerous Federal criminal statutes and 
administrative regulations. Such violations carry with them 
penalties including imprisonment, fines, termination of 
employment, and revocation of security clearance. The following 
is a list and description of such statutes and regulations.
            1. LRevealing the identity of certain undercover 
                    intelligence officers, agents, informants, and 
                    sources
    Subsection 421(a) of title 50, United States Code, makes it 
unlawful for someone, having or having had access to classified 
information that identifies a covert agent, to intentionally 
disclose such information to an unauthorized recipient knowing 
the disclosure identifies the agent and knowing that the 
government is taking affirmative measures to conceal the 
agent's relationship to the United States. The penalty includes 
a fine, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both.
    Subsection 421(b) makes it unlawful for someone who, as a 
result of having access to classified information, learns the 
identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any 
information disclosing that identity to any person not 
authorized to receive it. The defendant must know that the 
information disclosed identifies the agent and that the 
government is taking steps to conceal the identity. The penalty 
includes a fine, imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or 
both.
    Subsection 421(c) criminalizes the disclosure of any 
information that identifies a person as a covert agent as part 
of a pattern intended to identify and expose such agents and 
with reason to believe such activities would impair the 
nation's foreign intelligence activities. Such disclosure must 
be to a person not authorized to receive it and be done knowing 
that the disclosure identifies an agent and the United States 
is taking steps to conceal it. The penalty includes a fine, 
imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both.
            2. LConveying public money, property or records
    Section 641 of title 18, United States Code, makes it a 
criminal offense to convey anything of value that belongs to 
the United States. More specifically, it imposes criminal 
penalties on anyone who ``embezzles, steals, purloins, or 
knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without 
authority, sells, conveys, or disposes of any record, voucher, 
money, or thing of value of the United States or of any 
department or agency thereof.'' The penalty for a violation of 
this statute is a fine, imprisonment for not more than years, 
or both. The Bush administration already has used this statute 
to successfully prosecute a government official who leaked 
government information.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\See John Dean, It Doesn't Look Good for Karl Rove, CNN.com, July 
15, 2005. Jonathan Randel, a former Drug Enforcement Administration 
employee, leaked to the media the fact that the name Lord Michael 
Ashcroft of Great Britain appeared in the DEA's money laundering files. 
In 2002, the Justice Department obtained an indictment against Mr. 
Randel for violating section 641. Mr. Randel ultimately pled guilty and 
was sentenced to 1 year in prison and 3 years of probation. While he 
was sentencing Mr. Randel, U.S. District Judge Richard Story stated, 
``Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the 
operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to 
any law-abiding citizen in this country.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            3. LGathering, transmitting, or losing defense information
    Section 793(d) of title 18, United States Code, prohibits 
the unauthorized transmission of any information vital to 
national defense. It makes it a crime for anyone who has lawful 
possession of ``information relating to the national defense 
which information the possessor has reason to believe could be 
used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of 
any foreign nation, [to] willfully communicate, deliver, 
transmit . . . to any person not entitled to receive it.'' The 
penalty for a violation of this law includes a fine, 
imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both.
            4. LGathering or delivering defense information to aid a 
                    foreign government
    Subsection 794(a) of title 18, United States Code, 
prohibits the transmission or delivery of any document or 
information related to national defense to any foreign 
government or foreign agent. Such conduct is illegal if even 
the transmission is direct or indirect. The penalty includes 
death or imprisonment for any term of years.
            5. LLeaking diplomatic codes and correspondence
    Section 952 of title 18, United States Code, imposes 
criminal penalties on ``whoever, by virtue of his employment by 
the United States, obtains from another or has or has had 
custody of or access to, any official diplomatic code or any 
matter prepared in any such code . . . and without 
authorization or competent authority, willfully publishes or 
furnishes to another any such code or matter.'' The penalty 
includes a fine, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or 
both.
            6. LCommunication of classified information by government 
                    officer or employee
    Subsection 783(a) of title 50, United States Code, 
prohibits any government officer or employee, without 
authorization of the President or head of the employing 
department, from communicating in any manner to any other 
person whom the officer or employee knows or has reason to 
believe is an agent or representative of a foreign government 
any information classified by the President or head of an 
agency that affects national security. The officer or employee 
must know or have reason to know that the information was 
classified. The penalty includes a fine of not more than 
$10,000, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. In 
addition, the person would be ineligible to hold any office 
created by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
            7. LExecutive Order 12958
    Presidential Executive Order 12958 prescribes a uniform 
system for classifying, declassifying, and protecting 
information related to the national defense. It requires each 
agency head to implement controls over the distribution of 
classified information. Section 5.5 provides that, if the 
Director of the Information Security Oversight Office finds 
that a violation of the Order has taken place, the Director 
must report to the appropriate agency head so corrective action 
may occur. Further, sanctions for such violations include: 
``reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of 
classification authority, loss or denial of access to 
classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with 
applicable law and agency regulation.''
    Finally, section 5.5 of the Order provides that:

        (d) The agency head, senior agency official, or other 
        supervisory official shall, at a minimum, promptly 
        remove the classification authority of any individual 
        who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of 
        error in applying the classification standards of this 
        order.

        (e) The agency head or senior official shall: (1) take 
        appropriate and prompt corrective action when a 
        violation or infraction . . . occurs; and (2) notify 
        the Director of the Information Security Oversight 
        Office when a violation . . . occurs.

    In effect, any supervisor of an individual with access to 
classified information must sanction such individual if he 
illegally discloses the information.
            8. LClassified Information Nondisclosure Agreement (SF-312)
    Prior to gaining access to classified information, a 
government official or employee must sign a Classified 
Information Nondisclosure Agreement (SF-312). The Agreement 
states that breaches (i.e., disclosure of classified 
information) could result in termination of security clearances 
and removal from employment.

          II. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS FAILED TO COOPERATE WITH 
                           THE INVESTIGATION

    The Executive Branch's handling of the leak has been rife 
with political and procedural irregularities. Initially, the 
Justice Department failed to open an investigation into the 
leak. Immediately after Mr. Novak's piece was published, the 
CIA contacted the Justice Department four times in the span of 
3 weeks to (1) notify it that the disclosure of Wilson's name 
and covert status probably violated the law and (2) to request 
a criminal investigation.\8\ On September 29, 2003, over a 
month after the first CIA notification, the Department finally 
confirmed that the FBI would investigate the leak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Letter from Stanley M. Moskowitz, Director of Congressional 
Affairs, CIA, to the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, U.S. 
House Comm. on the Judiciary (Jan. 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, the Department's handling of the case still 
was subject to delays and conflicts of interest. For example, 
the Department waited 3 days before notifying the White House 
of the investigation, and the White House in turn waited eleven 
hours before asking all White House staff to preserve any 
evidence.\9\ What evidence that employees have turned over has 
been screened for ``relevance'' by White House counsel, perhaps 
filtering out critical information.\10\ With respect to the 
pace of the investigation, FBI sources were quoted as saying 
that the Department was ``going a bit slower on this one 
because it is so high-profile.''\11\ For many, all these 
factors have worked in tandem to create at the very least the 
appearance of impropriety warranting some sort of independent 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Investigating Leaks, N.Y. Times, Oct. 2, 2003, at A30 
(editorial).
    \10\Richard Stevenson & Eric Lichtblau, Leaker May Remain Elusive, 
Bush Suggests, N.Y. Times, Oct. 8, 2003, at A28.
    \11\Richard Stevenson & Eric Lichtblau, Attorney General is Closely 
Linked to Inquiry Figures, N.Y. Times, Oct. 2, 2003, at A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Also, law enforcement officials close to the investigation 
have indicated that then-Attorney General Ashcroft was 
personally and privately briefed on FBI interviews of Karl 
Rove, then a senior advisor to the President and now the Deputy 
White House Chief of Staff.\12\ This disclosure is troubling 
because, at the time of these events, Mr. Ashcroft had personal 
and political connections to Mr. Rove. Mr. Rove was an adviser 
to Mr. Ashcroft during the latter's political campaigns, 
earning almost $750,000 for his services. Mr. Rove also had 
urged the President to nominate Mr. Ashcroft to be Attorney 
General after Mr. Ashcroft lost his Senate re-election 
campaign. The fact that Mr. Ashcroft eventually recused himself 
demonstrates that there in fact were conflicts of interest with 
his continued involvement in the investigation. The fact that 
he did not recuse himself early on and was briefed on the 
matter may well have violated ethical rules and guidelines.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Murray Waas, What Now, Karl? Rove and Ashcroft Face new 
Allegations in the Valerie Plame Affair, Village Voice, Aug. 13, 2005.
    \13\Federal law requires the Attorney General to promulgate rules 
mandating the disqualification of any officer or employee of the 
Justice Department ``from participation in a particular investigation 
or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, 
financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance 
thereof.'' 28 U.S.C. Sec. 528 (emphasis added). Pursuant to this 
requirement, the Department has promulgated regulations stating that:

      no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation 
      or prosecution if he has a personal or political 
      relationship with: (1) any person . . . substantially 
      involved in the conduct that is the subject of the 
      investigation or prosecution; or (2) any person . . . which 
      he knows or has a specific and substantial interest that 
      would be affected by the outcome of the investigation or 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      prosecution. 28 C.F.R. Sec. 45.2.

  To reiterate the importance of preventing conflicts of interest, the 
Justice Department has further explicated the guidelines in its U.S. 
Attorneys' Manual. The Attorneys' Manual provides that:

      When United States Attorneys, or their offices, become 
      aware of an issue that could require a recusal in a 
      criminal or civil matter or case as a result of a personal 
      interest or professional relationship with parties involved 
      in the matter, they must contact General Counsel's Office 
      (GCO), EOUSA. The requirement of recusal does not arise in 
      every instance, but only where a conflict of interest 
      exists or there is an appearance of a conflict of interest 
      or loss of impartiality. U.S. Dep't of Justice, U.S. 
      Attorneys' Manual Sec. 3-02.170.

  Furthermore, rules of professional conduct bar lawyers from matters 
in which they have conflicts of interest. Because Department attorneys 
must follow the ethical rules of the bar in which they practice, 28 
U.S.C. Sec. 530B, as an official at Main Justice Mr. Ashcroft would 
have been obligated to comply with the District of Columbia Bar's Rules 
of Professional Conduct. These Rules state that, without consent, a 
lawyer shall not represent a client if ``the lawyer's professional 
judgment on behalf of the client will be or reasonably may be adversely 
affected by the lawyer's responsibilities to or interests in a third 
party or the lawyer's own financial, business, property, or personal 
interests.'' District of Columbia Bar, Rules of Professional Conduct 
1.7(b)(4). The American Bar Association mimics this guideline in Rule 
1.7 of its own Model Rules of Professional Conduct. See American Bar 
Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7(a)(2).
    On December 30, 2003, the Attorney General finally recused 
himself from the investigation.\14\ Then-Deputy Attorney 
General James Comey became the acting Attorney General for the 
matter and simultaneously appointed Patrick Fitzgerald, the 
U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, as a 
special counsel to lead the investigation.\15\ Despite the 
appointment of a special counsel and the empaneling of a grand 
jury, the investigation has been thwarted and obstructed in 
numerous ways despite administration promises of full 
cooperation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\U.S. Dep't of Justice, Deputy Attorney General Comey Holds 
Justice Department News Conference (Dec. 30, 2003) (statement of the 
Deputy Attorney General).
    \15\Id. The grand jury reportedly expires on October 28, 2005, the 
same date on which Mr. Fitzgerald's 4-year appointment as U.S. Attorney 
expires.
    \16\President Bush initially promised the full cooperation of the 
White House: ``if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to 
know who it is.. . . I welcome the investigation.'' The President, 
President Discusses Job Creation with Business Leaders (Sept. 30, 2003) 
(transcript available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/
09/20030930-9.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For instance, in order for a journalist to reveal his or 
her source before a grand jury, he or she must receive a waiver 
from the source authorizing such disclosure. Absent such a 
waiver, the journalist would protect the First Amendment right 
of the press and the confidentiality agreement with the source 
by refusing to testify. In an attempt to get around these 
obstacles, prosecutors often force potential sources to sign 
general waivers, waivers that permit any journalist with whom 
they spoke to testify.\17\ To ensure the voluntariness of the 
waiver, however, journalists recognize only personal waivers 
that are directed to specific journalists.\18\ While some 
administration officials have granted personal waivers in the 
leak investigation, not all have done so, thus impeding the 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\See Howard Kurtz, Lawyers Secured Rove's Waiver; Executives 
Hear Reporters' Anger, Wash. Post, July 16, 2005, at A6; Adam Liptak, 
Reporter Jailed after Refusing to Name Source, N.Y. Times, July 5, 
2005, at A1.
    \18\See Kurtz, supra note 17; Liptak, supra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It has been reported that I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Chief 
of Staff to the Vice President, met with New York Times 
reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, and discussed Mrs. 
Wilson.\19\ Because this meeting took place 6 days before 
columnist Robert Novak reported the covert information, Mr. 
Fitzgerald reportedly determined that it is relevant to the on-
going probe.\20\ However, according to the same report, his 
investigation has been impeded by Mr. Libby's failure to 
produce a personal waiver to Ms. Miller.\21\ Indeed, in a 
filing with the court overseeing the case, Mr. Fitzgerald 
stated he could not close the matter because of Ms. Miller's 
inability to testify about conversations with senior government 
officials.\22\ In response to similar concerns expressed by Mr. 
Fitzgerald about Time reporter Matthew Cooper, Mr. Rove granted 
a personal waiver to Mr. Cooper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Murray Waas, The Meeting, The American Prospect Online Edition 
(Aug. 6, 2005) (available at http://www.prospect.org/web/
page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10077).
    \20\Id.
    \21\Ms. Miller apparently believes that the general waivers issued 
by White House officials are ``inherently coercive'' and inadequate.
    \22\See In re: Special Counsel Investigation, 374 F. Supp.2d 238 
(D.D.C. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It should be noted that Mr. Libby's conduct is contrary to 
the President's guarantees of full cooperation. The President 
publicly stated that his administration would ``fully 
cooperate'' with the investigation.\23\ Mr. Libby's failure to 
comply with this mandate has obstructed the inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\The President, Remarks at a Joint Press Availability with 
Australian Prime Minister John Howard (June 3, 2004) (available at 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040603-3.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, the President has abandoned his duty to 
discipline his advisors for their roles in the leak and, in 
fact, has turned away from promises to discipline the leaker. 
He refused to respond to a request by approximately one-hundred 
Members of Congress that he ask Karl Rove to either disclose 
his role in the outing of Mrs. Wilson or resign.\24\ Second, on 
July 18, 2005, the President changed the threshold for 
terminating staff from leaking the identity of Mrs. Wilson\25\ 
to the necessity for an actual crime to have been 
committed.\26\ On repeated occasions, the President has 
permitted his staff to mislead and/or lie to the American 
people in connection with this matter without disciplinary 
consequences. For instance, White House Press Secretary Scott 
McClellan assured the American people several times that 
neither Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, nor National Security Council 
official Elliot Abrams were involved in the leak;\27\ just 
these past few months, however, we learned that both Mr. Rove 
and Mr. Libby were sources for Mrs. Wilson's identity.\28\ Mr. 
McClellan remains undisciplined for his statements, and Mr. 
Rove and Mr. Libby apparently still have security clearances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\See Letter from the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking 
Member, U.S. House Comm. on the Judiciary, et al. to the President 
(July 14, 2005).
    \25\President George W. Bush, President Bush Holds Press Conference 
Following the G8 Summit (June 10, 2004) (transcript available at http:/
/www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040610-36.html).
    \26\President George W. Bush, President, Prime Minister of India 
Discuss Freedom and Democracy (July 18, 2005) (transcript available at 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050718-1.html).
    \27\White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Press Briefing 
(Oct. 10, 2003) (transcript available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2003/10/20031010-6.html).
    \28\See Lorne Manly & David Johnston, Reporter Says He First 
Learned of CIA Operative from Rove, N.Y. Times, July 18, 2005, at A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The administration's failure to punish the leaker is in 
stark contrast to its past practice, at least with respect to 
punishment of administration critics. When former Bush Treasury 
Secretary Paul O'Neill appeared on CBS's 60 Minutes and showed 
``Secret'' documents to support his assertion that the 
President planned from his first days in office to attack Iraq, 
the Treasury Department asked its Inspector General to 
investigate whether O'Neill had improperly released classified 
documents.\29\ The Inspector General later found that the 
Department itself mislabeled the documents and allowed their 
release.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\Dana Milbank, White House Fires Back at O'Neill on Iraq, Wash. 
Post, Jan. 13, 2004, at A1.
    \30\Michael Janofsky, Treasury is Faulted for Papers' Release, N.Y. 
Times, Mar. 23, 2004, at A18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           III. THE MAJORITY'S OBJECTIONS TO H. RES. 420 ARE 
                      UNFOUNDED AND UNPRECEDENTED

    The Majority has raised two primary and groundless 
objections to this resolution. They first contend that Congress 
should not investigate a matter simultaneously with the Justice 
Department. They also allege that the Committee is not 
permitted to obtain secret grand jury material, as they claim 
this resolution seeks to do. Each of these objections is 
discussed in turn.
A. LCongress has Investigated Crimes Simultaneous with the Justice 
        Department
    Contrary to the Majority's claims, the Justice Department 
is not investigating the leak properly and passage of this 
resolution would not interfere with that inquiry. There are, in 
fact, numerous precedents for this Committee and others 
investigating concurrently with the Justice Department:

         LIn 1997, the Committee held hearings on 
        campaign improprieties in the 1996 presidential 
        election.\31\ In addition to taking testimony from 
        Attorney General Janet Reno, the Committee requested 
        all documents, including deliberative memoranda, 
        relating to the appointment of a special counsel. The 
        Department provided many of these documents to the 
        Committee. The Justice Department was conducting its 
        own investigation and determining whether an 
        independent counsel was warranted.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\Oversight of the Department of Justice: Hearing Before the 
House Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (1997).
    \32\Attorney General Janet Reno, Statement of the Attorney General 
(Dec. 2, 1997).

         LIn 1995, the Subcommittee on Crime heard 
        several days of testimony as part of a congressional 
        investigation into Federal actions at Waco, with 
        soldiers, officers, ATF, FBI and Treasury Department 
        officials testifying.\33\ The full Committee took 
        testimony from the Attorney General, the Director of 
        the FBI, and Davidian victims.\34\ Numerous criminal 
        and civil cases relating to the Branch Davidians were 
        pending at the time of the hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\Activities of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies toward the 
Branch Davidians: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the U.S. 
House Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (July 28, 31 & 
Aug. 1, 1995).
    \34\Events Surrounding the Branch Davidian Cult Standoff in Waco, 
Texas: Hearing Before the U.S. House Comm. on the Judiciary, 103rd 
Cong., 1st Sess. (Apr. 28, 1993).

         LIn 1990-92, the Committee investigated 
        whether the Justice Department helped run INSLAW, a 
        small computer company into insolvency.\35\ The 
        Committee subpoenaed documents, heard testimony from 
        government officials and Federal judges while an 
        independent counsel investigated criminal allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\The INSLAW Affair, H. Rep. No. 102-857 (1992).

         LIn the 1970's, congressional committees held 
        extensive hearings on Watergate as the Justice 
        Department investigation was on-going.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United 
States, H. Rep. No. 93-1305; Debate on Articles of Impeachment: 
Hearings Before the U.S. House Comm. on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 2d 
Sess. (July 24-27, 29-30, 1974); Impeachment Inquiry: Hearings Before 
the U.S. House Comm. on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. (Jan. 31-
July 23, 1974).

    In fact, congressional committees have long been 
investigating matters that are under criminal review by the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
executive branch. For example:

         LFrom 2004-2005, the House Government Reform 
        Committee,\37\ the House Energy and Commerce 
        Committee,\38\ the House Appropriations Committee, and 
        the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
        Committee\39\ have held hearings on the U.N.'s Oil for 
        Food Program. These hearings have been held 
        simultaneously with an investigation into the same 
        Program by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District 
        of New York.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\Oil for Food Program: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on National 
Security, Emerging Threats, and Int'l Relations of the U.S. House Comm. 
on Gov't Reform, 109th Cong., 1st Sess. (Apr. 12, 2005); The U.N. Oil 
for Food Program, Cash Cow Meets Paper Tiger: Hearing Before the 
Subcomm. on National Security, Emerging Threats, and Int'l Relations of 
the U.S. House Comm. on Gov't Reform, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. (Oct. 5, 
2004); The Iraqi Oil-for-Food Program, Starving for Accountability: 
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on National Security, Emerging Threats, and 
Int'l Relations of the U.S. House Comm. on Gov't Reform, 108th Cong., 
2d Sess. (Apr. 21, 2004).
    \38\The United Nations Oil-For-Food Program--A Review of the 661 
Sanctions Committee: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Oversight and 
Investigations of the U.S. House Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 109th 
Cong., 1st Sess. (June 21, 2005); The United Nations Oil-for-Food 
Program: Saddam Hussein's Use of Oil Allocations to Undermine Sanctions 
and the United Nations Security Council: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on 
Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House Comm. on Energy and 
Commerce, 109th Cong., 1st Sess. (May 16, 2005).
    \39\Oil For Influence--How Saddam Used Oil to Reward Politicians 
Under the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program: Hearing Before the 
Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations of the U.S. Senate Comm. on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 109th Cong., 1st Sess. (May 
17, 2005); The United Nations' Management and Oversight of the Oil-for-
Food Program: Hearing Before the Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations 
of the U.S. Senate Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 
109th Cong., 1st Sess. (Feb. 15, 2005); How Saddam Hussein Abused the 
United Nations Oil-for-Food Program: Hearing Before the Permanent 
Subcomm. on Investigations of the U.S. Senate Comm. on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs, 108th Cong., 2d. Sess. (Nov. 15, 
2004).
    \40\See Judith Miller & Julia Preston, 2 Inquiries are at Odds, 
N.Y. Times, Jan. 31, 2005, at A8.

         LIn 2005, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee 
        has investigated the lobbying activities of Jack 
        Abramoff.\41\ At the same time, the Justice Department, 
        IRS, and Interior Department have been conducting their 
        own investigations.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\In re Tribal Lobbying Matters: Hearing Before the U.S. Senate 
Select Comm. on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong., 1st Sess. (June 22, 2005).
    \42\See Susan Schmidt, Abramoff Cited Aid of Interior Official, 
Wash. Post, Aug. 28, 2005, at A1.

         LIn 2005, the House Government Reform 
        Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency 
        Organization has investigated allegations that 
        scientists falsified information regarding the Yucca 
        Mountain nuclear repository.\43\ The Justice Department 
        is investigating the same matter.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\See Matthew L. Wald, Disagreement over Data on Waste Site, N.Y. 
Times, Apr. 6, 2005, at A18.
    \44\Id.

         LIn 2001, the House Government Reform 
        Committee investigated the Boston FBI field office's 
        use of confidential informants.\45\ The Committee 
        subpoenaed FBI files, direct evidence, such as wiretap 
        logs, and deliberative memos. At the time of this 
        investigation, an FBI agent, John Connolly, was under 
        indictment.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\The FBI's Controversial Handling of Organized Crime 
Investigations in Boston--the Case of Joseph Salvati: Hearing Before 
the U.S. House Comm. on Gov't Reform, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. (May 3, 
2001).
    \46\See Tom Farmer, FBI Feels Heat, Boston Herald, May 14, 2001, at 
1.

         LIn 2001, the House Government Reform 
        Committee investigated President Clinton's use of his 
        pardon authority.\47\ The Majority issued 153 requests 
        and subpoenas for documents and ultimately received 
        over 25,000 pages. The U.S. Attorney for the Southern 
        District of New York, Mary Jo White, was conducting her 
        own criminal investigation at the time.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc Rich: 
Hearings Before the U.S. House Comm. on Gov't Reform, 107th Cong., 1st 
Sess. (Feb. 8 & Mar. 1, 2001).
    \48\David Johnston, U.S. Attorney in New York will Coordinate 
Inquiry on Pardons, N.Y. Times, Mar. 14, 2001, at A14.

         LFrom April 1998 to May 1999, the House 
        International Relations Committee and House Science 
        Committee convened hearings on potentially illegal 
        transfers of technology by Lockheed Martin, Loral, and 
        Hughes to China. The House Select Committee on U.S. 
        National Security and Military/ Commercial Concerns 
        with the People's Republic of China also held hearings 
        and issued a report.\49\ While these hearings were 
        being held, the Justice Department and a grand jury 
        were conducting an investigation that led to penalties 
        against the violators.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\H. Rep. No. 105-851.
    \50\Jeff Gerth & Raymond Bonner, Companies are Investigated for Aid 
to China on Rockets, N.Y. Times, Apr. 4, 1998, at A1.

         LIn 1997-2000, the House Government Reform 
        Committee conducted its own investigation into possible 
        campaign improprieties by the Clinton Administration 
        and the Democratic party.\51\ The Committee had 
        Attorney General Janet Reno testify during hearings and 
        subpoenaed deliberative memos from FBI Director Louis 
        Freeh and Campaign Task Force Leader Charles LaBella. 
        When the Attorney General refused to comply, the 
        Committee held her in contempt. Eventually the 
        Committee received all the documentation it requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\The Role of Yah Lin ``Charlie'' Trie in Illegal Political 
Fundraising: Hearing Before the U.S. House Comm. on Gov't Reform, 106th 
Cong., 2d Sess. (Mar. 1, 2000); The Role of John Huang and the Riady 
Family in Political Fundraising: Hearing Before the U.S. House Comm. on 
Gov't Reform, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (Dec. 15-17, 1999); The Need for 
an Independent Counsel in the Campaign Finance Investigation: Hearing 
Before the U.S. House Comm. on Gov't Reform, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. 
(Aug. 4, 1998); Campaign Finance Improprieties and Possible Violations 
of Law: Hearing Before the U.S. House Comm. on Gov't Reform, 105th 
Cong., 1st Sess. (Oct. 8, 1997).

         LIn 1997-99, the Senate Governmental Affairs 
        Committee investigated campaign financing while the FBI 
        and the Department's Campaign Finance Task Force was 
        conducting a criminal investigation. The Committee 
        subpoenaed FBI agents, Task Force attorneys, and 
        obtained a number of documents including the notes of 
        special agents, draft affidavits, notes of the Task 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Force supervisor and internal memos.

         LIn 1995, the House Government Reform 
        Committee investigated Federal law enforcement actions 
        at Waco.\52\ The Committee subpoenaed FBI files, 
        interviewed 20 FBI agents and reviewed over a million 
        documents. At the same time, former Senator John 
        Danforth was investigating as a Special Counsel.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\Activities of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies toward the 
Branch Davidians: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on National Security, 
Int'l Affairs, and Criminal Justice of the U.S. House Comm. on Gov't 
Reform, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (July 19-21, 24-28, 31 & Aug. 1, 1995).
    \53\David Johnston, Ex-Senator Picked by Reno to Head New Waco 
Inquiry, N.Y. Times, Sept. 9, 1999, at A1.

In fact, in 4 years, the Clinton administration turned over 1.2 
million pages of documents (including criminal investigators' 
files, evidence, and deliberative memoranda) to the House 
Government Reform Committee alone despite on-going criminal 
investigations.
    There are scores of examples from other committees also:

         LFor example, in 2002 the House Energy and 
        Commerce Committee investigated the collapse of Enron 
        and its outside auditor Arthur Andersen\54\ while the 
        Justice Department and SEC investigated.\55\ The 
        Committee took testimony from several executives during 
        hearings. In all, there were 30 hearings within the 
        House and Senate between 2001 and 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\Financial Collapse of Enron: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on 
Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House Comm. on Energy and 
Commerce, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. (Feb. 7, 14 & Mar. 14, 2002); 
Developments Relating to Enron Corp.: Hearing Before the U.S. House 
Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. (Feb. 6, 2002); The 
Findings of Enron's Special Investigative Committee with respect to 
Certain Transactions between Enron and Certain of its Current and 
Former Officers and Employees: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Oversight 
and Investigations of the U.S. House Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 
107th Cong., 2d Sess. (Feb. 5, 2002); The Destruction of Enron-Related 
Documents by Andersen Personnel: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on 
Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House Comm. on Energy and 
Commerce, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. (Jan. 24, 2002).
    \55\Rebecca Smith, U.S. Puts Task Force on Criminal Probe of Enron, 
Wall St. J., Jan. 10, 2002, at A3; Alex Berenson, SEC Opens 
Investigation into Enron, N.Y. Times, Nov. 1, 2001, at C4.

         LIn 2002, the House Energy and Commerce 
        Committee investigated Martha Stewart for insider 
        trading allegations involving ImClone stock.\56\ Both 
        Ms. Stewart and ImClone officials were under 
        investigation by the Justice Department.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\An Inquiry into the ImClone Cancer-Drug Story: Hearing Before 
the Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House Comm. on 
Energy and Commerce, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. (June 13 & Oct. 10, 2002).
    \57\Constance L. Hays, Investigators Said to be Frustrated in 
Stewart Case, N.Y. Times, Aug. 12, 2002, at C4.

         LIn 2002, the House Financial Services 
        Committee investigated the WorldCom scandal while 
        criminal and civil cases were pending.\58\ During 
        hearings, analysts and the chairman of the board 
        testified, while other executives refused to testify 
        citing the 5th Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\Wrong Numbers: The Accounting Problems at WorldCom: Hearing 
Before the U.S. House Comm. on Financial Servs., 107th Cong., 2d. Sess. 
(July 8, 2002).

    Finally, the Government Accountability Office (``GAO'') has 
conducted investigations while the administration was pursuing 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
criminal investigations. For example:

         LIn 1998-2001, the GAO investigated the 
        actions of FBI investigators in the Wen Ho Lee 
        espionage case.\59\ Mr. Lee was under investigation by 
        the FBI from 1996 until his indictment in 1999.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\Letter from the General Accounting Office to the Honorable 
Arlen Specter, U.S. Senate, et al. (June 28, 2001).
    \60\Matthew Purdy & James Sterngold, The Prosecution Unravels--The 
Case of Wen Ho Lee, N.Y. Times, Feb. 5, 2001, at A1.

         LIn 1999-2000, the GAO investigated the Waco 
        incident while Special Counsel Danforth was still 
        conducting his investigation.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Assistance Provided at 
Branch Davidian Incident (Aug. 1999).

         LIn 1994-96, the GAO investigated the White 
        House Travel Office under the Clinton 
        administration.\62\ This occurred while criminal 
        investigations were being conducted by the Department, 
        the IRS, the Treasury Department Inspector General and 
        the Office of Professional Responsibility.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\Letter from the General Accounting Office to the Honorable 
William F. Clinger, Chairman, U.S. House Comm. on Gov't Reform and 
Oversight (Sept. 18, 1996).
    \63\U.S. General Accounting Office, White House Travel Office 
Operations (May 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. LThis Resolution would not Violate Grand Jury Secrecy Rules
    The Majority incorrectly argues that disclosure of the 
requested information would violate grand jury secrecy rules. 
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) prohibits the 
disclosure of a ``matter occurring before a grand jury,''\64\ 
and a grand jury has been convened to investigate the leak. As 
the Justice Department's own Federal Grand Jury Practice manual 
explains, however:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2).

        Rule 6(e) does not cover all information developed 
        during the course of a grand jury investigation, but 
        only information that would reveal the strategy or 
        direction of the investigation, the nature of the 
        evidence produced before the grand jury, the views 
        expressed by members of the grand jury, or anything 
        else that actually occurred before the grand jury. . . 
        . In short, to come within the Rule 6(e) secrecy 
        prohibition, the material in question must `reveal some 
        secret aspect of the inner workings of the grand 
        jury.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Dep't of Justice, 
Federal Grand Jury Practice 40 (Aug. 2000) (emphasis added) (citing 
United States v. Smith, 123 F.3d 140, 148 (3d Cir. 1997); Anaya v. 
United States, 815 F.2d 1373, 1379 (10th Cir. 1987); Fund for 
Constitutional Gov't v. National Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 
856, 869 (D.C. Cir. 1981); In re Grand Jury Investigation, 630 F.2d 
996, 1000 (3d Cir. 1980); In re Grand Jury Investigation (Lance), 610 
F.2d 202, 217 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Stanford, 589 F.2d 285, 
291 (7th Cir. 1978); United States Industries v. United States Dist. 
Court, 345 F.2d 18, 21-22, (9th Cir. 1965); United States v. Interstate 
Dress Carriers, Inc., 280 F.2d 52, 54 (2d Cir. 1960)).

    The documentation requested by H. Res. 420 would not betray 
the ``inner workings of the grand jury.'' Material created 
independently of the grand jury has long been held to be 
outside of the grand jury secrecy rules.\66\ In particular, 
investigative material gathered by law enforcement agents 
instead of a grand jury repeatedly has been found to be outside 
of Rule 6(e).\67\ That information is gathered with an ``eye 
toward ultimate use in a grand jury proceeding'' does not 
invoke secrecy protections.\68\ As long as the investigative 
information was not collected at the direction of a grand jury 
nor is presented in a manner that reveals what took place in 
front of the grand jury, disclosure is proper. In fact, Justice 
Department disclosure of this material will continue its 
history of routine disclosure of criminal investigative 
information in response to pressing congressional inquiries 
such as this.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\Id.
    \67\In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 920 F.2d 235, 242-43 (4th Cir. 
1990); Anaya, 815 F.2d at 1379-80; In re Grand Jury Matter (Catania), 
682 F.2d 61, 64 (3rd Cir. 1982); United States v. Interstate Dress 
Carriers, 280 F.2d 52, 54 (2d Cir. 1960).
    \68\Catania, 682 F.2d at 64.
    \69\Morton Rosenberg, Congressional Research Serv., Investigative 
Oversight: An Introduction to the Law, Practice and Procedure of 
Congressional Inquiry 29-32 (Apr. 7, 1995). See also Investigation into 
Allegations of Justice Department Misconduct in New England--Volume 1: 
Hearings Before the U.S. House Comm. on Gov't Reform of the U.S. House 
of Representatives, 107th Cong., 1st & 2nd Sess. (2001-02) (testimony 
of Morton Rosenberg, Congressional Research Service, American Law 
Division) (listing eighteen distinct congressional investigations that 
acquired criminal files from the Justice Department).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CONCLUSION

    This resolution of inquiry was necessary because the Bush 
administration has consistently refused to police itself in the 
midst of criminal and ethical misconduct. It has permitted a 
breach of national security to go unchecked and to be subject 
to political machinations. In such times, it is the duty of 
Congress to hold the administration accountable; unfortunately, 
this Congress has turned a blind eye to the wrongdoing of this 
administration. The Majority's rejection of this resolution of 
inquiry represents not only an abdication of Congress's 
responsibility but also another example of its predilection for 
placing partisan interest above national security.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Howard L. Berman.
                                   Jerrold Nadler.
                                   Robert C. Scott.
                                   Melvin L. Watt.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   William D. Delahunt.
                                   Robert Wexler.
                                   Anthony D. Weiner.
                                   Adam B. Schiff.
                                   Linda T. Sanchez.
                                   Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

                                  
