39–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–225 

DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF STATE 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 SECRETARY OF STATE RELATING TO THE DISCLOSURE OF THE 

IDENTITY AND EMPLOYMENT OF MS. VALERIE PLAME 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2005.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HYDE, from the Committee on International Relations, 

submitted the following 

ADVERSE REPORT 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H. Res. 419] 

The Committee on International Relations, to whom was referred the resolution (H. Res. 419) directing the Secretary of State 

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 Secretary of State 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. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 3 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 3 

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 3 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 4 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 4 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 4 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 4 

New Advisory Committees ...................................................................................... 4 

Congressional Accountability Act ........................................................................... 4 

Federal Mandates .................................................................................................... 4 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 5 

2 

1Deschler’s Precedents, H. Doc. No. 94–661, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., vol. 7, ch. 24, section 8. 2 H. Res. 499, 108th Cong. (Jan. 21, 2004). 

3 Charlie Savage, Ashcroft Steps Aside in Probe into CIA Leak, THE BOSTON GLOBE, P. A12 

(Dec. 31, 2003). 4Tom Brune, Probe of Spy’s Outing Nearly Done, NEWSDAY p. A23 (April 6, 2005). 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

House Resolution 419 directs the Secretary of State 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 Secretary of State relating to the disclosure of the identity 

and employment of Ms. Valerie Plame. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

House Resolution 419 is a resolution of inquiry, which pursuant 

to Rule XIII, clause 7 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 

directs the Committee to act on the resolution within 14 legislative 

days, or a privileged motion to discharge the Committee is in order. 

H. Res. 419 was introduced and referred to the Committee on 

International Relations on July 29, 2005, and was ordered reported 

adversely by the Committee on September 14, 2005. 

Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution of inquiry is one of the methods used by the House to obtain information from the executive branch. According to Deschler’s Procedure 

it is a ‘‘simple resolution making a direct request or demand of the 

President or the head of an executive department to furnish the 

House of Representatives with specific factual information in the 

possession of the executive branch.’’ 1

On July 29, 2005, Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey introduced H. 

Res. 419. The resolution sought all documents, including telephone 

and electronic mail records, logs and calendars, personnel records, 

and records of internal discussions in the possession of the Secretary of State relating to the disclosure of the identity of Ms. 

Plame as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency during 

the period beginning on May 6, 2003, and ending on July 31, 2003. 

In February 2004, the House Committees on Intelligence, Armed 

Services, the Judiciary, and International Relations each reported 

adversely to the House a similar resolution, H. Res. 499.2 Like H. 

Res. 499, H. Res. 419 would direct executive branch officials to 

transmit documents to the House of Representatives that are the 

subject of an ongoing criminal investigation. In light of this, the 

Committee voted to report the resolution of inquiry adversely. 

The Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation in 

September 2003 into whether government officials who allegedly 

identified Valerie Plame to the press violated Federal law that prohibits identifying covert agents. Press reports indicate that the FBI 

investigation includes the White House, the Departments of State 

and Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency and that 

‘‘boxloads’’ of documents have been forwarded to the FBI investigation team-including White House phone logs and e-mails.3 Law enforcement officials have been quoted indicating that the dozen 

agents assigned to the case have not encountered any stalling tactics.4

In December 2003, the then-Attorney General, John Ashcroft, 

recused himself from the investigation and the then-Deputy AttorVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:01 Sep 16, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR225.XXX HR225
3 

5See Savage, supra note 4. 6 Cam Simpson, Ashcroft Removes Self from Leak Probe; Fitzgerald to Lead the Investigation, 

CHICAGO TRIBUNE, p. C1 (Dec. 31, 2003). 7See Brune supra n. 5. 

ney General appointed United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald 

to lead the investigation as special prosecutor.5 Mr. Fitzgerald is 

a veteran prosecutor with experience in national security matters 

and enjoys a stellar reputation. Mr. Fitzgerald, according to press 

reports, has been granted more independence than the norm under 

Department of Justice Regulations.6 For instance, Mr. Fitzgerald, 

unlike other U.S. Attorneys, reportedly does not have to seek approval from Department of Justice officials in Washington, DC before issuing subpoenas or granting immunity. 

The press further reports that, in January 2004, a grand jury 

convened in Washington, DC to hear testimony on the Valerie 

Plame matter.7 The grand jury has broad authority that allows investigators to subpoena witnesses and documents, including the 

same documents requested in H. Res. 419. 

By all reports, Mr. Fitzgerald is pursuing the investigation into 

the Valerie Plame matter aggressively and responsibly. The Committee concluded that it would be unwise to allow H. Res. 419 to 

jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation by the Department of 

Justice. 

Under current circumstances, the International Relations Committee believes that congressional oversight of the protection of the 

identities of our intelligence agents under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 is best left to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), the Committee of primary 

jurisdiction. 

Because H. Res. 499 could impede an ongoing criminal investigation and the HPSCI is conducting oversight of this matter in its capacity as Committee of primary jurisdiction, the Committee ordered it reported adversely. 

HEARINGS

The Committee did not hold hearings on H. Res. 419. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On September 14, 2005, the Full Committee marked up H. Res. 

419, pursuant to notice, in open session. The Committee agreed to 

a motion to report the resolution adversely to the House by a 

record vote of 26 ayes to 21 nays. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

Clause (3)(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires that the results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together with the names of those voting 

for or against, be printed in the Committee report. The following 

record vote occurred during consideration of H. Res. 419: 

Vote to report to the House adversely: 

Voting yes: Hyde, Leach, Smith (NJ), Burton, Gallegly, RosLehtinen, Rohrabacher, King, Chabot, Tancredo, Paul, Issa, Flake, 

Davis, Green, Weller, Pence, McCotter, Harris, Wilson, Boozman, 

Barrett, Mack, Fortenberry, McCaul, and Poe. 

4 

Voting no: Lantos, Berman, Ackerman, Menendez, Brown, Sherman, Wexler, Engel, Delahunt, Meeks, Lee, Crowley, Blumenauer, 

Berkley, Napolitano, Schiff, Watson, Smith (WA), McCollum, Chandler and Cardoza. 

H. Res. 419 was ordered reported adversely to the House by a 

vote of 26 ayes to 21 noes. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

The Committee held no oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of House Rule XIII is inapplicable because H. Res. 

419 does not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The rule requiring a statement of performance goals and objectives is inapplicable. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this resolution in article I, section 1 of the Constitution. 

NEW ADVISORY COMMITTEES

H. Res. 419 does not establish or authorize any new advisory 

committees. 

CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

H. Res. 419 does not apply to the legislative branch. 

FEDERAL MANDATES

H. Res. 419 provides no Federal mandates. 

(5) 

DISSENTING VIEWS

The intentional disclosure of the identity of a U.S. covert intelligence agent, for whatever purpose, increases the risk to the lives 

of the brave men and women who risk their lives in the clandestine 

service to protect this nation from foreign threats. It also poses a 

grave threat to the national security of the nation because it will 

create doubt in the mind of foreign sources who could provide vital 

intelligence to our undercover operatives that their identity will be 

protected; if the identity of the U.S. agent can be disclosed for 

crude political purposes, then any meetings they may have had, 

and been observed to have, with that agent exposes those sources 

to retaliation by the foreign government. What if that foreign 

source has inside information about a pending terrorist attack on 

the United States, but decides against sharing that information 

with an undercover U.S. operative for fear that the terrorist group 

could kill him or his family? This is the true cost of the Administration’s actions; we may not learn about another 9/11 in time to 

prevent it. 

In the consideration of H. Res. 419, the International Relations 

Committee had a choice on how to address this despicable act and 

national security threat. We could have assumed the responsibility 

of oversight of the Executive Branch in areas of intelligence that 

affect U.S. foreign policy, as the rules of the House charge us. We 

could have demonstrated to the country and to the rest of the world 

that we would not countenance this blatantly political act by this 

or any White House. We could have demonstrated our resolve to investigate this fully and expose those responsible for it, and perhaps 

provided some reassurance to our brave intelligence agents and 

their sources that we will protect them. We could have at least asserted oversight over the State Department papers that may have 

inadvertently provided the source for subsequent White House officials’ disclosures, something that is clearly within this Committee’s 

jurisdiction. Instead, the Committee Majority chose to simply step 

aside and acquiesce to the evident wishes of the Administration. 

The Majority simply decided to trust the Administration to investigate itself, to wait out an investigation that shows no sign of ending or bringing any culpable person to justice. 

The Majority of the Committee has again let down our intelligence community and all Americans that are still astonished by 

the perfidy of the exposure of our undercover agent for political 

purposes. 

It has been over two years since the American people learned 

that a White House official exposed the identity of a CIA undercover operative to the media, perhaps calling six separate journalists with the information. One of these journalists—a conservative 

commentator who alone among the six chose to put personal publicity above national security—published the agent’s identity in a 

6 

column ostensibly about the charges leveled by her husband, 

former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, that the Administration’s claim 

that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Niger was false and 

misleading. This journalist wrote in his column that he was told by 

the White House officials that the Ambassador’s wife was ‘‘an operative’’ of the CIA, presumably intending to cast doubt about the 

Ambassador’s motivations; other journalists were apparently told 

this was the ‘‘real story’’ and that Wilson’s wife was ‘‘fair game.’’

As events have borne out, Ambassador Wilson was correct. The 

claims made by the President and others in his Administration 

that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger were indeed false. Indeed, clearly and evidently false, based on badly-forged documents 

that even a cursory investigation would ascertain. According to 

press reports, our own intelligence agencies had grave doubts about 

their authenticity as early as the summer of 2002. Nevertheless, 

the President and his Administration used it as a vital piece of evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. 

Even after senior intelligence officials insisted the claim be deleted 

from the President’s speeches, the claim continued to surface in 

statements by senior Administration officials. The Secretary of 

State, in his presentation before the United Nations Security Council in February 2003, wisely refused to repeat the claim, recognizing its dubious character. 

Administration officials have since admitted that the Iraq-Niger 

uranium claims were unsupportable—admitting this fact only reluctantly and in a raft of finger-pointing. And yet, someone in the 

White House could apparently not resist the temptation to tarnish 

the reputation of the one man who had actually, personally investigated the claim and who quietly told the Administration that the 

charges were false. When he was not heeded, he rightfully stated 

his opinions and information, openly and for the public record, in 

The New York Times in June 2003. 

We find it extremely hard to believe that the disclosure of the 

CIA agent’s identity by White House officials was inadvertent. One 

crucial fact has recently come to light; in June 2003, Secretary of 

State Powell had a top-secret State memorandum (prepared by the 

Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research) with him regarding the Wilson mission during the President’s trip to Africa. 

This memorandum reportedly had a section identifying Wilson’s 

wife as a CIA operative, and several White House senior aides may 

have reviewed that memo, which could have been the source of 

their knowledge of Ms. Plame’s identity. If so, they knew that information was classified. How could anyone in the White House therefore believe that this public revelation was not criminal or dangerous? Rather, we believe that the leaking of Ms. Plame’s identity 

as a covert operative was clearly an intentional effort to discredit 

her husband’s public charges of the Administration’s misuse of intelligence, conducted to exact political vengeance and perform damage control. If we are correct, this was the ultimate ‘‘dirty trick’’ by 

an Administration to silence its critics. 

It is true that this matter is already being investigated by a special prosecutor, whom we do not intend to demean. We note, however, that the only person to have suffered imprisonment in this 

7 

matter is a journalist who refused to reveal her sources, even 

though she never even wrote a story. 

It is imperative that Congress fulfill its own oversight function 

in the investigation of this serious matter. U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald 

and the grand jury that is investigating this issue may find that 

while there has been wrongdoing, the legal elements of the federal 

criminal statutes involved here have not been met, and no indictment may be handed down. In that eventuality, he has no duty to 

report to Congress on his findings. And the fact that there may not 

be, in the course of this investigation, enough evidence to charge 

a federal crime does not mean that our national security is unaffected. Indeed, we need to ferret out how such an act, even if unintentional, could happen and establish safeguards to ensure that it 

never happens again. 

This resolution of inquiry does not ask for Mr. Fitzgerald’s or the 

Justice Department’s internal investigatory documents or in any 

way impair grand jury secrecy; it demands instead the primary materials that would allow Congress and this Committee to conduct 

its own investigation. Indeed, as we prepare for any investigation 

that is deemed necessary, these documents can be kept in complete 

security and confidentiality and need not undermine Mr. 

Fitzgerald’s efforts. We would remind our colleagues that even in 

this Administration there have been congressional inquiries conducted while the U.S. Government had a criminal investigation 

open. Just to cite one case, in the last Congress both the House and 

the Senate conducted an investigation of the Enron scandal with 

multiple hearings and the subpoena of Justice Department targets, 

including calling all the major corporate officers who have been 

subject to plea agreements and indictments or remain targets of 

the investigation. Allegations of insider trading involving Martha 

Stewart were also investigated by Congressional committees during 

the course of a criminal investigation. Of course, in the last Administration there were numerous congressional investigations of matters under criminal investigation (including some where grand juries were active). These investigations include those of the Waco 

Incident, the U.S. technology transfers to China, allegations of 

campaign finance violations, the White House Travel office and 

many others. And at this very moment, the Committee on International Relations is investigating the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal at 

the same time that criminal investigations are taking place on the 

very same issue. 

Moreover, it is a fact that the Executive Branch is investigating 

itself on what may turn out to be, at least in part, a political act. 

Congress must conduct oversight as it has repeatedly in the last 

ten years, and may need to charter an independent investigation. 

We regret that the House Majority has, time and time again, refused to conduct real oversight if the results may be discomfiting 

to this White House. This is not what the American people expect 

from their Congress, regardless who is in charge. 

We regret that some choose to see this effort at seeking the truth 

as merely a political gambit; that has always been their defense 

when faced with effective and legitimate criticism. Last year, ten 

former CIA case officers and analysts, some of whom are known to 

us and are generally sympathetic to this Administration, wrote to 

8 

the Speaker of the House and stated ‘‘[f]or the good of the country, 

we ask you to please stand up for every man and woman who 

works for the U.S. intelligence community by immediately launching a congressional investigation.’’ We endorse this plea wholeheartedly, and regret that the majority of this Committee chose not 

to hear it. 

TOM LANTOS. 

HOWARD L. BERMAN. 

GARY L. ACKERMAN. 

DONALD M. PAYNE. 

ROBERT MENENDEZ. 

SHERROD BROWN. 

BRAD SHERMAN. 

ROBERT WEXLER. 

ELIOT L. ENGEL. 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT. 

GREGORY W. MEEKS. 

BARBARA LEE. 

JOSEPH CROWLEY. 

EARL BLUMENAUER. 

SHELLEY BERKLEY. 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO. 

ADAM B. SCHIFF. 

DIANE E. WATSON. 

ADAM SMITH. 

BETTY MCCOLLUM. 

BEN CHANDLER. 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA. 

Æ