[House Report 109-30]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     109-30

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







 
 DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY 
  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 THOSE OFFICIALS RELATING TO THE SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS 
AND BACKGROUND CHECKS RELATING TO GRANTING ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE OF 
              JAMES D. GUCKERT (ALSO KNOWN AS JEFF GANNON)

                                _______
                                

   April 5, 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. 136]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
resolution (H. Res. 136) directing the Attorney General and the 
Secretary of Homeland Security 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 
those officials relating to the security investigations and 
background checks relating to granting access to the White 
House of James D. Guckert (also known as Jeff Gannon), having 
considered the same, report unfavorably thereon without 
amendment and recommend that the resolution not be agreed to.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     9
Committee Consideration..........................................     9
Vote of the Committee............................................     9
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    10
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................    10
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................    10
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    10
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    10
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................    10
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Resolution, as Reported......    10
Markup Transcript................................................    11
Dissenting Views.................................................    33

                          Purpose and Summary

    House Resolution 136, introduced by Representatives Conyers 
and Slaughter on March 3, 2005, directs the Attorney General 
and Secretary of Homeland Security to transmit to the House of 
Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of 
adoption of this resolution, documents in the possession of 
those officials relating to the security investigations and 
background checks related to granting access to the White House 
of James D. Guckert (also known as Jeff Gannon).

                Background and Need for the Legislation

                      HOUSE RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY

    House Resolution 136 is a resolution of inquiry. Clause 7 
of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
provides that if the Committee to which it is referred does not 
act on the resolution within 14 legislative days, a privileged 
motion to discharge the resolution from 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\ Upon introduction, H. Res. 136 
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on March 3, 
2005, and was ordered reported adversely on March 16, 2005 by 
the Committee. Under the rules and precedents of the House, a 
resolution of inquiry passed by the House of Representatives 
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.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ William Holmes Brown, House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, 
Precedents and Procedures of the House 819 (2003).
    \2\ 7 Deschler's Precedents of the House of Representatives, ch. 
24, Sec. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As mentioned before, if a Committee does not report the 
resolution of inquiry in a timely manner, it may be discharged 
from a Committee by House floor vote under a privileged motion. 
However, if a Committee acts in a timely manner, it may report 
the resolution either favorably or adversely.
    A Committee that adversely reports a resolution of inquiry 
does not necessarily oppose the resolution under consideration 
but may find it unnecessary. In the past, resolutions of 
inquiry have oftentimes been reported adversely for several 
recurring reasons, two of which are that an Administration is 
already in substantial compliance with the request or that 
there is an ongoing competing investigation. There is also past 
precedent for a resolution of inquiry to be adversely reported 
because the nature of the information demanded was highly 
sensitive and inappropriate for such a public means of 
inquiry.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ H.R. Rep. No. 1079, 92nd Cong., 2nd Sess., (1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In this instance, the common circumstances in which a 
resolution of inquiry should be adversely reported are present. 
First, the Congress received information responsive to the 
legislative purposes sought by the resolution. Second, House 
Resolution 136 requests documents that appear to relate to 
competing ongoing investigations. In addition, the House 
Resolution 136 requests documents that are of a highly 
sensitive nature, as they deal with the security procedures of 
the White House itself and Secret Service protection of the 
President and First Family.

            THE TARGET OF THE RESOLUTION--JAMES D. GUCKERT 
                      (ALSO KNOWN AS JEFF GANNON)

    According to a February 19, 2005 Washington Post article by 
Howard Kurtz entitled Jeff Gannon Admits Past ``Mistakes,'' 
Berates Critics, James Guckert, covered the White House for two 
conservative Web sites, Talon News and GOPUSA, both owned by a 
Texas Republican activitist. Mr. Guckert resigned in February 
2005.
    The Kurtz article states that ``[Mr. Guckert] became a 
target after asking President Bush a question that slammed 
Senate Democrats and contained false information about Minority 
Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)'' The article also pointed out that 
while ``Gannon said he began covering the White House in 
February 2003, at least a month before Talon News was 
created.'' He then went on to explain that he was working for 
GOPUSA during that time.

          REASON FOR ADVERSELY REPORTING HOUSE RESOLUTION 136

    On March 16, 2005 the Committee adversely reported H. Res. 
136 by roll call vote. In adversely reporting the resolution, 
the Committee considered the following factors of paramount 
importance to its determination that the resolution not be 
accorded a privileged motion on the House floor.

                         SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

    First, the Committee finds that Administration 
substantially complied with the March 3, 2005 introduced 
resolution of inquiry by its March 7, 2005 letter from the 
Secret Service to Representatives Conyers and Slaughter.
    On February 10, 2005, Mr. Conyers and Ms. Slaughter sent a 
letter to Director Basham of the Secret Service stating:

        We write to inquire about the process you employ to 
        clear individuals for attendance at events within a 
        close proximity of the President. We have recently 
        become aware that a Republican activist, with a 
        potential criminal past, gained access to the White 
        House press briefing room and Presidential press 
        conferences and was allowed to work under an assumed 
        name. This appears to contradict the strict standards 
        you have set for protecting the President in the past 
        and have applied to others seeking access to the White 
        House or the President.

    On March 3, 2005, Mr. Conyers and Ms. Slaughter introduced 
H. Res. 136 requesting similar information from the Departments 
of Homeland Security and Justice.
    On March 7, 2005, the Secret Service responded to Mr. 
Conyers and Ms. Slaughter. The Secret Service had its Office of 
Protective Operations investigate the matter of whether there 
was a deviation from Secret Service standards and procedures. 
The Office of Protective Operations found none.
    The letter stated the Secret Service assessed Mr. Guckert 
using the same criteria as those applied to all individuals 
seeking day pass access to White House briefings. The Secret 
Service stated that it is solely responsible for the security 
of the White House Complex. In the letter, the Secret Service 
advised the Members that those afforded access to the White 
House may utilize professional names that differ from their 
legal names, but that a reporter seeking a day pass must 
provide his or her legal name. The Secret Service explained 
that Mr. Guckert used the ``pen name'' of Jeff Gannon, but also 
provided his legal name, his Social Security number and birth 
date in applying for a day pass. The Secret Service also 
pointed out that they are bound by a longstanding Federal 
regulation that requires the Secret Service to be guided 
``solely by the principle of whether the applicant presents a 
potential source of physical danger to the President and/or the 
family of the President so serious as to justify his or her 
exclusion from White House press privileges.'' The Secret 
Service determined that Mr. Guckert was not a physical danger 
to the President.
    The Administration, through this letter from the Secret 
Service, explained that the normal procedures were properly 
followed and the Secret Service did not find that Mr. Guckert 
posed a threat to the President or his family.
    In a March 8, 2005 press release, Representatives Conyers 
and Slaughter acknowledged that the ``conservative activist'' 
they inquired about on February 10, 2005, had used his real 
name when he applied for his day pass.

                        COMPETING INVESTIGATIONS

    A second reason the Committee is reporting H. Res. 136 
adversely is because it directs Executive Branch officials to 
transmit to the House of Representatives documents that may be 
subject to ongoing criminal and administrative investigations.
    The sponsors of H. Res. 136 requested criminal and 
administrative investigations. As a result, these documents may 
be subject to an ongoing criminal investigation and a grand 
jury investigation.
    On February 10, 2005, Representatives Conyers and Slaughter 
wrote to U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald investigating the alleged 
leak of a CIA operative's name. The letter requested they 
investigate the ``leak of a classified Central Intelligence 
Agency memo containing the identity of undercover agent Valerie 
Plame to James D. Guckert, a member of the White House press 
corp.''
    The Plame criminal investigation stemmed 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.\4\ 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. . . .'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Robert Novak, Editorial, Mission to Niger, Chicago Sun-Times, 
July 14, 2003, at 31.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In late January 2004, the press reported that a grand jury 
had convened in Washington, D.C., to hear testimony on this 
investigation.\6\ On January 21, 2004, Representative Holt 
introduced House Resolution 499, a resolution relating to the 
Plame matters. This Committee reported that resolution 
adversely because of an ongoing grand jury investigation. The 
Committee concluded ``the Federal grand jury enjoys sweeping 
authority'' \7\ that allows investigators to subpoena witnesses 
and request the same documents requested in H. Res. 499, 
including telephone and electronic mail records, logs and 
calendars, personnel records, and records of internal 
discussions. On July 21, 2004, the Committee adversely reported 
H. Res. 700, which requested information related to the 
treatment of detainees because of several competing 
administrative and criminal investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 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).
    \7\ Charles Doyle, Congressional Research Service Report for 
Congress: Federal Grand Juries: the Law in a Nutshell 1 (Feb. 5, 2002).

        In this instance, the February 10, 2005 Conyers' letter 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        asked the U.S. Attorney, to:

        investigate the leak of a classified Central 
        Intelligence Agency memo containing the identity of 
        undercover agent Valerie Plame to James D. Guckert, a 
        member of the White House press corps. It appears that 
        the White House was so focused on smearing the 
        reputation of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, that it 
        knowingly leaked his wife's identity to a Republican 
        activist posing as a journalist.

        James D. Guckert, who operated under the false name 
        ``Jeff Gannon,'' and may have engaged in criminal 
        activity, had been attending press events at the White 
        House for up to three years. Mr. Guckert reportedly 
        received an internal and classified CIA memo that 
        revealed the identity of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's 
        wife. Because of the extremely sensitive nature of this 
        leak, and its relation to the investigation you are 
        conducting, we believe that you as special counsel are 
        the most appropriate person to conduct the inquiry.

    Mr. Conyers and Ms. Slaughter charged that ``[w]hoever in 
the Administration gave Mr. Guckert the memo risked Ms. Plame's 
very life and must be punished to the full extent of the law.'' 
In their letter Representatives Conyers and Slaughter went on 
to say:

        There is a clear conflict of interest in the 
        Administration investigating Mr. Guckert's role in this 
        crime. Mr. Guckert and the White House press operation 
        work together closely to forward the President's 
        policies. First, Mr. Guckert would not be considered a 
        bona fide journalist by his peers in the press corps, 
        as most of his claims to legitimacy have already been 
        discredited. Access to the President and his press 
        corps is highly competitive, and many seasoned 
        journalists have not had the honor of attending the 
        events or enjoying the access Mr. Guckert has. That a 
        person of these dubious qualifications was given such 
        close contact to the President, perhaps in violation of 
        standard security procedures, demonstrates the 
        Administration's affinity for and bias towards Mr. 
        Guckert. Second, Mr. Guckert's questions clearly 
        reiterated the White House's policy, and simply asked 
        for concurrence. Finally, Mr. Guckert's ``articles,'' 
        published by a news front for GOPUSA, track White House 
        talking points word for word. [emphasis added].

        Clearly, Mr. Guckert returned the White House's favor 
        by advancing the President's policies with gusto. With 
        such a close relationship between Mr. Guckert and the 
        White House, the conflict of an Administration-led 
        investigation is all too apparent. Finally, the public 
        interest has been thwarted far too long over the leak 
        of Ms. Plame's identity. It has been over a year and a 
        half since Robert Novak published Plame's identity and 
        we are no closer to finding who in the Administration 
        illegally leaked her status as an undercover agent. 
        Having a special counsel immediately follow up this 
        lead is necessary to ensure that those who risk their 
        lives for our country to gather intelligence are fully 
        protected.

    On February 23, 2005 Representatives Conyers and Slaughter 
sent another letter to U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald requesting Mr. 
Fitzgerald subpoena Mr. Guckert to provide his private journal 
to the grand jury:

        We are writing to inform you of the existence of 
        information potentially vital to your investigation of 
        the leak of a CIA operative name. A person in the White 
        House briefing room who had access to a memo revealing 
        the operative's name also kept a journal of his days 
        covering the White House. We bring this to your 
        attention because we believe your office may need to 
        subpoena the journal to further the work of the grand 
        jury.

        As many people are aware, James Guckert (aka ``Jeff 
        Gannon'') posed as a journalist and gained entry to the 
        White House briefing room. He also may have had access 
        to documents that leaked the name of the CIA operative. 
        In an October 2003 interview with Joseph C. Wilson IV, 
        the husband of the operative, Mr. Guckert referenced a 
        memo written by U.S. intelligence officials indicating 
        the operative suggested Mr. Wilson could investigate 
        reports that Iraq had sought uranium. In and of itself, 
        this indicates that Mr. Guckert had access to 
        classified information.

    It should be noted that four days prior to Mr. Conyers and 
Ms. Slaughter sending this correspondence, alleging that Mr. 
Gannon/Guckert received a classified memorandum, Mr. Guckert 
had claimed that he had not received such a briefing in a 
February 19, 2005 Washington Post article by Howard Kurtz 
entitled Jeff Gannon Admits Past ``Mistakes,'' Berates Critics. 
Mr. Kurtz reports the following:

        Mr. Gannon . . . said he was questioned by the FBI in 
        the Valerie Plame leak investigation after referring to 
        a classified CIA document when he interviewed the outed 
        CIA operative's husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson.

        But he said yesterday [February 18, 2005]: ``I didn't 
        have the document. I never saw the document. It was 
        written about in the Wall Street Journal a week before. 
        I had no special access to classified information.''

    The Committee has also previously reported resolutions of 
inquiry adversely 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.

    In this instance, on February 23, 2005, Mr. Conyers and Ms. 
Slaughter sent a letter to the Comptroller General of the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting that the GAO 
expand on a January 11, 2005 request that asked the Comptroller 
to investigate whether the Administration illegally used 
appropriated money to covertly advocate for seven different 
programs. The letter also requested GAO also look at whether 
the Administration violated the ban on prepackaged news stories 
by siphoning print stories to James D. Guckert, also known as 
``Jeff Gannon.''
    The sponsors of H. Res. 136 sent letters requesting 
criminal and administrative investigations claiming that Mr. 
Guckert received improper access to the White House or White 
House documents and used this access improperly. These letters 
make serious allegations of conflicts of interest and criminal 
activity. One letter alleges that he ``posed as a journalist 
and gained access to the White House briefing room, and that 
this allowed him access to a memo that leaked the name of a CIA 
operative to the press.'' In another letter, Mr. Conyers and 
Ms. Slaughter even requested the U.S. Attorney to subpoena Mr. 
Guckert's private journal. These letters (2/10, 2/23) and the 
introduction of the resolution of inquiry itself (3/3) predate 
the Secret Service response (3/7) which demonstrates that 
procedures were followed, that Mr. Guckert did not get special 
treatment, that Mr. Guckert did not give a false name--thus he 
did not ``pose as a journalist,'' and that there was no reason 
to deny him access under current procedures and Federal 
regulations.
    Whether Members of the Committee agree or disagree about 
the need for Congress to investigate the allegations contained 
in the resolution of inquiry, the sponsors themselves requested 
these competing investigations that preclude Congressional 
involvement based on previous precedents. Accordingly, the 
Committee is adversely reporting H. Res. 136 on these grounds 
as well.

                     SENSITIVE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED

    A third reason to report this resolution adversely is the 
fact that H. Res. 136 requests information about the security 
procedures and Secret Service practices involved in protecting 
the President and First Family and controlling access for White 
House press, much of which is of a highly sensitive nature. For 
instance, the resolution requests all documents setting forth 
policies and procedures discussing security clearances and 
background checks related to granting access into the White 
House. Such documents could reveal highly sensitive information 
about the Secret Service and its manner of protection for the 
President, First Family, and White House grounds. Such 
revelations could expose potential vulnerabilities for those 
who would do harm. Additionally, the letter the Secret Service 
already sent responded in the negative to the sponsors concerns 
that Mr. Guckert used a false name and he received special 
treatment, but did so without revealing sensitive information.

                               CONCLUSION

    The Committee reports this resolution of inquiry adversely 
for the reasons outlined above. First, the Administration has 
substantially complied with information requested as the 
sponsors have received information responsive to the 
resolution. The March 7, 2005 letter from the Secret Service 
responded to the resolution of inquiry's core allegations and 
requests. Second, the authors of the resolution themselves 
requested additional criminal and administrative investigations 
into the relationship between Mr. Guckert and the White House. 
A competing investigation is a common reason that Committees 
have opposed resolutions of inquiry in the past. Finally, the 
resolution requests documents of a highly sensitive nature as 
they relate to the security of the White House, Secret Service 
procedures, and potential vulnerabilities.
    Accordingly, this resolution is reported adversely by the 
Committee because the Administration has already substantially 
complied without revealing sensitive information that could 
jeopardize the safety of the President, and because this 
request could interfere with the competing investigations that 
were requested by the sponsors of the resolution themselves.

                                Hearings

    The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H. Res. 
136.

                        Committee Consideration

    On March 16, 2005, the Committee met in open session and 
adversely reported the resolution, H. Res. 136, by a recorded 
vote of 21 ayes to 10 noes, 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 notes that there 
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of 
H. Res. 136.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................              X
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................                              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Washington)..........................................
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             21              10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      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. 136 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. 136 is not a bill or joint 
resolution that may be enacted into law.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    The resolution directs that the Attorney General and 
Secretary of Homeland Security transmit to the House of 
Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the 
adoption of this resolution all documents in the possession of 
those officials relating to the security investigations and 
background checks relating to granting access to the White 
House of James D. Guckert (also known as Jeff Gannon) and any 
requisite instruction for handling such documents.

            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. 
136 makes no changes to existing law.

                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                             MARCH 16, 2005

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    [Intervening business.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Now, pursuant to notice, I call up 
House Resolution 136, directing the Attorney General and the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to transmit to the House of 
Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the 
adoption of this resolution documents in possession of those 
officials relating to the security investigations and 
background checks relating to granting access to the White 
House of James D. Guckert, also known as Jeff Gannon, for 
purposes of markup and move its--report it adversely to the 
House. Without objection, the resolution will be considered as 
read and open for amendment at any time.
    [The resolution, H. Res. 136, follows:]
      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. I would strike the requisite number of words.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. And I would like to point out to the Members 
of the Committee that this resolution of inquiry is brought 
under the rules of the House of Representatives and mandates 
that we determine how to dispose of the matter and that it 
cannot be ignored or passed over within the number of days that 
the Chairman has correctly stated. We're here because of the 
Jeff Gannon, phony reporter in the White House issue. It defies 
credibility that a reporter operating under an alias, who 
couldn't even get privileges in the House or Senate press 
gallery, could receive scores of consecutive White House day 
passes without the intervention of someone at the White House. 
Who? We do not know. And, further, the Administration will not 
tell us nor will they cooperate.
    Now, there are Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists who are 
regularly turned down for White House press credentials, and 
yet a sham journalist working for a politically controlled 
media front operation could receive open-ended access to the 
White House press room because someone let him in.
    We're here today because we have an Administration that has 
consistently refused cooperation, and we now have a Congress 
that under our rules imposed upon the Judiciary Committee a 
determination that we should investigate this most serious of 
ethical transgressions.
    We are here because the Administration has either rejected 
or ignored every bona fide request for information concerning 
the so-called Jeff Gannon. On February 9, the gentlelady from 
New York, Louise Slaughter, asked the White House in writing 
about this. Ignored.
    On February 10, the gentlelady from New York and I posed 
the question to the Secret Service and received a non-
responsive response.
    On February 15, the gentlelady from New York and I filed a 
Freedom of Information request with the Department of Homeland 
Security and again no response.
    In light of this, we have no choice but to ask our 
distinguished Committee on the Judiciary to assist us in this 
job and request the materials from the Administration, simply 
the information, because they are--because others in Government 
are simply unwilling to give us the cooperation. And we cannot 
tolerate phony news set-ups in the Administration, the 
purchasing of news from columnists, or anything that takes 
Federal money and uses it for political or propagandistic 
purposes. Taxpayers don't want their money used that way, and 
neither do we. We can no longer tolerate paying reporters for 
opinions when we can't find funds for our job programs and our 
poverty programs. Americans don't want the White House press 
room to churn out press releases that reporters like Jeff 
Gannon plagiarize and report as their own.
    So, in conclusion, what we have today is a Government that 
is ruled almost by one party, totally lacking in 
accountability, instead of a system of checks and balances. And 
if we don't investigate this matter thoroughly, impartially, 
and in a bipartisan sense, where and when will we draw the 
line? If we don't act now, when will there be someone to say 
enough is enough?
    I plead with my Committee Members in the Judiciary to 
support this very plain but necessary and imperative resolution 
of inquiry, and I return my time, and I thank the Chairman of 
the Committee.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair strikes the last word.
    The Administration, in my opinion, has already 
substantially complied with the terms of this resolution by 
providing the information requested by it. There also appears 
to be ongoing competing investigations into the relationship 
between Mr. Guckert and the White House at the request of the 
Ranking Member himself.
    On February 10, Representatives Conyers and Slaughter sent 
the Secret Service letter--a letter requesting similar 
information. The Secret Service requested its Office of 
Protective Operations to examine whether the Service deviated 
from established standards and procedures when granting Mr. 
Guckert access to the White House.
    In a March 7 letter to the two Representatives, the Service 
stated that the OPO investigated their concern and found no 
evidence to suggest that Mr. Guckert received special treatment 
when obtaining access to the White House. The letter further 
stated that the Secret Service assessed Mr. Guckert utilizing 
the same criteria as those applied to all individuals seeking 
day pass access to White House briefings.
    The Secret Service also indicated that it is solely 
responsible for the security of the White House complex. The 
letter informed our colleagues that those afforded access to 
the White House may use professional names that differ from 
their legal names, that the Secret Service, nevertheless, 
requires legal names be provided to receive access, and that 
Mr. Guckert used the pen name of Jeff Gannon.
    The letter also stated that Mr. Guckert provided his legal 
name, Social Security number, and birth date for access and 
that Federal regulation requires the Secret Service to be 
guided solely by the principle of whether the applicant 
presents a potential source of physical danger to the President 
and/or the family of the President so serious as to justify his 
or her exclusion from White House press privileges, unquote. 
The letter concluded by stating that the Secret Service had 
determined that Mr. Guckert did not pose a physical danger to 
the President or his family.
    In a March 8 press release, our colleagues did acknowledge 
that Mr. Guckert, whom they deemed ``a conservative activist,'' 
used his legal name when he applied for his day pass. The 
information already provided by the Secret Service provides a 
basis to adversely support this resolution. However, additional 
letters sent by the Ranking Member to the Comptroller General 
and the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, 
Patrick Fitzgerald, provide additional reasons to adversely 
report the resolution in order to avoid interfering with those 
investigations.
    Our colleagues requested Attorney Fitzgerald to include Mr. 
Guckert in the Valerie Plame investigation in two separate 
letters dated February 10 and February 23. The Plame criminal 
investigation stems from a 2003 article by syndicated columnist 
Robert Novak. The leak of Valerie Plame's name is currently 
under investigation by U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald.
    Moreover, on February 23, our colleagues requested the GAO 
to expand on a January 11, 2005, request to investigate whether 
the Administration illegally used appropriated money to 
covertly advocate for seven different Administration programs. 
This letter requested GAO to examine whether the Administration 
violated the ban on prepackaged news stories by siphoning print 
stories to James D. Guckert.
    Avoiding competing investigations is a common and well-
founded reason that Committees have opposed resolutions of 
inquiry in the past. This Committee has previously reported 
such resolutions adversely for this precise reason, and I urge 
my colleagues to do so today.
    I would reiterate the fact that the Administration has 
substantially complied with the request for information, and 
the sponsors of this resolution have requested Mr. Guckert be 
included in a criminal grand jury investigation and a GAO 
investigation. I urge Members to support the motion to report 
adversely.
    I would like to introduce into the record a reprint of 31 
Code of Federal Regulations Chapter 4, Part 409(1) relating to 
standards for security clearances that has been in the Code of 
Federal Regulations since June 22, 1978. Without objection, 
this information will be included.
    [The information follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members' 
opening statements will appear in the record at this point.
    Are there amendments? The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Berman. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman, I think by definition the fact 
that this resolution of inquiry is before is confirmation of 
the fact that the people who requested the information, namely, 
the Ranking Member and the gentlelady from New York, did not 
receive answers to the questions they asked. Those specifically 
were who or what office was responsible for ultimately granting 
access to the White House, given the applicant passes, his 
background check, including who or what office asked the Secret 
Service to complete a background check on Mr. Guckert, 
specifically whether a single clearance lasts indefinitely or 
whether the applicant must reapply for each day pass, and how 
many times and on what days Mr. Guckert was cleared and who 
requested that clearance.
    While the Secret Service has partially responded to the 
Ranking Member's request, the very specific questions related 
to the belief and the allegation that essentially a 
conservative activist was promoted by the White House to seek a 
clearance for being able to ask a question as an independent 
news reporters have not been answered, and those are the 
questions for which we and the sponsor of the resolution of 
inquiry and the Ranking Member are seeking information. And 
that's why this resolution should be adopted.
    And may I just put in the record a copy of the letters 
dated February 10, February 23--two of February 23, and 
February 15 to Patrick Fitzgerald; to Patrick Fitzgerald again; 
to David Walker, Comptroller General, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; and to the Honorable Tom Ridge--letters 
sent by Ranking Member Conyers and Ranking Member of Rules 
Louise Slaughter.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Berman. Thank you.
    [The material referred to follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And without objection, the Chair 
will introduce into the record a reply dated March 7 to the 
Ranking Member, Mr. Conyers, and Representative Slaughter on 
this subject, signed by Conrad A. Everett, Deputy Assistant 
Director of the Secret Service.
    [The material referred to follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments, further 
amendments? The gentlewoman from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to strike the last 
word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I recognize that there have been a number of initiatives 
taken by the White House to self-investigate, but I clearly 
believe that the level of violations that may be confronted 
with the actions regarding Mr. Gannon, sometimes known in news 
transcripts as James D. Guckert, known alternatively as a 
right-wing activist, with seemingly no press credentials, and 
access to the White House briefing room and Presidential press 
conferences, cries out for a House investigation.
    I frankly believe that this is no less serious than what my 
colleagues thought the proceedings dealing with the Clinton 
impeachment were for them. This is a penetration of the White 
House, maybe a security breach, and I do not believe it can be 
answered with self-investigation.
    First of all, it appears that this is a longstanding 
practice--that it has violated a longstanding practice of 
carefully screening contacts with the President. This special 
access not only raises security concerns, but calls into 
question the fundamental fairness of White House press corps. 
In fact, the favoritism bestowed on this fake reporter may even 
have violated Federal law. Mr. Guckert's efforts as a 
mouthpiece for the White House likely violated statutes banning 
the Administration from using appropriated money for propaganda 
purposes. We see what happened with a number of columnists who 
had been paid by Federal dollars to promote the Federal agenda.
    In addition, Mr. Guckert has claimed that he had access to 
classified Central Intelligence Agency documents that revealed 
the undercover status of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife. It's 
now been over a year and a half since Valerie Plame was 
maliciously ousted, her life destroyed, her profession 
destroyed, and we appear to be no closer and there seems to be 
no great interest on the part of the Administration in finding 
out who in the Administration played with her life for 
political purposes.
    I believe this resolution by Mr. Conyers--and I applaud him 
and the gentlelady from New York for their evenhandedness in 
this resolution. But I believe this resolution may shed some 
light on whether Mr. Guckert, the White House go-to 
propagandist, also received classified information and from 
whom.
    Mr. Chairman, we're in a time when homeland security cannot 
be taken for granted. We're now meeting and having hearings on 
how we can secure the homeland, but also, as we recently passed 
the intelligence reform bill of 2004, how we can be assured 
that there are no security breaches, while I believe that Mr. 
Gannon/Mr. Guckert is a crying example, a glaring example and 
cries out--a glaring example of security breach and cries out 
for resolution. This resolution that has been offered by Mr. 
Conyers is straightforward, simple, and to the point, and it 
allows this Judiciary Committee to do its job, that is, to rise 
above partisanship and to be bipartisan in ethics and in 
deserving and finding out the truth.
    I hope my colleagues will enthusiastically support this 
resolution, for I believe that the danger that we put Valerie 
Plame in, the potential breach and leaks from the CIA 
documents, and the potential that someone else today is sitting 
in the White House equally disguised, with equally false 
documents, really cries out for us to do something.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I'd be happy to yield to the 
distinguished----
    Mr. Conyers. I commend you for pointing out the 
international character of this inquiry. The safety of the 
country is involved if the person in question really has had 
access to CIA and information.
    And I want to say that if this Committee doesn't support 
this resolution of inquiry, which only asks essentially who let 
Gannon in the White House--somebody in the White House let him 
in. If we don't want to know, then we become a part of this 
conspiracy to cover this matter up. But like most things around 
here, the truth will come out, and I thank the gentlelady for 
yielding.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Conyers, I thank you for your 
thoughtfulness. If we don't want to find out----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.--we have not done our job. I ask for 
support of the resolution of inquiry. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Other amendments?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is reporting the 
resolution adversely. A reporting quorum is present. Those in 
favor of reporting the resolution adversely will say aye.
    Opposed, no?
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and----
    Mr. Conyers. May we get a record vote on this resolution?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A rollcall will be ordered. This 
will be the last rollcall of the day, I hope. 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 of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, aye. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, aye. Mr. Inglis?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye. Mr. Issa?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, aye. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, aye. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Feeney?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. 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. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, no. Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, no. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, no. Mr. Delahunt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, no. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, no. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members in the chamber who wish to 
cast or change their vote? The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Issa.
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from South Carolina, 
Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members in the chamber who 
wish to cast or change their vote? If not, the clerk will 
report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 21 ayes and 10 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the motion to report adversely 
is agreed to.
    The business scheduled before the Committee having been 
completed, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:42 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                            Dissenting Views

    We vigorously dissent from the Majority's decision to 
report adversely H. Res. 136, which would have requested the 
Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security disclose 
information concerning the manner in which Jeffrey Gannon (aka 
James A. Guckert) received White House press privileges.
    We dissent because we believe 1) Mr. Gannon was granted 
preferential access by the White House; 2) the granting of such 
access via temporary passes raises serious security issues; 3) 
the Administration's course of dealings with Mr. Gannon may 
also have violated various legal requirements; and 4) there are 
no other means available to pursue these lines of inquiry.
    By defeating this Resolution, all of the above questions 
will remain unanswered, and the Majority continues a long line 
of inaction on their part which runs totally counter to the 
principles of accountability and checks and balances that our 
nation was founded upon. The Majority's perfunctory rejection 
of this important Resolution, on a party line vote of 21-10, at 
the end of a long day of markup of other business, does a 
disservice to the 33 Members, including 14 members of this 
Committee, who submitted this Resolution of Inquiry to the 
House.
    It is an unfortunate fact of life that we have an 
Administration that is all too willing to flaunt the law, and a 
Republican-controlled Congress that refuses to investigate even 
the most serious ethical transgressions. Whether it is torture 
at Abu Ghraib, sole source contracts with Haliburton, or the 
outing of a CIA operative, this Congress has been unwilling and 
unable to ask the hard questions or issue the difficult 
subpoenas. The Committee's failure to request even the most 
cursory of information regarding Mr. Gannon from the 
Administration represents a disturbing continuation of this 
trend, and illustrates the ongoing problem of one-party rule in 
Washington.
    When our Committee enacted its rules on January 26, 2005, 
Rep. Conyers offered an amendment to insure that the Minority 
could request oversight hearings into ethical abuses by the 
Administration. The Chairman rejected the proposal stating, 
among other things, that the resolution of inquiry was the 
Minority's vehicle for investigation. Yet, now that we have 
proposed such a Resolution, the Majority has rejected it based 
on the specious contentions that our requests for information 
have been complied with, and that other investigations are 
ongoing. These assertions are neither accurate or relevant.
    In the following several pages, we set forth relevant 
background on this matter, and detail the reasons for our 
dissent in greater detail.

                               BACKGROUND

    It is now widely known that James D. Guckert, a Republican 
activist, gained repeated access to the White House press 
briefing room and presidential press conferences from January 
of 2003 to January of 2005. He was allowed to work under the 
assumed name of ``Jeff Gannon.''
    Almost immediately after President Bush called on Mr. 
Gannon by name during a January 26, 2005 press conference (to 
ask a controversial question deriding the Senate Democratic 
Leadership), 1 the blogosphere began investigating 
Mr. Gannon's real identity, his journalistic ties, and his 
relationships within the Republican party. It is now clear that 
Talon News, for which Mr. Gannon served as the White House 
correspondent, has close working ties with Republican 
operatives, as well as a GOPUSA.com website. In fact, the same 
individual, Bobby Eberle, a Texas Republican activist and 
previous GOP delegate, owns both of these organizations. While 
Mr. Eberle's Talon website claims to be ``committed to 
delivering accurate, unbiased news coverage to [its] readers,'' 
his GOPUSA.com site asserts itself as ``bringing the 
conservative message to America.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Presidential Press Conference, Jan. 26, 2005.
    \2\ See Eric Boehlert, Fake News, Fake Reporter, Salon.com, Feb. 
10, 2005, at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/10/gannon--
affair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further evidencing the tie between this alleged nonpartisan 
organization and its partisan counterpart is the fact that both 
organizations' websites are registered to what appears to be 
Mr. Eberle's Pearland, Texas personal residence address, and 
even TalonNews.com's domain name registration contains Mr. 
Eberle's GOPUSA email address. After learning of this, online 
advocacy group Media Matters for America concluded, ``Talon 
News apparently consists of little more than Eberle, Gannon, 
and a few volunteers, and is virtually indistinguishable from 
GOPUSA.com . . . GOPUSA's officers and directors show a similar 
lack of journalism experience, but plenty of experience working 
for Republican causes.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It became readily apparent that Mr. Eberle and Mr. Gannon 
did not want the public to know of this connection. Shortly 
after Media Matters publicized this relationship to the 
American people, Talon quickly pulled its staff and reporter 
biographies from its website. It is, however, worth noting 
though that these biographies were still likely available at 
the time that Mr. Gannon and Talon requested access to the 
White House.
    The Standing Committee of Correspondents, a group of 
congressional reporters charged with overseeing the 
credentialing of press on Capitol Hill, quickly uncovered this 
relationship. On April 7, 2004, the Standing Committee denied 
Mr. Gannon's application for a press pass based on its 
inability to conclude that Talon was a legitimate, independent 
news organization. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ According to online magazine Salon.com's interview of a 
Baltimore Sun reporter seated on the Standing Committee of 
Correspondents, the Standing Committee's non-recognition of the 
publication led it to inquire as to what Talon was. After further 
independent investigation revealed that Talon was owned by the GOPUSA's 
owner, Baltimore Sun reporter Julie Davis recounts what transpired as 
follows: ``We had asked for some proof of Talon's independence from 
[GOPUSA] . . . They didn't provide anything, so we denied their 
credentials, which is pretty rare.'' See Eric Boehlert, Giving 
``Gannon'' a Pass, Salon.com, Feb. 11, 2005, at http://www.salon.com/
news/feature/2005/02/11/gannon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further investigation of Talon News revealed that its staff 
consisted of largely volunteer Republican activists having no 
journalism experience. Online advocacy group Media Matters for 
America analyzed several of Mr. Gannon's posted articles and 
found on multiple occasions that Mr. Gannon had copied entire 
sections straight from White House press releases and pasted 
them into his filed dispatches as if it was his own writing.
    Standard operating procedure requires that anyone who has 
regular access to the White House receive a permanent or ``hard 
pass.'' Hard pass recipients must meet the following five 
criteria: 1) they must work for a news organization that is 
either based in Washington, or which has a Washington Bureau; 
2) they must live in the Washington area; 3) they must 
demonstrate a need to be at the White House on a regular basis 
(this is usually done in a letter from a bureau chief to the 
Secret Service); 4) they must have a pass authorizing them to 
cover the U.S. Senate or House congressional galleries; and 5) 
they must undergo a Secret Service background check. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Interview with Carl Cannon, immediate past president of the 
White House Correspondents' Association, Hotline, Feb. 16, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As noted above, Mr. Gannon was refused a congressional pass 
after the House and the Senate learned that he worked for 
GOPUSA. This prevented Mr. Gannon from receiving a hard pass. 
With White House approval, however, he was able to circumvent 
this requirement and obtained almost daily access to the White 
House, by virtue of receiving a series of ``day passes'' over 
an approximately two-year period.
    According to White House Press Secretary Scott McClellean, 
only 20 to 25 day passes are handed out each day. \6\ Those 
passes are handled by the same staff assistant every day, and 
are given to members of the press who are not part of the 
Washington news corps generally, but are covering a very 
specific issue or event that the White House is addressing on 
that day. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Joe Strupp, Scott McClellan Reveals that Gannon/Guckert Got 
GOPUSA Press Pass, Editor and Publisher,&&&& Feb. 18, 2005.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          GROUNDS FOR DISSENT

1. Mr. Gannon Was Granted Preferential Access by the White House
    First and foremost, we are concerned that Mr. Gannon was 
granted preferential access by the White House over an 
approximately two-year period. This in turn raises questions as 
to whether the ordinary press requirements and safeguards were 
obviated merely to provide the Administration with a 
sympathetic questioner at White House briefings.
    Mr. Gannon's use of an alias, as well as the circumstances 
surrounding his access to the White House, contradict the 
strict standards the Secret Service sets for protecting the 
President and deviate substantially from standards applied to 
others seeking access to the White House or the President. To 
the best of our knowledge, Gannon is the only member of the 
White House press corps to receive such a privileged standing. 
In fact, Pulitzer Prize winning journalists have been turned 
down for press passes. \8\ It therefore appears to be highly 
unlikely that Mr. Gannon could have been repeatedly allowed 
into the White House over such a lengthy period without the 
intervention of someone very high up at the White House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Maureen Dowd, Bush's Barberini Faun, NY Times, Feb. 17, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. This 
Administration has come under severe questioning for its 
involvement in ``manufactured'' news. Among other things, 
Armstrong Williams received $240,000 from the Bush 
Administration to help promote the President's ``No Child Left 
Behind'' program to minority audiences through his nationally-
syndicated column. Michael McManus, author of the syndicated 
column, ``Ethics & Religion,'' which appears in 50 newspapers 
nationwide, was paid to champion a marriage initiative on the 
Administration's behalf and also did not disclose to his 
readers that he was contracted to help make the initiative a 
success.
    These are just two of many contracts doled out by the Bush 
Administration, which has expended more than $88 million in 
taxpayer funds to disseminate manufactured news and propaganda. 
\9\ In the present case, we have a very real concern that the 
White House intervened to grant such access with the specific 
intent of having a Republican partisan conveniently available 
to pose sympathetic questions at White House press briefings. 
Adoption of this Resolution of Inquiry would allow us to 
resolve these concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See generally Jim Drinkard, Report: PR Spending Doubled Under 
Bush, USA Today, Jan. 26, 2005, available at http://www.usatoday.com/
news/washington/2005-01-26-williams -usat--x.htm (reporting that the 
Bush Administration spent at least $88 million in Fiscal Year 2004 on 
contracts with major public relations firms, a number that is double 
what the Administration spent in President Bush's first year in 
office).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Granting of Such Access Via Temporary Passes Raises Serious 
        Security Issues
    By creating a loophole to the ordinary means of obtaining a 
White House press pass granting preferential access to Mr. 
Gannon, the Administration may have unwittingly jeopardized the 
security of the president.
    Mr. Gannon received access to the White House through the 
repeated issuance of day passes. Unlike permanent or ``hard 
passes,'' a day pass does not require a full Secret Service 
background check. In fact, clearance for a hard pass can take 
two to three months to complete.
    According to Carl Cannon, the immediate past President of 
the White House Correspondents Association, day passes are 
given to those who need access only for a short time to cover a 
specific event or immediate story. \10\ However, it appears 
that the Bush Administration may have abused this process to 
keep Mr. Gannon in what amounts to near-constant access to the 
President. By repeatedly issuing day passes to Mr. Gannon, the 
White House was allowed to sidestep the usual clearance process 
for anyone with such regular access to press events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ The Hotline, Feb. 16, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The precedent of such a waiver is quite alarming. It allows 
individuals who are unable to meet the criteria necessary to 
obtain a hard pass to obviate those requirements by obtaining 
special recourse to day pass procedures. At a minimum, this is 
highly dubious and dangerous alternative in the post 9/11 world 
when security concerns should be among the White House's 
highest priorities. This concern alone justifies the adoption 
by the Committee of H. Res. 136 so that we may explore the 
issue in greater depth.
3. The Administration's Course of Dealings with Mr. Gannon May Have 
        Violated Various Legal Requirements
    We also believe it is important to obtain information 
concerning Mr. Gannon's interactions with the White House in 
order to resolve concerns the White House may have illegally 
published propaganda and improperly granted access to 
classified information.
    On numerous occasions Mr. Gannon reprinted White House 
talking points and press releases word for word as his own 
work. The non-partisan GAO has determined that it is illegal 
for the Administration to use appropriated money to broadcast 
or publish propaganda without taking credit for it. \11\ 
Accordingly, the White House may have violated this ban when it 
gave prepackaged print stories to Mr. Gannon, which he 
reprinted wholesale without disclosing that they were authored 
by the Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Letter from David M. Walker, Comptroller General to Heads of 
Departments, Agencies and Others Concerned, Feb. 17, 2005 (B-304272), 
available at http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/302710.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A separate legal concern relates to the fact that Mr. 
Guckert may have had access to classified information, in 
violation of laws that protect the identity of undercover 
agents. This is because he claimed to have seen a classified 
CIA document identifying Valerie Plame as an undercover agent. 
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Joe Strupp, 'Gannon' Interview: No Plame Subpoena, No Tie to 
White House, He Says, Editor and Publisher, Feb. 11, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. There Are No Other Means Available to Pursue These Lines of Inquiry
    It is important that we pursue this information from the 
Administration through a Resolution of Inquiry since all other 
potential avenues of obtaining the information have either been 
ignored or rejected by the Administration.
    This resolution comes only after numerous Congressional 
inquiries that have gone unanswered (all attached herewith):

         LFeb. 9, 2005: Representative Slaughter writes 
        to President Bush inquiring how Mr. Gannon repeatedly 
        got access to the White House press corps--No response 
        received to date.

         LFeb. 10, 2005: Representatives Slaughter and 
        Conyers write special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to 
        inquire whether he was aware that Mr. Gannon claimed he 
        had access to a classified CIA memo outing Valerie 
        Plame as a undercover agent--Mr. Fitzgerald 
        acknowledged receipt, but would not comment on the 
        status of his investigation.

         LFeb. 10, 2005: Representatives Slaughter and 
        Conyers write to the head of the Secret Service to 
        inquire whether Mr. Gannon went through standard 
        clearance procedures, and who in the White House 
        requested his access--The Secret Service responded by 
        confirming that Mr. Gannon was cleared for access under 
        his real name, James Guckert, however, they did not 
        answer any of the other questions such as whether he 
        had a full background check or who requested his access 
        to the White House.

         LFeb. 15, 2005: Representatives Slaughter and 
        Conyers make a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 
        request to Homeland Security Department Secretary Tom 
        Ridge, asking for all information the Secret Service 
        has on how one gains access to the White House press 
        corps, and how those policies were applied to Mr. 
        Gannon--The FOIA office is searching its records.

         LFeb. 23, 2005: Representatives Slaughter and 
        Conyers write to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald 
        to note that Mr. Gannon claimed to have a journal 
        chronicling all 200 days he was given access to the 
        White House--Mr. Fitzgerald acknowledged receipt, but 
        would not comment on the status of his investigation.

         LFeb. 23, 2005: Representatives Slaughter and 
        Conyers write to the GAO to ask that they include an 
        investigation of Mr. Gannon in their review of how the 
        Bush Administration has illegally used funds for 
        propaganda purposes--No response received to date.

         LFeb. 25, 2005: Senators Durbin, Kerry, 
        Kennedy, Lautenburg and Reid write to the White House, 
        requesting a thorough investigation into Mr. Gannon's 
        White House access and any security breaches that may 
        have resulted--No response received to date.

    We categorically reject the contention of the Majority, 
made at the markup that the Administration has already complied 
with our requests. The fact is that all but one of Mr. Conyers 
and Ms. Slaughters letters has gone substantively unanswered, 
and the response they received was grossly incomplete. As a 
result, nearly two months after a series of inquiries were made 
to the Administration, we still don't know who in the White 
House arranged for Mr. Gannon's unfettered access to the 
president.
    We further reject the Majority's contention that a request 
for information by the Committee would compete with other 
investigations being conducted. First, we are unaware of any 
current investigations of this scandal by the Administration, 
Congress or the GAO. Even if there were such an investigation, 
we are aware of no rule or principle that impedes the Committee 
from simultaneously conducting its own investigation. Indeed, 
one need look no further that the Clinton Administration to 
find numerous instances of Congress investigating allegations 
of misconduct that were being separately investigated--from 
travelgate, to allegations of improper campaign contributions, 
to the impeachment of the president. Had such a limitation on 
congressional prerogatives been obeyed by Congress during the 
Watergate era, it is doubtful the Nixon Administration's full 
array of misconduct would have been unearthed.
    It is also important to note, that by its terms, H. Res. 
136 is not binding on the Administration, it is merely a 
request. If the Administration was aware of some legal or other 
impediment to supplying the information, they would be free to 
state as such. However, at least we would have a higher level 
of public accountability. By adversely reporting this 
Resolution, the Majority simply makes it easier for the 
Administration to avoid embarrassing questions.

                               CONCLUSION

    We dissent from the Majority's decision to adversely report 
this Resolution of Inquiry because we believe the time is long 
past due for the Congress to demand accountability from the 
Administration for its ethical transgressions.
    In our judgment it simply defies credibility that a phony 
reporter, operating under an alias, who couldn't get privileges 
in the House or Senate press gallery, could receives hundreds 
of White House ``day passes'' without the intervention of 
someone very high up at the White House. We are also unable to 
believe that while Pulitzer Prize winning journalists have been 
turned down for White House press passes, a neophyte, pseudo-
journalist working for a Republican-controlled media front 
operation could receive virtually open-ended access to the 
White House press room in the absence of preferential 
treatment. In this context, we believe the full House is 
entitled to vote on H. Res. 136 to present these questions 
directly to the Administration.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Rick Boucher.
                                   Jerrold Nadler.
                                   Robert C. Scott.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   Maxine Waters.
                                   Martin T. Meehan.
                                   Robert Wexler.
                                   Anthony D. Weiner.
                                   Linda T. Sanchez.
                                   Adam Smith.
                                   Chris Van Hollen.

                              ATTACHMENTS


                                 
