92–224

108TH CONGRESS REPT. 108–413 " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session Part 3

REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF 

STATE, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

TO TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NOT LATER THAN 

14 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION 

DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PRESIDENT AND THOSE OFFICIALS RELATING TO THE DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY AND EMPLOYMENT OF MS. VALERIE PLAME 

FEBRUARY 27, 2004.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

ADVERSE REPORT 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H. Res. 499] 

[Including Committee Cost Estimate]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the resolution (H. Res. 499) requesting the President and directing the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General 

to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days 

after the date of the adoption of this resolution documents in the 

possession of the President and those officials relating to the disclosure of the identity and employment of Ms. Valerie Plame, having 

considered the same, report unfavorably thereon without amendment and recommend that resolution not be agreed to.

CONTENTS 

Page 

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

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

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 6

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 6

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 6

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 8

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 8

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 8

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 8

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 8

2

1William Holmes Brown, House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures 

of the House 819 (2003). 2 H.R. Rep. No. 108–413, Part I (2004). 

3 7 Deschler’s Precedents of the House of Representatives, ch. 24, § 8, p. 407. 

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 8

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 9

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 9

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 41

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

House Resolution 499, introduced by Rep. Holt on January 21, 

2004, requests the President, and directs the Secretary of State, 

the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General to transmit to 

the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date 

of adoption of this resolution all physical and electronic records and 

documents in his possession related to the disclosure of the identity 

of Ms. Valerie Plame as an employee of the Central Intelligence 

Agency during the period May 6, 2003 through July 31, 2003. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

House Resolution 499 is a resolution of inquiry. Clause 7 of Rule 

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides that if 

the committee does not act on the resolution within 14 legislative 

days, a privileged motion to discharge the committee is in order on 

the floor. In calculating the days available for Committee consideration, the day of introduction and the day of discharge are not 

counted.1 On introduction, H. Res. 499 was referred to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence primarily, and to the Committees on Armed Services, International Relations, and the Judiciary secondarily. The Committee on Intelligence adversely reported 

H. Res. 499 on February 3, 2004.2 On that day, Speaker Hastert 

extended the time for the secondary committees to consider H. Res. 

499 to February 27, 2004. 

Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution of inquiry allows the House to request information from the President 

of the United States or to direct the head of one of the executive 

departments to provide such information. According to Deschler’s 

Precedents, it is a ‘‘simple resolution making a direct request or demand of the President or the head of an executive department to 

furnish the House of Representatives with specific factual information in the possession of the executive branch.’’ 3

A committee has a number of choices after a resolution of inquiry 

is referred to it. It may vote on the resolution without amendment, 

or it may amend it. It may report the resolution favorably, adversely, or with no recommendation. A committee that adversely 

reports a resolution of inquiry does not necessarily oppose the resolution under consideration. In the past, resolutions of inquiry have 

been reported adversely for various reasons. Two common reasons 

are that an Administration is in substantial compliance with the 

request or that there is an ongoing competing investigation. 

Under the first scenario, the Executive Branch may deliver documents that substantially comply with the resolution, thus making 

it unnecessary for a committee to report the resolution favorably 

for floor action. Second, a committee may decide to report a resoluVerDate jul 14 2003 05:11 Feb 28, 2004 Jkt 092224 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR413P3.XXX HR413P3
3

4 Robert Novak, Editorial, Mission to Niger, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, July 14, 2003, at 31. 5 Id. 

6 Robert Novak, Editorial, Columnist Wasn’t Pawn for Leak, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, Oct. 1, 2003, 

at 49. 7 Id. 

8 Id. 

9Justice Dept. Probes White House Leak Charge, FOXNews.com (Sept. 29, 2003), available at 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98522,00.html (last viewed Jan. 29, 2004). 10White House staff put on notice, CNN.com/Inside Politics (Oct. 3, 2003), available at http:/

/www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/03/leak.main/ (last viewed Jan. 29, 2004). 11Leak Probe Moves Beyond White House, CIA, FOXNews.com (Oct. 3, 2003), available at 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98930,00.html (last viewed Jan. 29, 2004); Steve Turnham, 

Leak Probe widens to include State, Defense departments CNN.com/Inside Politics (Oct. 23, 

2003), available at http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/leak.main/ (last viewed Jan. 

29, 2004). 

tion of inquiry adversely because it may compete with another investigation that is regarded as the more appropriate avenue for inquiry. 

The committee is reporting this resolution adversely for the second reason. H. Res. 499 would request and direct Executive Branch 

officials to transmit to the House of Representatives all documents 

on a matter that is subject to an ongoing criminal investigation. To 

further complicate this issue, the investigation involves classified 

information like the work Ms. Plame may do for the Central Intelligence Agency. 

The ongoing criminal investigation stems from a July 14, 2003 

article by syndicated columnist Robert Novak, questioning why retired diplomat Joseph Wilson would be sent to Niger on a CIA mission.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 In 

response to questions raised by his article, Mr. Novak wrote an explanation on October 1, 2003 that ‘‘[t]his story began July 6 when 

Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat 

who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger.’’ 6 He went on to state 

that he ‘‘was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill 

Clinton’s National Security Council was given this assignment.’’7

Mr. Novak explained that ‘‘[d]uring a long conversation with a senior administration official, [he] asked why Wilson was assigned the 

mission to Niger. [The Senior Administration official] said Wilson 

had been sent by the CIA’s counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, [Wilson’s] wife. It was an offhanded 

revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When 

[Novak] called another official for confirmation, [that official] said: 

‘Oh, you know about it.’ ’’ 8

In late September, the Department of Justice opened an investigation as to whether officials who named Ms. Plame to the press 

violated Federal law that prohibits identifying covert agents.9 On 

October 3, 2003, the White House Counsel sent a notice to all 

White House employees to turn in copies of documents for the ongoing probe into who leaked the name of a CIA operative.10 That 

same day, the press reported that the investigation had moved beyond the White House and CIA to include the State and Defense 

Departments.11 In late October, the press reported that ‘‘[t]he FBI 

has interviewed more than three dozen Bush administration officials, including political adviser Karl Rove and press secretary 

4

12 Curt Anderson, Rove, McClellan Interviewed in CIA Leak Probe, ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEWSWIRES, Oct. 23, 2003. 13 Id. 14Toni Locy, Attorney General recuses himself from CIA probe, USATODAY.com (Dec. 30, 

2003), available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003–12–30–cia–leak—x.htm (last 

visited Jan. 29, 2003). 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 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). 18Mike Allen & Susan Schmidt, Bush Aides Testify in Leak Probe, Washington Post, (Feb. 10, 

2004, p. A01). 19 Id. 20 Charles Doyle, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress: Federal Grand Juries: 

the Law in a Nutshell 1 (Feb. 5, 2002). 

Scott McClellan, in its investigation into the leak of an undercover 

CIA officer’s identity.’’ 12 The Associated Press reported that 

‘‘[b]oxloads of documents have been forwarded to the FBI team, including White House phone logs and e-mails. More documents are 

being produced, as the contents of individual items sometimes lead 

agents to request additional materials, one official said.’’ 13

The Attorney General recused himself from the case in December.14 Deputy Attorney General James Comey appointed United 

States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to lead the investigation.15 USA 

Today reported that Mr. Comey gave Mr. Fitzgerald ‘‘more independence than required under Justice Department regulations. 

Fitzgerald will not have to seek approval from Justice officials in 

Washington before issuing subpoenas or granting immunity. U.S. 

attorneys must get approval before taking such steps.’’16

In late January, the press reported that a grand jury had convened in Washington, D.C., to hear testimony on this investigation.17 Further confirmation that a grand jury is investigating is 

found in a February 10, 2004 Washington Post article which says 

that a ‘‘federal grand jury has questioned one current and two 

former aides to President Bush, and investigators have interviewed 

several others, in an effort to discover who revealed the name of 

an undercover CIA officer to a newspaper columnists, sources involved in the case said yesterday.’’ 18 It notes further that: ‘‘White 

House press secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday that he 

talked to the grand jury on Friday. Mary Matalin, former counselor 

to Vice President Cheney, testified Jan. 23, the sources said. Adam 

Levine, a former White House press official, also testified Friday, 

the sources said.’’ 19

‘‘The Federal grand jury enjoys sweeping authority’’ 20 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. 

This Committee has previously reported a resolution of inquiry 

adversely to avoid jeopardizing a grand jury investigation. According to the Congressional Research Service:

In 1980, for example, H. Res. 571 directed the Attorney General to furnish the House with ‘‘all evidence compiled by the 

Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

against Members of Congress in connection with the Abscam 

investigation,’’ which was a Justice Department undercover operation that led to charges of criminal conduct against certain 

5

21Louis Fisher, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress: House Resolutions of Inquiry 14–15 (May 12, 2003).

Members of Congress. The resolution also asked for ‘‘the total 

amount of Federal moneys expended in connection with the 

Abscam probe.’’ [126 Cong. Rec. 4071 (1980).]

The House Judiciary Committee reported the resolution adversely. [H. Rept. No. 96–778, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980).] 

Committee opposition to the resolution was unanimous. [126 

Cong. Rec. 4073 (statement by Rep. McClory).] The Justice Department ‘‘vigorously oppose[d]’’ the resolution. [H. Rept. No. 

96–778, at 2 (letter to Assistant Attorney General Philip B. 

Heymann).] The objections raised by the department, with 

which the committee agreed, centered on the concern that disclosure of evidence to the House would jeopardize the ability 

of the department to successfully conduct grand jury investigations and to prosecute any indictments, and that the release of 

unsifted and unevaluated evidence ‘‘would injure the reputations of innocent people who may be involved in no ethical or 

legal impropriety.’’ [id.] 21

This Committee has also adversely reported a resolution of inquiry because of other types of competing investigations. For instance, on July 17, 2003, this Committee adversely reported H. 

Res. 287, a resolution of inquiry, due to an ongoing competing investigation of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. 

That resolution of inquiry directed the Attorney General to transmit all physical and electronic records and documents in his possession related to any use of Federal agency resources in any task or 

action involving or relating to Members of the Texas Legislature in 

the period beginning May 11, 2003, and ending May 16, 2003, except information the disclosure of which would harm the national 

security interests of the United States. The Committee’s report 

stated:

According to a May 12, 2003, press release issued by the Texas 

Department of Public Safety, the public was asked for assistance in locating 53 Texas legislators who had ‘‘disappeared.’’ 

According to the release, under the Texas Constitution, the 

majority of members present in session in the Texas State 

House can vote to compel the presence of enough members to 

make a quorum. Members of the House did so and directed the 

Sergeant-at-Arms of the House and the Department of Public 

Safety to locate the absent members and bring them back to 

the State capital.

On May 27, 2003, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut sent 

a letter to the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice asking for ‘‘a full investigation into this 

matter.’’ After receipt of the letter from the Senator, in a statement to the press, the Office of the Inspector General disclosed 

that on June 4, 2003, it began investigating what, if any, Department of Justice resources were expended in connection 

with this matter. As of the filing of this report, that investigation is still ongoing.

6

22 H.R. Rep. No. 108–215 at 3 (2003). 23 H.R. Rep. No. 108–413 Part I at 4 (2004). 

The Committee believes that an investigation by the Inspector 

General of the Department of Justice is the more appropriate 

avenue....22

With regard to H. Res. 499, the Committee believes that the current grand jury investigation is the more appropriate avenue for 

determining the facts of the case and any criminal wrongdoing. The 

Judiciary Committee agrees with the Permanent Select Committee 

on Intelligence that the investigation ‘‘is still ongoing and transmittal of evidence to the House would likely jeopardize the ability 

of the Justice Department to conduct its investigation.’’ 23 Because 

this resolution of inquiry competes with that investigation, the resolution is reported adversely. 

HEARINGS

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

Res. 499. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On February 25, 2004, the Committee met in open session and 

adversely reported the resolution H. Res. 499 without amendment 

by a rollcall vote of 17 yeas to 8 nays, a quorum being present. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth the following 

rollcall votes that occurred during the Committee’s consideration of 

H. Res. 499: 

1. An amendment offered by Representative Jackson Lee would 

have excluded the transmission of documents that would violate 

the prohibition under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure against disclosing grand jury material. The amendment 

was defeated by a rollcall vote of 8 yeas to 17 nays.

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Smith .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Goodlatte ....................................................................................................

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Hostettler .................................................................................................... X

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X

Ms. Hart ............................................................................................................ X

Mr. Flake ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Forbes .........................................................................................................

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X

Mr. Carter .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X

7

ROLLCALL NO. 1—Continued

Ayes Nays Present 

Mrs. Blackburn .................................................................................................. X

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Scott ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Meehan ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X

Mr. Weiner .........................................................................................................

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X

Total ................................................................................................ 8 17

2. Final Passage. The motion to report the resolution, H. Res. 

499, adversely was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 17 yeas to 8 nays.

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Smith .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Goodlatte ....................................................................................................

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Hostettler .................................................................................................... X

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X

Ms. Hart ............................................................................................................ X

Mr. Flake ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Forbes .........................................................................................................

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X

Mr. Carter .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X

Mrs. Blackburn ..................................................................................................

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Scott ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Meehan ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Delahunt ..................................................................................................... X

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X

Ms. Baldwin ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner .........................................................................................................

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X

8

ROLLCALL NO. 2—Continued

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X

Total ................................................................................................ 17 8

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. 499 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 3(c)(4) 

of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

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

of Representatives, the Committee finds that the rule does not 

apply because H. Res. 499 is not a bill or joint resolution that may 

be enacted into law. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

THE RESOLUTION

Paragraph (1) of H. Res. 499 requests that the President transmit to the House of Representatives not later than the date that 

is 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, all documents, including telephone and electronic mail records, logs and 

calendars, personnel records, and records of internal discussions in 

the possession of the President relating to the disclosure of the 

identity of Ms. Valerie Plame as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency during the period beginning on May 6, 2003, and 

ending on July 31, 2003; and 

Paragraph (2) of H. Res. 499 directs the Secretary of State, the 

Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General to transmit to the 

House of Representatives not later than such date, all documents, 

including telephone and electronic mail records, logs and calendars, 

9

and records of internal discussions in the possession of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General, 

respectively, relating to such disclosure during such period. 

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. 499 

makes no changes to existing law.

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order. A 

quorum is present. 

Pursuant to notice, I now call up H. Res. 499, a resolution requesting the President and directing the Secretary of State, the 

Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General to transmit to the 

House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of 

adoption of this resolution documents in the possession of the 

President and those officials relating to the disclosure of the identity and employment of Ms. Valerie Plame for purposes of markup 

and move its adverse recommendation to the House. 

Without objection, the resolution will be considered as read and 

open for amendment at any point. I would point out to the membership that only paragraph two of the resolution is within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. 

[The resolution, H. Res. 499, follows:]

10

1

IV

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 499

Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of State, the Secretary

of Defense, and the Attorney General to transmit to the House of

Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption

of this resolution documents in the possession of the President and

those officials relating to the disclosure of the identity and employment

of Ms. Valerie Plame.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 21, 2004

Mr. HOLT (for himself, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. REYES, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr.

LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. CONYERS, Mr.

SPRATT, Mr. TURNER of Texas, and Mr. MORAN of Virginia) submitted

the following resolution; which was referred to the Select Committee on

Intelligence (Permanent Select), and in addition to the Committees on

Armed Services, International Relations, and the Judiciary, for a period

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee

concerned

RESOLUTION

Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of

State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General to transmit to the House of Representatives not

later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of

this resolution documents in the possession of the President and those officials relating to the disclosure of

the identity and employment of Ms. Valerie Plame.

1 Resolved, That—


I499.AAB
11

2

•HRES 499 IH

1 (1) the President is requested to transmit to

2 the House of Representatives not later than the date

3 that is 14 days after the date of the adoption of this

4 resolution, all documents, including telephone and

5 electronic mail records, logs and calendars, personnel

6 records, and records of internal discussions in the

7 possession of the President relating to the disclosure

8 of the identity of Ms. Valerie Plame as an employee

9 of the Central Intelligence Agency during the period

10 beginning on May 6, 2003, and ending on July 31,

11 2003; and

12 (2) the Secretary of State, the Secretary of De13 fense, and the Attorney General are each directed to

14 transmit to the House of Representatives not later

15 than such date, all documents, including telephone

16 and electronic mail records, logs and calendars, and

17 records of internal discussions in the possession of

18 the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense,

19 and the Attorney General, respectively, relating to

20 such disclosure during such period.

Æ


I499.AAC
12

The chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes to explain the 

resolution. 

Today, the Committee considers H.R. 499, a resolution of inquiry 

relating to Ms. Valerie Plame. This resolution requests officials in 

the executive branch to transmit to the House all records in their 

possession relating to the disclosure of the identity of Ms. Plame 

as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency during the period May 6, 2003, through July 31, 2003. 

I move that the Committee report the resolution adversely. I 

made the adverse motion because passing the resolution would 

interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation. A competing investigation is a common reason that Committees have adversely reported resolutions of inquiry in the past. It is also the reason that 

the House Intelligence Committee adversely reported this resolution on February 4. 

Likewise, this Committee has previously reported such resolutions adversely for the same reason. On July 17, 2003, this Committee adversely reported H. Res. 287 relating to the Texas redistricting matter because of an ongoing investigation being conducted 

by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. In the 

1980s, the Committee reported a resolution adversely to avoid jeopardizing a grand jury investigation into the ABSCAM case, which 

as many Members may recall ended up resulting in the conviction 

of certain Members of Congress of crimes. 

I recommend that Members of this Committee follow this precedent and refrain from jeopardizing the ongoing criminal investigation. Published reports and statements of the Department of Justice indicate that there is an ongoing, active investigation. Recent 

stories indicate that the investigation is before a grand jury. 

Having said that, let me briefly review the short history of this 

investigation. On July 14, 2003, syndicated columnist Robert 

Novak in an article questioning why retired diplomat Joseph Wilson would be sent to Niger on a CIA mission wrote that, quote, 

‘‘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,’’ unquote. 

In late September, the Department of Justice opened an investigation to determine whether the two unnamed officials violated a 

Federal law that prohibits identifying covert agents. On October 3, 

2003, the White House counsel directed all White House employees 

to turn in copies of documents for the ongoing probe. That same 

day, the press reported that the investigation had moved beyond 

the White House and CIA to include the State and Defense Departments. 

In late October, the press reported, quote, ‘‘that the FBI has 

interviewed more than three dozen Bush administration officials, 

including political advisor Karl Rove and Press Secretary Scott 

McClellan in its investigation into the leak of an undercover CIA 

officer’s identity,’’ unquote. And the Associated Press reported, 

quote, ‘‘that boxloads of documents have been forwarded to the FBI 

team, including White House phone logs and e-mails. More documents are being produced,’’ unquote. 

In late December, the Attorney General recused himself from 

participating in the investigation. Deputy Attorney General Comey 

13

appointed United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to lead the investigation. USA Today reported that, ‘‘Mr. Comey gave Mr. Fitzgerald more independence than required under Justice Department 

regulations. Fitzgerald will not have to seek approval from Justice 

officials in Washington before issuing subpoenas or granting immunity. U.S. Attorneys must get approval before taking such steps,’’ 

unquote. 

In late January, the press reported that a grand jury had convened in Washington, D.C., to hear testimony on this investigation. 

On February 10, 2004, the Washington Post reported that, ‘‘the 

Federal grand jury has questioned one current and two former 

aides to President Bush and investigators have interviewed several 

others in an effort to discover who revealed the name of an undercover CIA officer to newspaper columnists, sources involved in the 

case said yesterday,’’ unquote. The article further confirmed that 

the case has moved to a grand jury, stating that, ‘‘White House 

Press Secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday, February 9, that 

he talked to the grand jury on Friday,’’ unquote. 

A Federal grand jury has broad authority that allows investigators to subpoena witnesses and to request the same documents requested in H. Res. 499, including telephone and electronic mail 

records, logs and calendars, personnel records, and records of internal discussion. This resolution competes with that investigation. 

The investigation is, by all accounts, proceeding quickly and the 

Committee has not received credible allegations that Mr. Fitzgerald 

or the grand jury are in any way derelict in their duties. The current grand jury investigation is the more appropriate avenue for 

determining the facts of the case and the existence of any criminal 

wrongdoing. 

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence came to the 

same conclusion, finding that the investigation is still ongoing and 

transmittal of evidence to the House would likely jeopardize the 

ability of the Justice Department to conduct its investigation. 

I agree and urge the Members to support the motion to report 

adversely. 

Who wishes to give the Democrat opening statement? The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we have 

every evidence that a cover-up is going on, plain and simple. Someone high up in the Bush administration deliberately disclosed the 

identity of a CIA operative. If the President really wanted to find 

out who it was, it would take him about 5 minutes to find out. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t know how administrations work. 

The person would be fired immediately, I would hope, justice could 

take its course, and the issue would be resolved. 

Revealing the identity of a covert agent is a serious matter. It 

is, in fact, a crime. It endangers lives. It is indefensible for this 

Committee to turn a blind eye. We need to know who committed 

this crime and who endangered the national security and who put 

lives at risk. 

I don’t know why any Member would oppose this resolution. I 

don’t know why any Member would not want to get the facts in 

this case. I don’t know why any Member would trust the Bush administration to be honest about seeking the facts in this case. 

14

If we reject this resolution, we risk sending the message that 

Members of Congress are complicit in working with the Administration on a cover-up. I don’t want to send that signal. I can’t imagine any Member of this Committee would want to send that message, either. That is why we must support this resolution and do 

our job to perform oversight of the Department of Justice and that 

is a serious national concern. 

We know from Robert Novak himself, who wrote the published 

article, that, quote, ‘‘two senior Administration officials,’’ close 

quote, gave him the information. It appears that the Bush administration is hiding the identity of these criminals in their midst. We 

don’t know why. We could only speculate. It may be—the speculation of the press is this was a message to Mr. Wilson, Ms. Plame’s 

husband, and to other would-be whistleblowers, don’t say anything 

about—embarrassing about the Bush administration. Mr. Wilson, 

of course, had talked about the lack of evidence of weapons of mass 

destruction in Iraq. He had to be punished and others warned, so 

his wife was outed as a CIA operative. 

It may be difficult to conceive of who would be willing to perform 

such a serious criminal act, but if these people are indeed senior 

officials, as Mr. Novak wrote, it is even more important that they, 

who as senior officials presumably have considerable power and influence, be brought to justice. During the war on terror, we cannot 

afford to have criminals who reveal our sources or put lives in jeopardy working at the highest levels of power. 

Now, it is the job of this Committee to oversee the Department 

of Justice. We need to know what it is doing and we need to find 

out if it is doing its job well or not. That is why we are asking for 

these documents. We’re not trying to interfere with the investigation, though I certainly am dubious that it is a thorough going and 

honest investigation, because I said if they really wanted to know, 

they should have taken about 5 minutes. But we are interested in 

knowing how it is progressing. 

Do we have the right to ask such questions, or is asking such 

questions and passing this resolution somehow an interference, as 

was suggested a few moments ago, with this investigation? Well, 

just a few years ago, the Government Reform Committee held hearing after hearing after hearing on ongoing investigations and the 

Clinton administration handed over 1.2 million pages of documents 

to the Committee. There have been hearings on campaign finance, 

on Waco, on pardons, on ENRON, and even on Martha Stewart, all 

while investigations in the executive branch were progressing. 

The Committees of this House did not think that their hearings 

on those subjects interfered with ongoing investigations, so I have 

little patience to hear anyone argue that we don’t have the authority or the responsibility at this point to investigate whether or not 

and which two senior Administration officials broke the law, jeopardized our intelligence efforts during the current war on terror, 

and jeopardized the lives of our agents. 

Again, I urge my colleagues to support independence and justice 

over party allegiance and to support this really very mild resolution of inquiry. 

I thank the chair and I yield to the distinguished Ranking Member. Thank you. 

15

Mr. CONYERS. I want to thank the gentleman from New York for 

making a response on our behalf. I’d like to just close his opening 

statement by referencing the fact that there is no validity to the 

claim that legitimate Congressional oversight would interfere with 

the ongoing Justice Department investigation of this matter. Now, 

let’s all at least agree on this. 

The Congress has investigated any number of matters while 

there were pending criminal investigations. If that were not so, I 

wouldn’t be here to name them off for you right now. In fact, this 

Committee has done it over and over and over again. The Waco 

hearings took place during a number of criminal prosecutions. 

Then there were the Inslaw hearings. There was the campaign finance investigation, where this Committee forced the Department 

of Justice to turn over internal documents about a number of pending investigations. When it came to the land deals in Arkansas, the 

suicide of Vince Foster, or other matters, this Congress has an appropriate authority for investigation. 

And so when it now comes to the disclosure of national security 

secrets by high-ranking officials likely in the White House, there 

is a sudden reluctance to move forward, and I think that we ought 

to get over that. We may have different positions on why we’re 

going to do this, but we certainly don’t want to claim that we would 

be interfering with an ongoing investigation, and I thank the 

Chairman for his patience. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Without objection, all Members may place opening statements into 

the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers, thank you for your work 

and leadership in convening today’s markup of H. Res. 499. In light of the posture 

of Operation Iraqi Freedom, our nation’s occupation of Iraq, and the status of the 

interim government that will be in place in that region, it is important that we 

parse through the potential ethical and oversight issues that remain unresolved. 

Before we can help Iraq establish a government that is based on democratic principles, transparency, and accountability, we must demonstrate that we ourselves adhere to these things. Although the jurisdictional limitations of this Committee narrow the scope of our purview to directing the Department of Justice to produce documents and other information relative to this breach of national security, we must 

not allow other departments and authority figures to escape from accountability and 

the duty of giving honest and complete information when it relates to the safety and 

welfare of our nation. It is very likely that Federal laws have been broken, namely 

50 U.S.C. § 491 and 18 U.S.C. § 793 (2002), which criminalize the exposure of undercover operatives and the transmission of defense information. 

There is long-standing precedent for our Committee to investigate criminal and 

ethical matters both prior to and concurrently with a Department of Justice investigation. In 1997, this Committee conducted high profile hearings about campaign 

finance improprieties in the 1996 presidential election as the Attorney General contemplated appointing an independent counsel. In 1995, the Judiciary Committee’s 

Subcommittee on Crime heard 12 days of testimony as part of a Congressional investigation into Federal actions at the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, Texas. 

In 1992, the Full Committee and the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice 

held hearings on whether high ranking officials in the DOJ and the CIA knew of 

fraudulent loans to Iraq, and misrepresented this information in Federal district 

court. Between 1989 and 1992, the Committee and the Subcommittee on Economic 

and Commercial Law investigated claims that the DOJ ran a small computer company INSLAW into insolvency in order to steal its software program. This investigation ran concurrently with a special counsel appointed in 1989 by Attorney General 

William Barr. 

16

The pace at which certain information was made available to the public demonstrates that the investigation is not being conducted in a thorough or unbiased 

manner. For example:

• On September 30, the DOJ gave the White House eleven hours notice before 

the investigation was officially started, leaving ample time for the destruction 

of evidence. (‘‘Investigating Leaks,’’ NYT, Oct. 2, 2003)

• The Attorney General has documented ties to Karl Rove, a primary target of 

the investigation, that render him an inappropriate person to ultimately oversee the outcome of this inquiry. Mr. Rove worked on three of John Ashcroft’s 

campaigns in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, collecting $746,000 in fees. 

(Duffy, ‘‘Leaking With a Vengeance,’’ Time, Oct. 5, 2003)

• Despite the Attorney General’s conflicts, he is still involved with the investigation on an intimate level. On October 21, 2003 Christopher Wray, Associate Deputy Attorney General testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he regularly informs the Attorney General about the investigation. He divulges the names of those interviewed, and enough detail ‘‘for him 

to understand meaningfully what’s going on in the investigation.’’ (Lichtblau, 

NYT, Oct. 22, 2003)

• The DOJ investigation is replete with conflicts of interests. Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum, who is overseeing the Investigations Division’s 

progress, is an old friend of President Bush’s. They were classmates at Yale 

and members of the secretive Skull and Bones Society together. (Schmitt and 

Chen, ‘‘Leak Inquiry Embarks on a Long Road,’’ L.A. Times, Oct. 2, 2003)

• FBI officials have acknowledged that they will be going a ‘‘bit slower on this 

one because it is so high-profile. This will get scrutinized at our headquarter 

and at Justice in a way that lesser, routine investigations wouldn’t.’’ (Stevenson and Lichtblau, ‘‘Attorney General Is Closely Linked to Inquiry Figures,’’ 

NYT Oct. 2, 2003)

• The White House publicly ruled out Karl Rove, vice presidential chief of staff 

Lewis Libby, and National Security Council senior director Elliott Abrams as 

possible sources for the news leak. We have no way of knowing how the White 

House reached these conclusions. To the extent the investigation conflicts 

with these comments, the White House will be in the awkward predicament 

of publicly contradicting their superiors. (Mikkelsen, ‘‘White House Says 

Three Senior Aids Innocent In Leak,’’ Reuters, Oct. 7, 2003)

• On October 7, the White House announced that it will be screening documents for ‘‘relevance’’ before handing them over to the DOJ, to which the DOJ 

has yet to object. This could result in the White House filtering out important 

information that could shed light on the source of the leak. (Stevenson and 

Lichtblau, ‘‘Leaker May Remain Elusive, Bush Suggests,’’ NYT, Oct. 8, 2003)

• Career professionals have expressed concern that the investigation has run 

amok. Senior criminal prosecutors and FBI officials ‘‘fear Mr. Ashcroft could 

be damaged by continuing accusations that as an attorney general with a long 

career in Republican partisan politics, he could not credibly lead a criminal 

investigation that centered on the aides to a Republican president.’’ (Johnston 

and Lichtblau, ‘‘Senior Federal Prosecutors and FBI Officials Fault Ashcroft 

Over Leak Inquiry,’’ NYT, Oct. 16, 2003) A former State Department Deputy 

Chief of Counterterrorism has asked Congress to investigate the leak, commenting that ‘‘there’s a lot they can do without undermining the criminal investigation.’’ (Lichtblau, NYT, Oct. 22, 2003)

• The White House still has not taken affirmative steps to trace the leak. Just 

this week, the President stated in a press conference that he had no plans 

to ask his staff to sign affidavits denying their involvement. (Johnston and 

Lichtblau, NYT, Oct. 29, 2003)

Not only is the question of criminal culpability critical in this matter, but the 

issue of what role the White House had in subsequent efforts to tarnish Ambassador 

Wilson and his wife has tremendous relevance. A Republican congressional staffer 

admitted that the Administration’s political strategy for dealing with Wilson and his 

wife was to ‘‘slime and defend.’’ (Stevenson and Lichtblau, ‘‘White House Looks to 

Manage Fallout Over C.I.A. Leak Inquiry,’’ Oct. 2, 2003) It has also been reported 

that after the leak was initial disseminated, Karl Rove told Chris Mathews that Mr. 

Wilson’s wife and her under cover status were ‘‘fair game.’’ (Thomas and Isikoff, ‘‘Secrets and Leaks,’’ Newsweek, Oct. 13, 2003) White House sources responded by asserting that Rove had merely told the press ‘‘it was reasonable to discuss who sent 

Wilson to Niger.’’ (Id.) In either event, it appears as though the power of the White 

House may have been used to harm U.S. citizens. 

17

I will be offering an amendment to H. Res. 499. The first relates to the need to 

include within the scope of the materials and information required under the resolution any and all communications with journalists in connection with the disclosure 

of the identity of Ms. Plame. This amendment will be vital to ensuring the complete 

and timely production of relevant information that we request from the President, 

Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General. Furthermore, 

calling for testimony of these journalists will trigger accountability for any illegal 

actions by the aforementioned government officials. 

Given the national security implications of these matters and the challenges to 

White House integrity that are attendant, it is also imperative that the key officials 

involved with and responsible for this situation come forward before the committee, 

present their documentation, telephone and other logs to us, and testify under oath 

regarding their involvement in this matter.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wexler follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT WEXLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

The outing of Ms. Valarie Plame’s identity as a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 

operative has cast the darkest of clouds over the Bush Administration. Especially 

when the federal government is calling on qualified Americans—and friends in other 

nations—to fight our war on terrorism by serving in dangerous intelligence-gathering positions, it is incredulous that this White House would put an American’s life 

in danger for its own political standing. 

Ms. Plame’s husband, Mr. Joseph C. Wilson IV, is a career American diplomat 

and former ambassador who traveled to Niger in 2002 at the request of the CIA. 

Ambassador Wilson was instructed to determine the veracity of a British report 

claiming that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore for its alleged nuclear weapons program. President Bush used the claim in his 2003 State of the Union speech as a 

key reason for the United States to go to war to stop Saddam Hussein from developing and using weapons of mass destruction. 

Ambassador Wilson found no such evidence and later discredited the claim in a 

New York Times opinion article. Subsequently, conservative columnist Bob Novak 

revealed in a critical opinion article that Ambassador Wilson’s wife, Valarie Plame, 

has been a covert CIA operative using senior officials of the Bush Administration 

as sources. 

It appears that certain individuals of this White House wanted to protect President Bush’s public image by stifling his policy detractors. These political spinmeisters clearly used their positions of influence to intimidate the intelligence community just to protect President Bush’s shoddy arguments for starting a preemptive, 

unilateral war. 

This flagrant disregard for the lives of Ms. Plame and her contacts is not only 

a shameful abuse of power but a violation of federal law. In addition, the lives of 

all undercover agents are now placed in jeopardy because the nefarious individuals 

who outed Ms. Plame still lurk within the inner sanctum of the West Wing. 

If these brave CIA operatives—whose unknown and unsung service is so crucial 

to the safety of our nation—are to effectively and objectively gather and analyze intelligence, they must not fear political pressure to abridge their conclusions. It is 

crucial that we waste no time in rooting out the betrayers in the Administration.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is the amendment—I’m sorry. This is the 

amendment dealing with the grand jury exception. It’s JCAM2, 

please. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H. Res. 499 offered by Ms. Jackson 

Lee. Page 2, line 20, insert before the period at the end the following: ‘‘, except that, in the case of such documents in the possession of the Attorney General——’’

[The amendment follows:]

18 H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H. RES 499

OFFERED BY MS. JACKSON LEE

Page 2, line 20, insert before the period at the end

the following: ‘‘, except that, in the case of such documents in the possession of the Attorney General, only

those documents the transmission of which does not violate rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,

as determined by the Federal official appointed to carry

out the criminal investigation of the Department of Justice into the disclosure of Ms. Valerie Plame as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency’’.


A499A.AAB
19

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read and the gentlewoman from Texas is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman very much. 

My reading of the Constitution clearly establishes three distinct 

branches of Government. I believe the American people have comfort in their republic and their democracy because of the fact that 

the elected body, Members of the House of Representatives and 

Members of the United States Senate, have the responsibility of 

oversight, cautious but yet productive with an investigative arm to 

ensure that this Government works. 

This is a very simple case, Mr. Chairman. It is a case that this 

Committee should not abdicate its responsibility nor any other 

Member of the United States Congress. It saddens me, the Committees already that have had the opportunity to review this particular amendment, H. Res. 499, have decided in some instances 

not to pass it out with the opportunity for it to go to the floor of 

the House. It is a clear case of an abuse of Government. 

It is interesting, as my colleagues have already noted, that any 

manner of infraction that might have been perceived by past administrations were quick to be reviewed by this Congress, even to 

the extent of a President’s sexual activities, personal and not governmental, were brought as an impeachment proceeding. But yet 

when we seek to find the truth that bears upon the potential, if you 

will, loss of life of an undercover CIA agent, also impacting on how 

we treat other CIA agents, we cannot find not one Committee that 

is willing to do its duty. 

This particular amendment is very simple. It responds to the 

concerns of the opponents of this particular resolution to suggest 

that any documents necessary for the grand jury or presently before the grand jury would be accepted from presenting them to the 

United States Congress and to this Committee. 

It is important to note that there is an investigation done by the 

executive, the executive investigating the executive. Mr. Chairman, 

that is not satisfactory. First of all, this is a deadly representation. 

The suggestion that people in the White House provided information to uncover a covert operative is deadly. It is deadly for our intelligence. It is deadly for the operatives we have around the country and the nation, and we do not know the damage at this point. 

In addition, it has come to our attention that many who are investigating this particular activity are either related in some way 

to the Administration and the President by being a relative, by 

being a classmate, but there is clearly conflict of interest. 

I cannot imagine that this Congress would abdicate its responsibility for a simple task. That simple task is to get to the bottom 

of the statement by Robert Novak where he uncovered in his public 

column the idea that there was a covert agent married to Ambassador Wilson. Was it because of the fact that Ambassador Wilson 

came forward and told us the truth about weapons of mass destruction? Was it because he was trying to apprise the American people 

and save lives from a lack of—from a campaign in Iraq that had 

no thought and no basis in conscience or in morality or in truth? 

And so I’d simply ask my colleagues to consider the fact that we 

can make this resolution better. We can join in a bipartisan manner by accepting any materials that are already submitted to the 

20

grand jury and ensuring that there are two bilateral, if you will, 

investigations, that of the United States Congress doing our duty, 

and that of the Administration or the executive. 

I cannot believe that a Congress that has had a long list of investigations controlled by the Republican majority, from campaign finance reform to Watergate to all kinds of ‘‘gates,’’ would not be 

willing to address the question that now has jeopardized the lives 

of one CIA agent, but it may be many. The truth must be found. 

This particular Committee that houses in its bosom, if you will, the 

Constitution has a responsibility to do so. 

I’d ask my colleagues to support this amendment, which is a 

grand jury exception. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The chair recognizes himself for 5 

minutes in opposition to the amendment. 

The gentlewoman from Texas proposes to accept any material 

that goes before the grand jury from the scope of the documents 

that have to be handed over, and I just remind Members that a 

grand jury has broad authority that allows investigators to subpoena witnesses and request the same documents that were requested in this resolution. That includes phone records, e-mail 

records, logs and calendars, personnel records, and records of internal discussion. 

Now, if the amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas is adopted, there really isn’t much that the Justice Department can turn 

over because those are the types of materials that the grand jury 

needs in order to investigate whether a violation of criminal law 

has occurred. 

Now, having said that, if the gentlewoman from Texas wants to 

make sure that whomever violated Federal law, if Federal law has 

been violated in disclosing Ms. Plame’s identity and places of employment, gets prosecuted and goes to jail, then I think that she 

really wouldn’t want to support the amendment, wouldn’t want to 

support the resolution, because it’s not the job of Congress to send 

criminals to jail. It is the job of the executive branch under the 

Constitution to do the investigating, to enforce the law, to seek indictments, and to try cases in court. 

So I think this amendment, I think kind of blows the cover of 

what’s going on here. The author of this amendment appears to 

want to make a political statement. She does not want to have the 

grand jury be able to zero in on whether a violation of the law occurred, and if so, return an indictment so that the defendant can 

be brought before a jury of his or her peers and tried and, if convicted, sentenced. 

Now, I’m a little bit concerned whenever I hear that we shouldn’t 

have the executive investigate the executive. That to me sounds 

like a call for reinstitution of the independent counsel law and we 

don’t need to have any more Kenneth Starrs running around investigating, whether it is a Republican administration or a Democrat 

administration. 

I am convinced that the decision of the Attorney General to 

recuse himself and to turn this matter over to Patrick Fitzgerald, 

who is the United States Attorney in Chicago, was a correct decision. Mr. Fitzgerald is a man of unimpeachable integrity. Mr. Fitzgerald, as you may recall, also returned an indictment against a 

former Republican Governor of Illinois, George Ryan, and everyVerDate jul 14 2003 05:11 Feb 28, 2004 Jkt 092224 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR413P3.XXX HR413P3
21

body I have talked to has been impressed with the fact that he 

does not let politics interfere with the investigations that he is in 

charge of. And I’ve heard no allegation that politics has interfered 

with this investigation. The man is doing his job. He ought to be 

allowed to do his job, and he ought not to have Congress interfere 

with his ability to do his job. 

Now, finally, I’ve been around here long enough to remember 

what happened during the Iran-Contra affair. Congress stuck its 

big nose into an investigation that was going on. It granted certain 

types of immunity to Admiral John Poindexter and Lieutenant 

Colonel Oliver North. They were convicted in court of crimes relating to Iran-Contra. Their convictions were reversed on appeal because the appeals court determined that the prosecution used immunized testimony in the course of the trial. The independent 

counsel that was looking into this matter decided that there was 

not enough unimmunized testimony left to retry the case, so these 

people who were convicted based upon immunized testimony ended 

up not facing the legal music. 

So when Congress decides to engage in a political sideshow rather than allowing a criminal prosecution and investigation to go 

forth to its conclusion, there is a possibility and perhaps even a 

probability that a guilty person can go free, and I don’t think we 

should go down that road again. We got burned in Iran-Contra and 

we should not get burned a second time, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the chair and I appreciate his impassioned 

remarks. I’m bound to say, there are parts of it that I agree with. 

I didn’t remember him being such an opponent of Kenneth Starr 

when he was before us, but——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Would the gentleman yield on that? 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, of course. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I’ve opposed the independent counsel 

statute when it’s come before the Committee and allowed it to—

voted to allow it to expire in 1992, and you may recall that I didn’t 

bring up a reauthorization of the independent counsel statute because it was a bad law and should be allowed to rest in peace. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I thank you for that edifying comment. Let 

us consider the fact, though, that there are independent prosecutors, special prosecutors, and then there are prosecutors named 

Kenneth Starr and there is a difference. All prosecutors don’t operate like Kenneth Starr operated. But I leave that part of our discussion aside. 

I turn now to commend the gentlelady from Texas. She is absolutely right. If only the authors of this resolution had consulted her 

before it was offered, I feel strongly that we would have had nothing in here referring to grand jury information. And so I rise to totally support the amendment that is being offered by the 

gentlelady from Texas. It perfects the modest request that is before 

us. 

Now, may I remind the Members of this Committee, this is a voluntary request. This is not a subpoena. It’s going to three groups. 

I’m hopeful that if it is reported favorably, that the agencies and 

22

departments that would be involved in responding would honor it. 

But we’re asking them to voluntarily turn over their information. 

What we do not want is what is the grand jury doing about this. 

That’s none of our business and that’s what makes this amendment 

so important. 

So let’s all agree here that what we have now is, again quoting 

the gentlelady from Texas, we have the executive branch investigating the executive branch. Now, this makes little sense to people over the age of 18. I mean, this is not the way we do business 

in America, is to have a White House problem that is now going 

to be resolved by the Department of Justice—perish the thought—

which is now going to help us find out what happened and how 

Novak reported this to the world, in effect, that they were outing 

someone that was working undercover. This is not just a desk job 

CIA person. This was undercover. This is a heinous offense. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONYERS. I cannot underestimate the seriousness of this 

kind of activity. It has to be stopped wherever it is. But for it to 

have occurred possibly in the White House is unacceptable. It’s intolerable. It offends the very sensibilities that make us a democratic nation. 

And so all we’re asking for are some phone logs, some other information. We want to know nothing about what the grand jury is 

doing, and that is perfectly—this resolution then is perfectly 

squarely fitted within the responsibilities of this Committee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You are so right, Mr. Conyers, first of all, because the language says that anything that would violate the secrecy and integrity of the grand jury proceedings would not be requested by this House and this body. 

I’m reminded of the leadership of Chairman Rodino, of which you 

served on that Committee when, tragically, we engaged in the impeachment of Richard Nixon. It’s interesting that it was a bipartisan process. Unfortunately, the last impeachment was not. I cannot imagine that this Committee would abdicate its responsibility 

for truth for the American people by considering this a political 

sideshow. It is not. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman from——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It is an attempt to find the truth. I thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER.—Michigan has expired. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 

Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me also note that I agree with the chair in 

part. I concur in terms of his observations relative to the independent counsel statute. We certainly do not need Ken Starr reappearing, or any resemblance thereof, in front of this Congress. I 

think we’ve learned a lesson. 

But I think we’re missing the point here. I think there’s substantial precedent that parallel investigations or parallel inquiries, 

23

whether it be a criminal investigation being conducted by the executive branch or an oversight inquiry being conducted by the legislative branch, are not mutually exclusive. Mr. Nadler in his opening 

remarks enumerated numerous cases where—that this Congress in 

the past 10 years have addressed while simultaneously criminal investigations were ongoing. 

I think the key issue here is under the current policy, with the 

existing statutes, do we provide the protection necessary in terms 

of American policy for our CIA operatives? As I read the newspaper 

accounts, they vary in terms of what the elements of the statute 

currently are. They vary in the interpretation of those statutes as 

to what is required to secure an indictment and to secure a conviction for the disclosure of the identity of a covert operative. 

What we have here currently, and again, one only has to review 

reports coming out in all of the major media outlets, that we have 

a CIA that is demoralized, we have CIA operatives that are outraged, that express concern, not just for their colleague in this case 

but for their colleagues elsewhere who are involved in developing 

intelligence for the protection of the American people. 

Now, the chair made a statement early on that we are interfering with a criminal investigation. Let me pose the question, and 

maybe he or some other Member has heard from the Department 

of Justice or from Mr. Fitzgerald that an effort by this Committee 

and this Congress to review the existing policy would somehow 

interfere with the criminal investigation. 

I have heard no basis to lead me to a conclusion that in any way, 

shape, or form what we would do in our role, exercising our responsibility, would interfere with the ongoing process in terms of the investigation being conducted and supervised by Mr. Fitzgerald. And 

if the chair or any other Member has heard from anyone in the executive branch, whether it be from Mr. Fitzgerald or from the Department of Justice or from the White House or from anyone, I 

would like to hear it now. 

I think we have an obligation to those operatives who are conducting intelligence efforts all over this globe that the current policy and that the statutes will protect them rather than expose them 

and their families to physical jeopardy. 

You know, the chair earlier raised the issue, and it was, I think, 

very well stated, regarding Iran-Contra. We are miles away from 

granting anyone immunity here. This is not that case. This is clearly distinguishable. 

And in terms of the criminal investigation, I have no reason to 

dispute the chair’s observation about Mr. Fitzgerald. Recently, 

there was a press report dated—I have it here in front of me—

dated February 4 by United Press and let me quote. ‘‘Federal law 

enforcement officials said that they have developed hard evidence 

of possible criminal misconduct by two employees of Vice President 

Dick Cheney’s office related to the unlawful exposure of a CIA officer’s identity last year.’’

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman. 

24

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman strikes the last word, 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. And yields 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just let me 

continue to read this report by UPI that was published on February 4 regarding the efforts by Mr. Fitzgerald, because again, I do 

concur with the statement by the chair that Mr. Fitzgerald appears 

to be doing his assignment and doing it well. 

The report goes on, ‘‘The investigation, which is continuing, could 

lead to indictments, a Justice Department official said. According 

to these sources, John Hannah and Cheney’s Chief of Staff Lewis 

’Scooter’ Libby, were the two Cheney employees. We believe that 

Hannah was the major player in this one, one Federal law enforcement officer said. The strategy of the FBI is to make clear to Hannah,’’ and again, let me stress that I’m quoting from this source, 

‘‘that he faces a real possibility of doing jail time as a way to pressure him to name superiors, one Federal law enforcement official 

said.’’

And that is the end of the quote that I had initially presented, 

and I yield back and I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we 

have to—it may be that Mr. Fitzgerald is doing an excellent job, 

and I have no reason to doubt that. I do have reason to doubt, substantial reason to doubt, as should we all, that the Administration 

is being honest in this respect. 

It was reported in The Washington Post on February 10 in an article entitled, ‘‘Bush Aides Testify in Leak Probe’’ by Mike Allen 

and Susan Schmidt, said that White House staff are being interviewed by investigators although many are refusing to sign a waiver of their journalistic privilege which would allow the press to disclose who among the Administration claims undercover status. 

The President ought to order everyone in the Administration to 

waive their journalistic privilege. We would then know in 5 minutes who informed Mr. Novak because he would have no privilege. 

The privilege attaches to people in the White House or the Administration to quote the senior Administration officials who gave the 

information, who committed the criminal act by giving the name of 

an undercover CIA agent. 

Now, if there are people in the White House who are refusing to 

sign a waiver of their journalistic privilege, this is not a question 

of the Fifth Amendment. It is the question of a waiver of a journalistic privilege designed to protect the press here, or designed to 

allow the press to get sources. The Administration, not the press, 

ought to order Administration members to sign that waiver so we 

can get to the bottom of this, and the failure of the Administration 

to do so tells me that the Administration is not in good faith on 

this subject and, therefore, is not in good faith with the American 

people who depend on our intelligence to protect us and whose 

safety is compromised when undercover CIA agents, especially in 

this case, an undercover agent working in the area of anti-nuclear 

proliferation, is exposed. 

And people in the White House ought to be doing everything they 

can to find out who exposed her so that that can be stopped in the 

future, and instead, they are refusing to sign a waiver of their jourVerDate jul 14 2003 05:11 Feb 28, 2004 Jkt 092224 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR413P3.XXX HR413P3
25

nalistic privilege. The President ought to order them to sign that 

waiver, and this Committee, frankly, ought to urge them, or to 

urge the Administration to urge its members to require its members to sign a waiver so we can get to the bottom of this immediately. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendment 

offered by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, and I’d like to yield to my colleague 

from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank you very much to the gentlelady. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, referred to 

the fine qualities of Patrick Fitzgerald, who’s a very fine prosecutor. We should stipulate to that, everybody on the Committee. 

The problem, however, is that each week that we get closer to 

this election, the more pressure is put on this fine U.S. Attorney 

not to report back any indictment, right? Or is somehow he living 

in some kind of a glass bubble that makes him not feel any pressure whatever as he moves very courageously in his duties? 

Now, my friends, what we will ultimately be talking about is 

whether there should be a special counsel appointed, which speaks 

to the problems that the Chairman and I agreed existed in the old 

special prosecutor law that we both allowed to expire. And what we 

need is someone with no ties to the Department or loyalty to the 

Administration. The public can have little faith that the investigation will be pursued diligently and impartially under the circumstances that it’s now set up to do. 

A U.S. Attorney appointed by the Department of Justice and the 

Administration’s White House is now investigating the White 

House. Fine. I don’t think it’ll wash. 

If it turns out that the White House engaged in an organized 

smear campaign against former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, including outing his wife, to exact revenge for pointing out the lies in the 

pre-war Iraq intelligence—I say if—then this would do incalculable 

harm to the President’s credibility and the case for his reelection. 

That’s why I’m not surprised that White House officials recently 

admitted that their goal was to, quote, ‘‘let the earth movers roll 

in on this one,’’ end quotations, and that on the heels of Mr. 

Ashcroft’s announcement, Republican legal sources acknowledged 

that the recusal of the Attorney General will have the effect of providing political cover for the Administration if no indictment is 

issued. 

Moreover, the recent assignment of Patrick Fitzgerald contains 

none of the safeguards against politicalization that comes with the 

formal appointment of a special counsel. He doesn’t have the ability 

to seek whatever financial resources are needed to pursue the case, 

as a special counsel would be able to. Mr. Fitzgerald does not have 

the guarantee that he can be fired only for misconduct, dereliction 

of duty, incapacity, or other good cause, as in the case with a special counsel. And there is no requirement that the Attorney General provide the public with a written explanation of why any acVerDate jul 14 2003 05:11 Feb 28, 2004 Jkt 092224 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR413P3.XXX HR413P3
26

tion proposed by the prosecutor was not taken, as is specified again 

in our regulations concerning special counsel. 

And so on this important amendment, I urge our colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle to realize that it is a perfecting amendment. 

It takes us out of the grand jury dilemma and enables us to proceed with our investigation without any encumbrance whatever. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentlewoman from California yield back? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson 

Lee. Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The noes appear to have it——

Mr. CONYERS. A record vote——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. rollcall will be ordered. Those in 

favor of the Jackson Lee amendment 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? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, no. Ms. Hart? 

Ms. HART. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Hart, no. Mr. Flake? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence? 

Mr. PENCE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, no. Mr. Carter? 

27

Mr. CARTER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Feeney? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Blackburn? 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Blackburn, no. Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler? 

Mr. NADLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler? 

Mr. WEXLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler, aye. Ms. Baldwin? 

Ms. BALDWIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Pass. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, pass. Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, aye. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there Members in the chamber 

who wish to cast or change their votes? The gentleman from North 

Carolina, Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Gallegly? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Green? 

28

Mr. GREEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 

Bachus? 

Mr. BACHUS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their votes? The gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 

Mr. Meehan? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their votes? If not, the Clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 8 ayes and 17 noes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment is not agreed 

to. Are there further amendments? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments that 

I’d like to take en bloc. The first amendment is JCAM1——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendments. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE.—and the second one is 105 XML, Jackson 

Lee. 

The CLERK. Amendments to H. Res. 499 offered by Ms. Jackson 

Lee en bloc. Page two——

The amendments follow:]

29 H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H. RES 499

OFFERED BY Ml. llllll

Page 2, line 20, insert before the period at the end

the following: ‘‘, except that, in the case of such documents in the possession of the Attorney General, only

those documents that the Federal official appointed to

carry out the criminal investigation of the Department of

Justice into the disclosure of Ms. Valerie Plame as an

employee of the Central Intelligence Agency determines

would not interfere with that investigation’’.


A499B.AAB
30 H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H. RES 499

OFFERED BY MS. JACKSON-LEE

Page 2, line 6, insert ‘‘and records of discussions

with journalists and other members of the media’’ after

‘‘records of internal discussions’’.

Page 2, line 17, insert ‘‘and records of discussions

with journalists and other members of the media’’ after

‘‘records of internal discussions’’.


A499C.AAB
31

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendments 

will be considered en bloc. Without objection, the amendments en 

bloc will be considered as read and the gentlewoman from Texas 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman very much. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee Members very much for their 

indulgence. 

I think a simple premise should be put before this Committee 

and before the American people and this House, and that is as we 

sit here, firm in our safety, young men and women are on the front 

lines in Iraq losing their lives. The representation to the American 

people was simply that this nation was under imminent threat and 

that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction. 

When Ambassador Wilson provided the truth to a representation 

made by this Administration later that there was no connection between the nation of Niger and the selling of uranium, that, Mr. 

Chairman, was a direct, if you will, challenge to the representation 

and the basis upon sending young men and women into harm’s 

way. 

Today, we ask this constitutional body, the Judiciary Committee, 

the preserver of the Constitution, to look carefully at an independent investigation of this matter, the uncovering, if you will, of 

a covert operative, which by the very existence of that action by 

Robert Novak has now jeopardized covert agents around the world, 

CIA agents who have put their lives on the line so that we might 

be safe. 

I am saddened by the debate that has occurred here and I must 

take issue, Mr. Chairman, with any suggestion of a political sideshow, because I recall, though I did not have the opportunity to be 

in this Committee room during the impeachment proceedings of 

Richard F.—Richard Nixon, Milhous Nixon, I am assured, however, 

of the respect that was given to that process by those who were in 

this room. 

I’m also well aware that while simultaneous executive investigations were going on regarding campaign finance reform and, as 

well, the Waco incident, that this Congress and this Committee 

were taking advantage of their responsibility and investigating. 

The two amendments that I have would answer your question. 

The first one, of course, dealing with information where the prosecutor would be able to determine what documents came to this 

House, would protect the integrity of the prosecutor. The second 

one specifically requires that this Committee receive information 

about discussions with journalists and other members of the media, 

recognizing the First Amendment privilege, but it would allow us 

to review those documents just as those in the media review them. 

The crux of this issue is that someone in the Administration 

leaked the covert identity of this young woman, this patriot, this 

person who was trying to provide for the safety of this nation. I am 

not going to allow and should not, I believe—we should not allow 

the counsel of Mr. Fitzgerald, of which I do not challenge his integrity or his ability to do his job, but we should not abdicate our responsibilities in this House of doing our job. 

I cannot imagine, Mr. Chairman, why this Committee would not 

want to join together in a bipartisan manner to support these 

32

amendments and report favorably this resolution. I’d ask my colleagues to do so, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I recognize myself for 5 minutes in 

opposition to the amendments en bloc. 

There are two amendments that the gentlewoman from Texas 

has proposed. The first amendment says that Mr. Fitzgerald, who 

is the designated prosecutor in this matter, can refuse to turn over 

materials to the Congress that would interfere with the investigation. That puts Mr. Fitzgerald in a terrible position, because in effect what he is saying is that every document or every piece of evidence that he has obtained is relevant to the investigation. If he 

comes back with a letter saying that everything is relevant to the 

investigation and turning them over would be an interference, particularly with the provisions of rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure on grand jury secrecy, and if he says he won’t 

turn over anything, then we’re going to hear allegations that he’s 

not objective and that he’s stonewalling. 

I don’t think we should put this man, whom everybody seems to 

have a great deal of trust and faith in, in that kind of a position 

where a determination on which materials would interfere with the 

investigation and which would not end up becoming a political 

issue. He would then have to either state which materials he’s not 

turning over because it would interfere with the investigation, and 

there’s where rule 6(e) comes in, because if he talks about materials that the grand jury is doing, then the prosecutor has violated 

rule 6(e) and can be prosecuted himself. So don’t put Mr. Fitzgerald 

in this position. 

The second part of the amendments en bloc that have been offered by the gentlewoman from Texas requires people in the White 

House staff and in the Department to turn over records of discussions with journalists and other members of the media, and that 

puts a chilling effect on anybody in the executive branch from talking with journalists. 

Now, I don’t condone a leak and I don’t condone a criminal violation of material that is leaked. But I don’t think we should have 

a broad brush and say every time somebody talks to a journalist 

to give them information on what their position is or what they’re 

doing or what the position of the Administration is, that that may 

end up being the subject of a resolution of inquiry. 

In order for the press to operate properly, they have to be able 

to seek out from whatever sources they feel are relevant information that they need in order to give that information to the public. 

To have a chilling effect put on any Government official as a result 

of an amendment to a resolution of this nature, I think will not 

allow the press to do their job in the way that the Framers of the 

First Amendment expected the press to do so. So vote against the 

amendments en bloc——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER.—and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, would you yield? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on adoption of the 

amendments en bloc. Those in favor will say——

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman? 

33

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I yield to the gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished gentleman very 

much and I will attempt in this very august room to be brief. 

But I would just simply say to the Chairman and to my colleagues, far be it from me to institute any chilling effect from the 

verbosity of the Administration and their willingness to be open to 

the American public and to highlight any of their ills and sins in 

the national media. Any time that they want to do a mea culpa and 

have a press conference, I’d be willing to stand aside and allow 

them to do so. What I’m arguing for, however, is that we need to 

know the truth of the principals who are engaged in leaking a disastrous statement about the uncovering of a covert agent. 

In addition, the amendment regarding the prosecutor, it is respecting Mr. Fitzgerald’s integrity by allowing him to determine 

what documents we would receive. 

It is frivolous to suggest that in this Congress, only Republicans 

can investigate Democrats and Democrats cannot investigate 

Americans. We must do this together on behalf of the American 

people. 

I remind you, 540 are dead and more are dying in Iraq. The basis 

upon which they went was the existence, as represented by this 

Administration, of weapons of mass destruction. No, this is not the 

Armed Services Committee. It is not the Intelligence Committee. It 

is not even the International Relations Committee. It is the Justice 

Committee, judiciary, where the Constitution has to be protected. 

We’re not protecting it today. We are now skating over the facts 

that the Administration has violated the sanctity and trust of a 

covert agent that now jeopardizes not only her life, but the lives 

of those who depended upon her information and her work. 

I am simply asking that we amend this resolution to draw us together in a bipartisan way, and Mr. Chairman, I would ask you, 

is there any way that the Republicans of this particular Committee 

would work with us in a bipartisan manner to achieve what is necessary, an independent investigation by this body, the United 

States Congress? 

I cannot imagine that we have just gone through an impeachment of a President of the United States on his sexual activities 

that the American people said they did not want. Now the American people have asked the question, who made the representations 

of weapons of mass destruction, and, of course, why we would engage in the uncovering of an innocent CIA agent trying to protect 

our sanctity and our security. I cannot imagine why these amendments would not be credible and legitimate and the resolution of 

this default would not come from this Committee in a favorable 

posture. 

I’d ask my colleagues to support these amendments and I’d ask 

my colleagues to ask themselves and to address their conscience as 

to how they could sit here in this room and show such a lack of 

responsibility for the respect of this body and this Congress, that 

we would not allow ourselves to, in a parallel manner, investigate 

34

this process with the integrity of these amendments that we’ve 

asked to give the U.S. Attorney every opportunity to do his job. 

I thank Mr. Nadler and I would be happy to yield back to him. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady. I support her 

amendment as I support this resolution, for the obvious reasons 

that we have stated before. There must be an independent investigation of this continuing cover-up by the Administration. I say 

cover-up because if they weren’t covering it up, they would have 

told the members of the Administration to waive the journalistic 

privilege and we would have had the answer to this question of 

who endangered lives of American agents by outing an existing 

CIA agent. We would have had that answer in 5 minutes flat. 

So I support this amendment. I support the resolution. I yield 

back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendments——

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, Members, I think that the passage 

of H. Res. 499 is extraordinarily important, not only in its own 

right, not only to determine the facts surrounding the disclosure of 

a CIA officer’s name, but also because of the context that we find 

ourselves in, the context in which we have gone to war in Iraq on 

the basis of intelligence about the possession of weapons of mass 

destruction that we have not as yet found and may never find. 

And in the face of these circumstances, when an allegation has 

been raised that even in its own right the disclosure of an agent’s 

identity, an officer’s identity for political purposes, to chill the disclosure of information that would cause question about a claim 

made in the State of the Union is extraordinarily important. 

There are two questions that are involved in this case of the disclosure of Ms. Plame. The first is, has a crime been committed, and 

the second is, what steps should Congress take to protect the identity of its agents and the sanctity of the intelligence gathering process from political influence, intimidation, or manipulation. 

These are two very different questions and they cannot be answered by the same source. It is Mr. Fitzgerald’s job as a special 

counsel to answer the first question, has a crime been committed. 

It is the Congress’s responsibility to answer the second question, 

what steps should we take to ensure the sanctity of our intelligence 

gathering process and protect the identity of our agents. 

Mr. Fitzgerald cannot undertake the second task. We cannot 

seek an indictment in response to the first question. But rather, 

these are separate functions, and I am sure, having come from the 

Justice Department myself, that if it were solely left to the Justice 

Department or Mr. Fitzgerald, they would prefer a Congressional 

investigation not take place. They would prefer to focus on their 

sole jurisdiction of determining whether a crime has been committed. 

35

As a former prosecutor, I never welcomed other investigations by 

other bodies which in some way could influence or direct my own, 

but that was because I had a job to do that I was focused on. 

We in Congress also have the job to do that we need to focus on 

and the two are not mutually incompatible. We need to get to the 

bottom of the facts concerning the disclosure of this officer’s identity so that we can begin the extraordinarily important process of 

identifying the flaws that we have in our intelligence gathering, 

the flaws that we may have in the analysis of that intelligence, and 

a determination about how our intelligence is used, whether good 

information is being suppressed for motivations that have nothing 

to do with the best interests of the country. 

It is difficult to comprehend a more important task for the Congress at this time, and in light of that, we ought to proceed on dual 

tracks. We ought to investigate whether a crime has been committed and bring charges if it has. That is an extraordinarily difficult task, particularly given the code sections involved here, particularly given the fact that some of the source of the disclosure 

came from the media. The odds in favor of prosecution are not 

high. And under those circumstances, we cannot rely solely on the 

deterrent value of an indictment and conviction. 

We must undertake our own investigation, draw our own policy 

conclusions, and implement the results, and without prejudging 

what conclusion we will reach or where the facts may lead us, it 

is fair to say that this is an extraordinarily important undertaking. 

It could not have been made more important by the events of the 

last several months and by the conclusions of Dr. Kay and others 

that we were all wrong. 

It is our job in this body to find out why we are wrong. It’s our 

job in this body to find out whether agents that were in a position 

to provide contrary information were being intimidated, whether 

all the facts have bubbled to the surface that should have come before the Congress in making the decisions we have made. 

And for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to lend their 

support to H. Res. 499. We should not be afraid of the facts. We 

should not be afraid of following them to their logical conclusion 

and I urge your support and yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendments——

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last 

word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WATT. I thank the Chairman and let me do a couple of 

things in the 5 minutes. First of all, I missed the vote on Ms. Jackson Lee’s prior amendment and I would ask unanimous consent 

that it appear in the record that had I been able to be here and 

vote, I would have supported her amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The complete transcript of the hearing or the markup is contained in the Committee report, which will 

include the statement that the gentleman from North Carolina just 

made. I think that should suffice. 

36

Mr. WATT. Yes. That’s all I was asking for. Unfortunately, there 

are two markups going on on the two Committees that I am a 

Member of and they’re forcing me to be in two different places at 

one time. 

On the substance of this amendment and the underlying bill, I 

would have to say that the amendment obviously addresses some 

of the concerns that I have about the underlying bill. I share many 

of the concerns that the Chairman expressed in his opening statement about our jeopardizing an investigation, and I guess it’s because I come from a background that suggests to me that any external influence in an investigation, prosecution, and court determination of guilt or innocence is inappropriate, and I have had that 

reservation as we have on prior occasions in this Committee and 

in the Congress in other Committees injected ourselves into issues 

that were under active criminal investigation and prosecution. 

I have come to grips on those prior occasions, and over time, with 

the notion that Mr. Schiff just expressed, and that is that we have 

a parallel responsibility to oversee and set policy that sometimes 

requires information that is the subject of ongoing investigations, 

and so we have to exercise that responsibility, too. 

I think the reservation I still have is that sometimes when we 

get the information over here to do our, fulfill our responsibility of 

legislating and setting policy, we treat it not with the kind of confidentiality that the legal system treats it with and we should be 

able to get sensitive information, as the Intelligence Committee 

does, and privileged information, as we as a Judiciary Committee 

should get, and be able to maintain the confidentiality and do our 

job. I have seen instances in which we are not fulfilling our responsibilities to maintain the confidentiality of information and it has, 

on occasion, jeopardized prosecutions or resulted in reversals of 

prosecutions on some occasions. 

So I think I come down pretty much where Mr. Schiff does on 

this, despite reservations. I just wish we would—all of us would 

apply the same kind of analysis whether a Democratic administration or a Republican administration were in place, and I applaud 

the Chairman at least for having been consistent in his views 

about the special counsel legislation, but I think there are a number of instances in which we have not exercised that same kind of 

consistency and it gives us, gives the world the impression, the nation the impression that we are being political in these deliberations rather than applying a uniform principle. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. WATT. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendments 

en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. The noes appear to have 

it. The noes have it and the amendments are not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

[No response.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If there are no further amendments, 

a reporting quorum is present. The question is on the motion to report H. Res. 499 adversely. Those in favor will signify by saying 

aye. 

Opposed, no. 

37

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it—the gentleman 

from New York. 

Mr. NADLER. I request the ayes and nays. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The yeas and nays are requested 

and will be ordered. Those in favor of reporting H. Res. 499 adversely will, as your names are called, answer aye, those opposed, 

no, and the Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, 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. Hostettler? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, aye. Ms. Hart? 

Ms. HART. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Hart, aye. Mr. Flake? 

Mr. FLAKE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, aye. Mr. Pence? 

Mr. PENCE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence, aye. Mr. Forbes? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Carter? 

Mr. CARTER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carter, aye. Mr. Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mrs. Blackburn? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler? 

Mr. NADLER. No. 

38

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Scott? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt? 

Mr. WATT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, no. Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan? 

Mr. MEEHAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan, no. Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler? 

Mr. WEXLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler, no. Ms. Baldwin? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, 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. 

Gallegly? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their vote? The gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 

Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Anybody else who wishes to cast or 

change their vote? If not——

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from New York. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded, please? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. How is Mr. Nadler recorded? 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nadler is recorded as no. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Good. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Chairman? 

39

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Aye—no. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, no. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how I am recorded? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. How is the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Sa ́nchez, recorded? 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Sa ́nchez is recorded as a no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Did she make a mistake? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. No. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Further Members who wish to 

cast or change their vote? If not, the Clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 17 ayes and 8 noes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the motion to report adversely 

is agreed to. Without objection, the staff is directed to make any 

technical and conforming changes. All Members will be given 2 

days as provided by the House rules in which to submit additional 

dissenting supplemental or minority views. 

Let me bring to the attention of the Members that the referral 

of this resolution expires on Friday, so that means that the additional dissenting supplemental or minority views will have to be 

submitted by Friday since we must file the Committee report by 

the close of business on that day. 

The chair thanks the Members for their participation and the 

Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(41)

1Mike Allen and Dana Priest, Bush Administration is Focus of Inquiry, WASH. POST, Sept. 

28, 2003 at A1. Wilson was a diplomat for 22 years and served as President Clinton’s director 

of African affairs on the National Security Council. 2 Id. 3President George W. Bush, State of the Union, (January 28, 2003). 

4 Joseph C. Wilson, IV, What I didn’t Find in Africa, July 6, 2003. 5 Robert Novak, Mission to Niger, July 14, 2003. 

DISSENTING VIEWS

We strongly dissent from the majority’s unfavorable reporting of 

H. Res. 499. We are shocked by this Committee’s abdication of its 

oversight role of the Department of Justice (DOJ). 

For months we have been aware of a shocking and shameful incident. In an effort to build the case for preemptive war, the President declared in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq had 

tried to buy uranium from Niger, even after former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, IV, informed the Administration this was not true. In 

an attempt to intimidate Wilson and others who might tell the 

truth about the war, high ranking administration officials started 

shopping around classified information to reporters—the fact that 

his wife is a CIA operative, along with her name. 

The leak of Valerie Plame’s name and undercover status jeopardized not only her life, but the lives of all those she worked with 

over decades of service to our country. We can think of very few 

situations that more strongly call for Congressional oversight. This 

incident needs our immediate attention not only to get to the bottom of who leaked Plame’s status, but to determine whether the 

White House and the Justice Department properly guarded this information in the first place and took appropriate steps to remedy 

the leak in its aftermath. 

1. HISTORY OF THE LEAK

In February 2002, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, IV, was 

sent to Niger by the CIA, on behalf of the Bush administration, to 

investigate claims that Iraq was attempting to buy yellow cake 

uranium in that country.1 When Wilson returned, he informed the 

CIA and the State Department that the claims were unsubstantiated.2

Nearly a year later, the President stated that Iraq tried to purchase uranium in Africa during his State of the Union address: 

‘‘The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’’ 3 In 

response, Wilson published an op-ed in July 2003 publicizing his 

findings, or lack thereof.4 Approximately 2 weeks later, journalist 

Robert Novak used his widely syndicated column to defend the Administration’s choice to invade Iraq and call Wilson’s credibility 

into question.5 Painting Wilson’s assignment to Niger as a favor to 

Wilson’s wife, Novak stated, ‘‘Wilson never worked for the CIA, but 

his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass 

42

6 Id. 

7See supra note 2. 8David Johnston, ‘‘Top Bush Aide is Questioned in CIA Leak,’’ N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2004 at 

A1 (‘‘. . . prosecutors have cited evidence that White House officials were extremely upset by 

Mr. Wilson’s article and were angry at the CIA for sending him to Africa . . .’’); Mike Allen 

and Dana Priest, ‘‘Bush Administration is Focus of Inquiry,’’ Wash. Post, Sept. 28, 2003 at A1 

(‘‘Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge.’’). 9Letter from Stanley M. Mosowitz, Director of Congressional Affairs to John Conyers, Jr., 

Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, (Jan. 30, 2004) available at http://

www.house.gov/judiciaryldemocrats/cialeakinforesp13004.pdf. 10Dana Milbank and Susan Schmidt, Justice Department Launches Criminal Probe of Leak, WASH. POST, Oct. 1, 2003 at A1. 11Dana Milbank and Mike Allen, Outside Probe of Leaks Is Favored, WASH. POST, Oct. 2, 

2003. 12Dana Milbank, ‘‘No Idea’’ About Leak Inquiry, WASH. POST, Oct. 8, 2003. 13 Richard Stevenson and Eric Lichtblau, White House Looks to Manage Fallout Over CIA 

Leak Inquiry, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 2, 2003. 14 James Harding, The Agent’s Tale, FINANCIAL TIMES, Dec. 5, 2003. 

destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s 

wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate . . .’’ 6 It was 

soon revealed that those administration officials called at least six 

members of the press to disseminate Plame’s undercover identity.7

Inside sources and most commentators suspect that the motivation 

was ‘‘revenge’’ for publicly discrediting the President’s main justification for invading Iraq and an attempt to preemptively silence 

other whistle blowers.8

The CIA responded immediately, and contacted the DOJ four 

times in the span of 3 weeks to notify the Department that the disclosure of Plame’s name and status probably violated the law and 

to request an investigation.9 On September 29, over a month after 

the CIA first notified the DOJ, the Department confirmed that the 

FBI would be investigating the leak. 

At first, the President appeared committed to cooperating with 

the investigation and tracing the leak to its source: ‘‘. . . if there 

is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is . . . 

I welcome the investigation.’’ 10 However, the administration’s tone 

changed quickly. No longer making blanket statements about the 

innocence of his staff, the President turned to narrow legalisms, instead claiming that no one had technically broken the law.11 Eventually the President appeared completely resigned to the idea that 

the investigation would be fruitless: ‘‘I don’t know if we’re going to 

find out the senior administration official . . . Now this is a large 

administration, and there’s a lot of senior officials. I don’t have any 

idea.’’ 12

These statements appeared to effect the progress of the investigation. An F.B.I. official commented that ‘‘It wouldn’t surprise me 

if we went a little bit slower on this one just because it is so high 

profile. This will get scrutinized at our headquarters and at Justice 

in a way that lesser, routine investigations wouldn’t.’’ 13 That 

prophecy was fulfilled, and in the words of a senior White House 

official the investigation was stalled: ‘‘We have let the earth-movers 

roll in over this one.’’ 14

This lack of outrage by the Administration and lack of zeal on 

the part of the Justice Department were not the only disconcerting 

factors in the investigation. Instead, the first 3 months of the investigation were fraught with apparent conflicts of interests and 

procedural irregularities. 

43

15Mike Allen and Susan Schmidt, Bush Aides Testify in Leak Probe, WASH. POST, Feb. 10, 

2004 at A1. 16 Id.; Johnston, supra note 8. 17 Joseph Wilson, Nightline (ABC television broadcast, Sept. 30, 2003) (‘‘I just got off the 

phone with Karl Rove. He tells me your wife is fair fame.’’); NEWSWEEK, Oct. 13, 2003 (reporting 

that Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s Hardball was the journalist contacted by Rove.) 18Michael Duffy, Leaking With a Vengeance, TIME, Oct. 5, 2003. 19 Eric Litchtblau, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 22, 2003 20 Richard B. Schmitt and Edwin Chen, Leak Inquiry Embarks on a Long Road, L.A. TIMES, 

Oct. 2, 2003 at 14. 21David Von Drehle and Dan Eggen, Head of Leak Prove is Called Relentless, WASH. POST, 

Jan. 1, 2004. 22 Editorial, Investigating Leaks, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 2, 2003. 23 Richard Stevenson and Eric Lichtblau, Leaker May Remain Elusive Bush Suggests, N.Y. 

TIMES, Oct. 8, 2003. 

On December 31, 2003, the Attorney General recused himself 

from the investigation and Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney in 

Chicago, was appointed to head the efforts. Recent press reports 

confirm that White House staff are being interviewed by investigators, although many are refusing to sign a waiver of their journalistic privilege, which would allow the press to disclose who among 

the Administration leaked Plame’s undercover status.15 It has also 

been confirmed that investigators are presenting evidence to a 

grand jury. Press reports include Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove, Scott 

McClellan, Mary Matalin and other Presidential and Vice Presidential staffers among those who have testified.16 It is also an open 

question whether the Administration Officials are invoking their 

Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. 

There are several instances of personal bias in this situation that 

are more than apparent. For example, Karl Rove, political advisor 

to the President, was named by several sources as an instigator of 

the leak.17 He worked on Attorney General Ashcroft’s campaigns 

throughout the 1980’s and 90’s raking in nearly three-quarters of 

a million dollars in fees.18 While at first blush, it might appear 

that the Attorney General wouldn’t be involved with the investigation on a regular basis, Associate Deputy Attorney General Christopher Wray testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that 

he regularly briefs the AG on the investigation.19 These conflicts 

existed not only between the Attorney General and likely targets 

of the investigation, but between lower level investigators and the 

President. Robert McCallum, the Assistant Attorney General who 

initially oversaw the investigation is an old friend of the President’s from Yale.20 Also, James Comey, Jr., the Deputy Attorney 

General and in charge of the investigation since Attorney General 

Ashcroft recused himself, is extremely close with Mr. Fitzgerald. In 

fact, Mr. Fitzgerald is the godfather of Mr. Comey’s child.21

There have also been a number of procedural irregularities that 

beg the question of whether the investigation has always been pursued with due diligence. For example, the DOJ waited 3 days before notifying the White House of the Investigation, and the White 

House in turn waited 11 hours before asking all staff to preserve 

any evidence.22 What evidence that employees have turned over 

have been screened for ‘‘relevance’’ by White House counsel, perhaps filtering out critical information.23 And as to the pace of the 

investigation, FBI sources were quoted as saying that the Department was ‘‘going a bit slower on this one because it is so high-proVerDate jul 14 2003 05:11 Feb 28, 2004 Jkt 092224 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR413P3.XXX HR413P3
44

24 Richard Stevenson and Eric Lichtblau, Attorney General is Closely Linked to Inquiry Fig- ures, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 2, 2003. 25 28 C.F.R. 600.1. 26 28 C.F.R. 600.3. 27 28 C.F.R. 600.7(b). 28 28 C.F.R. 600.7(d). 29 28 C.F.R. 600.9(a)(3). 30Letter from John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of House Judiciary Committee to Attorney 

General John D. Ashcroft, (Sept. 29, 2003) available at http://www.house.gov/judiciaryldemocrats/agleakcianameltr92903.pdf. 31Letter from John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, to the 

Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, House Judiciary Committee (Oct. 30, 2003) 

available at http://www.house.gov/judiciaryldemocrats/cialeakltr103003.pdf. 

file.’’ 24 For many, all these factors have worked in tandem to create at the very least the appearance of impropriety warranting 

some sort of independent investigation. 

This litany of factors has led nearly all commentators not associated with the Administration nor the Republican party to call on 

Attorney General Ashcroft to appoint a special counsel. Federal 

regulations provide that a special counsel should be appointed to 

a criminal investigation when there is a conflict of interest within 

the DOJ and public interest would served by an impartial prosecutor.25 Special counsels must come from outside the Federal Government,26 ensuring that they are not beholden to anyone they 

may have to investigate. Once appointed, a special counsel gets extraordinary leeway to conduct an investigation as he or she sees fit. 

For example, a special counsel is not subject to day-to-day oversight by the DOJ,27 and in fact can only be dismissed for cause.28

Perhaps most importantly, once a special counsel makes a recommendation to the Attorney General, the latter must formally explain his reasons if he chooses not to follow it.29 Because Mr. Fitzgerald is not a special counsel under the regulations, nor can he 

be since he comes from within the Federal Government, none of 

these safeguards exist. 

Despite repeated requests for a special counsel from members of 

both the House and the Senate, none has been appointed to date. 

In fact, all attempts by Democratic members of this Committee to 

exercise their oversight authority in less intrusive manners than a 

Resolution of Inquiry have failed. On September 29, 2003, Ranking 

Member John Conyers, Jr. requested a staff briefing from the 

DOJ.30 Attorney General Ashcroft did not respond. On October 30, 

2003, every democratic member requested a full committee hearing 

from Chairman Sensenbrenner, which was denied.31 As these intermediate options were ruled out, this Resolution of Inquiry became 

ever more appropriate. 

2. WHOEVER LEAKED THE INFORMATION

MOST LIKELY VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW

There are at least two possible Federal crimes that may have 

been committed by whoever in the Administration leaked Plame’s 

undercover CIA status. First, the Intelligence Identities Protection 

Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421) provides for fines and 10 years imprisonment for anyone who: 1) intentionally discloses information identifying an undercover agent, 2) knowing that the disclosure will reveal the agent as such, when 3) the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal the agent’s intelligence relationship to 

the U.S. 

45

32 ‘‘(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of . . . information relating to the national defense 

which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United 

States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully . . . causes [or attempts to cause] 

to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted . . . to any person not entitled to receive it, or 

willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the 

United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any . . . information 

relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be 

used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts [to do so] . . . to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and 

fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or . . .’’ 33 ‘‘(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any . . . information, relating to the national defense,

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of 

custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, 

or destroyed, or . . .’’ 34 ‘‘(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of 

custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his 

superior officer . . .’’ may be imprisoned for up to 10 years and be subject to a fine. 35Oversight of the Department of Justice: Hearing Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (1997); Letter from the Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary to Attorney General Janet Reno (July 24, 1998) available at http://

www.house.gov/judiciary/072498.htm; Letter from the Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Chairman of 

the House Committee on the Judiciary to Attorney General Janet Reno (Apr. 5, 2000) available at http://www.house.gov/judiciary/b5b88a00.pdf.

Administration Officials may also have violated 18 U.S.C. 793, 

which prohibits the gathering, transmitting or losing defense information. This law prohibits communicating national defense information that the possessor has reason to believe could be used to 

the injury of the United States.32 It also criminalizes the leaking 

of information relating to the national defense through gross negligence,33 and imposes an affirmative duty to report a leak when 

discovered.34 It is important to note that information need only ‘‘relate to’’ the national defense, and that the leaker need not intentionally share the information to violate this provision.

3. THE MAJORITY’S CONCERNS ARE UNFOUNDED IN LAW

OR PRECEDENT

A. This request would not interfere with the Justice Department’s 

ongoing criminal investigation. 

The majority argued during the markup that the DOJ is handling the investigation properly and that Congressional intervention at this point would jeopardize the criminal investigation. Despite claims to the contrary, there is long standing precedent for 

this committee to conduct oversight concurrently with an ongoing 

DOJ investigation:

• In 1997 the Committee held hearings on campaign improprieties in the 1996 presidential election. The Justice Department was conducting its own investigation and determining 

whether an independent counsel was warranted. In addition 

to taking testimony from Attorney General Janet Reno, the 

Committee requested all documents, including deliberative 

memoranda, relating to the appointment of a special counsel. 

The DOJ provided many of these documents to the Committee.35

• In 1995, the Subcommittee on Crime heard 12 days of testimony as part of a congressional investigation to Federal acVerDate jul 14 2003 05:11 Feb 28, 2004 Jkt 092224 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR413P3.XXX HR413P3
46

36Federal Actions at Waco, Texas: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Crime, House Committee on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. (1995). 37The INSLAW Affair, H.R. REP. NO. 102–857 (1992). 38See, e.g., Campaign Finance Investigation: Hearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs 

Committee, 105th Cong. (1997). 39See for example, Hearing on John Huang and the Riady Family before the House Government Reform Committee, 106th Cong. (1999); see also, Investigation into Allegations of Justice 

Department Misconduct in New England—Volume 1 Before the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, 107th Cong., 1st and 2nd Sess.(2001–02) (testimony of Morton 

Rosenberg, Congressional Research Service, American Law Division) (discussing the history of 

the House Government Reform Committee’s investigation of campaign finance violations). 40Tragedy at Waco: New Evidence Examined, H.R. REP. NO. 106–1037 (2000).

tions at Waco, with soldiers, officers, ATF, FBI and Treasury 

Department officials testifying. The full Committee went on 

to take testimony from the Attorney General, the Director of 

the FBI and Davidian victims. Numerous criminal and civil 

cases relating to the Branch Davidians were pending at the 

time of the hearing.36

• In 1990–92, the Committee investigated whether the Justice 

Department helped run INSLAW, a small computer company 

into insolvency. The Committee subpoenaed documents, 

heard testimony from government officials and Federal 

judges while an independent counsel investigated criminal 

allegations.37

In fact, congressional committees have long been investigating 

matters that are under criminal review by the executive branch. 

For example:

• In 1997–99, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee investigated campaign financing while the FBI and the DOJ’s 

Campaign Finance Task Force was conducting a criminal investigation. The Committee subpoenaed FBI agents, Task 

Force attorneys, and obtained a number of documents including the notes of special agents, draft affidavits, notes of the 

Task Force supervisor and internal memos.38

• In 1997–2000, the House Government Reform Committee 

conducted its own investigation into possible campaign improprieties by the Clinton Administration and the Democratic party. The Committee had Attorney General Janet 

Reno testify during hearings and subpoenaed deliberative 

memos from FBI Director Louis Freeh and Campaign Task 

Force Leader Charles LaBella. When Reno refused to comply, the Committee held her in contempt. Eventually the 

Committee received all the documentation it requested.39

• In 1999–2000, the House Government Reform Committee investigated Federal law enforcement actions at Waco. The 

Committee subpoenaed FBI investigative files, interviewed 

20 FBI agents and reviewed over a million documents. At 

the same time, former Senator Danforth was investigating as 

a Special Counsel.40

• In 2000–2001, the House Government Reform Committee investigated President Clinton’s use of pardons. The majority 

issued 153 requests and subpoenas for documents, and ultimately received over 25,000 pages. U.S. Attorney Mary Jo 

47

41Justice Undone: Clemency Decisions in the Clinton White House, H.R. REP. NO. 107–454 

(2002). 42 Everything Secret Degenerates: The FBI’s Use of Murderers as Informants, H.R. REP. NO. 

108–414 (2003). 43http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs/pdflcom/pdflclintonldoclprodoclrep.pdf 44See e.g., The Role of the Board of Directors in Enron’s Collapse: Hearing before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, 107th Cong. 

(2002). 45 An Inquiry into the Imclone Cancer Drug Story: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 107th Cong. (2002). 46Wrong Numbers: The Accounting Problems at Worldcom: Hearing Before the House Committee on Financial Services, 107th Cong. (2002). 47FBI Official’s Congressional Testimony Was Inaccurate Because He Failed to Present Certain 

Information That Had Been Made Available to Him About the Wen Ho Lee Investigation, General Accounting Office, GAO–01–869R, June 28, 2001.

White was conduction her own criminal investigation at the 

time.41

• In 2000–2001, the House Government Reform Committee investigated the Boston FBI field office’s use of confidential informants. The Committee subpoenaed FBI files, direct evidence, such as wiretap logs, and deliberative memos. At the 

time of this investigation, an FBI agent, John Connelly, was 

under indictment.42

In fact, in 4 years, the Clinton administration turned over 1.2 

million pages of documents—including criminal investigators’ files, 

evidence, and deliberative memoranda—to the House Government 

Reform Committee alone despite ongoing criminal investigations.43

There are scores of examples from other Committees also: 

• For example, in 2002 the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee investigated the collapse of Enron Corporation and its 

outside auditor Arthur Andersen while the SEC investigated 

possible criminal violations. The Committee took testimony 

from several executives during hearings. In all, there were 

30 hearings within the House and Senate between 2001 and 

2003.44

• In 2002, the House Energy and Commerce Committee investigated Martha Stewart for insider trading allegations involving ImClone stock while Martha Stewart and ImClone 

officials were under investigation by the DOJ.45

• In 2002, the House Financial Services Committee investigated the WorldCom scandal while criminal and civil cases 

were pending. During hearings, analysts and the chairman 

of the board testified, while other executives refused to testify citing the 5th Amendment.46

Finally, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has traditionally 

conducted investigations while parts of the administration were 

pursuing criminal investigations. For example:

• In 1998–2001, the GAO investigated the actions of FBI investigators in the Wen Ho Lee espionage case. Lee was 

under investigation by the FBI from 1996 until his indictment in 1999.47

48

48Department of Defense: Military Assistance During the Branch Davidian Incident, General 

Accounting Office, NSIAD–00–240R, Aug. 21, 2000; Department of Defense: Military Assistance 

Provided at Branch Davidian Incident, General Accounting Office, NSIAD/OSI–99–133, Aug. 26, 

1999. 49White House Travel Office, General Accounting Office, AIMD–96–138R, Sept. 18, 1996; 

White House Travel Office Review, General Accounting Office, T–GGD–96–33, Oct. 24, 1995. 50Louis Fisher, House Resolutions of Inquiry, Congressional Research Service, May 12, 2003 

at 7–10. 51FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e)(2).

• In 1999–2000, the GAO investigated the Waco incident while 

DOJ Special Counsel Danforth was still conducting his investigation.48

• In 1994–96, the GAO investigated the White House Travel 

Office under the Clinton administration while criminal investigations were being conducted by the DOJ, the Internal 

Revenue Service, the Treasury Department Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility.49

Because of this long precedent of dual-track investigations, we do 

not believe the limited congressional oversight of the type envisioned by H. Res. 499 would jeopardize DOJ efforts to investigate 

this matter. However, in an effort to create a mutually agreeable 

solution, Ms. Jackson Lee offered an amendment that would limit 

H. Res. 499’s effect to ‘‘only those documents that the Federal official appointed to carry out the criminal investigation of the Department of Justice into the disclosure of Ms. Valerie Plame as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency determines would not 

interfere with the investigation.’’ In effect, it would have vested Mr. 

Fitzgerald with the authority and flexibility to determine what 

would interfere with his own investigation instead of ruling out all 

Plame-related documents whether intrusive on the criminal investigation or not. The amendment was defeated by the majority. 

This sort of delegation is not uncommon. Since the creation of 

the Resolution of Inquiry, the House has given certain respondents 

the latitude to screen their response when appropriate, such as 

when the request implicated military concerns or might be against 

the public interest.50 Allowing the special prosecutor in this situation the same flexibility would not have created an unbearable burden any more than in those situations, especially considering in 

what high regard Mr. Fitzgerald is held in. As Chairman Sensenbrenner stated, ‘‘Mr. Fitzgerald is a man of unimpeachable integrity.’’ It is therefore unclear why doesn’t trust his judgment in determining what would interfere with his investigation. 

B. This resolution does not violate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)’s requirement of grand jury secrecy. 

The majority also argued that the resolution would violate grand 

secrecy requirements. 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) prohibits the disclosure 

of a ‘‘matter occurring before a grand jury.’’ 51 However, as the 

DOJ’s own Federal Grand Jury Practice manual explains, 

Rule 6(e) does not cover all information developed during 

the course of a grand jury investigation, but only information that would reveal the strategy or direction of the investigation, the nature of the evidence produced before the 

grand jury, the views expressed by members of the grand 

49

52 ‘‘Federal Grand Jury Practice,’’ Office of Legal Education, Executive Office for United States 

Attorneys, Department of Justice, August 2000 at 40 (emphasis added) (citing United States v. 

Smith, 123 F.3d 140, 148 (3d Cir. 1997); Anaya v. United States, 815 F.2d 1373, 1379 (10th Cir. 

1987); Fund for Constitutional Gov’t v. National Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856, 869 

(D.C. Cir. 1981); In re Grand Jury Investigation, 630 F.2d 996, 1000 (3d Cir. 1980); In re Grand 

Jury Investigation (Lance), 610 F.2d 202, 217 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Stanford, 589 

F.2d 285, 291 (7th Cir. 1978); United States Industries, Inc. v. United States Dist. Court, 345 

F.2d 18, 21–22, (9th Cir. 1965); United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 280 F.2d 52, 

54 (2d Cir. 1960)). 53 Id. 54 In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 920 F.2d 235, 242–43 (4th Cir. 1990); Anaya v. U.S., 815 F.2d 

1373, 1379–80 (10th Cir. 1987); In re Grand Jury Matter (Catania), 682 F.2d 61, 64 (3rd Cir. 

1982); U.S. v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 280 F.2d 52, 54 (2d Cir. 1960). 55 Catania, 682 F.2d at 64. 56See supra note 32. 57Morton Rosenberg, Investigative Oversight: An Introduction to the Law, Practice and Procedure of Congressional Inquiry, Congressional Research Service, Apr. 7, 1995 at 29–31. See also, 

Investigation into Allegations of Justice Department Misconduct in New England—Volume 1 Before the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, 107th Cong., 1st and 2nd 

Sess.(2001–02) (testimony of Morton Rosenberg, Congressional Research Service, American Law 

Division) (listing 18 distinct Congressional investigations that acquired criminal files from the 

DOJ). 

jury, or anything else that actually occurred before the 

grand jury . . . In short, to come within the Rule 6(e) secrecy prohibition, the material in question must ‘‘reveal 

some secret aspect of the inner workings of the grand 

jury.’’ 52

Material created independently of the grand jury has long been 

held to be outside of the grand jury secrecy rules.53 In particular, 

investigative material gathered by law enforcement agents instead 

of a grand jury has repeatedly been found to be outside of Rule 

6(e).54 That information is gathered with an ‘‘eye toward ultimate 

use in a grand jury proceeding’’ does not invoke secrecy protections.55 As long as the investigative information was not collected 

at the direction of a grand jury nor is presented in a manner that 

reveals what took place in front of the grand jury, disclosure is 

proper.56 In fact, DOJ disclosure of this material would continue 

the long history of its routine disclosure of criminal investigative 

information in response to pressing Congressional inquiries such as 

this.57

The documentation requested by H. Res. 499 would not betray 

the ‘‘inner workings of the grand jury.’’ The records of communications about Ms. Plame—phone logs, copies of emails, internal 

White House memoranda—were created completely independently 

of the grand jury process and are therefore not protected by Rule 

6(e). That some of these records may have been presented to the 

grand jury by Mr. Fitzgerald’s prosecutorial team does not make 

them inaccessible either. This resolution asked for all documentation relating to the leak; and if all documentation were turned over 

to the House without any signification of which documents were actually presented to the grand jury, Rule 6(e) protections would remain intact. 

In that this resolution incidentally requested any materials that 

would reveal grand jury information, such as prosecutorial documents discussing grand jury strategy, or compilations of evidence 

created by the prosecution, we did not expect disclosure. As with 

any request for information, we expected the Department of Justice 

to comply with longstanding criminal procedure rules. To clarify 

this and to cure any potential conflicts with Rule 6(e), Ms. Jackson 

50

Lee offered an amendment that would exempt ‘‘those documents 

the transmission of which [would] violate Rule 6(e) of Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure as determined by the Federal officer appointed to carry out the criminal investigation . . .’’ The amendment failed on a party-line vote of 8–17. 

4. CONCLUSION

This leak should be troubling to every member of this Committee, Republican and Democrat. It compromises our national security, our intelligence assets and reeks of a Nixon-era ‘‘enemies 

list.’’ This action flies in the face of the President’s promise to 

‘‘change the tone’’ in Washington; it is unethical and most likely 

criminal. 

There is a deafening silence from this Congress despite substantial evidence of stonewalling by the Justice Department. When it 

came to 30 year old land deals in Arkansas, the suicide of Vince 

Foster, or a private sexual affair, this Congress had an insatiable 

appetite for investigation. Now when it comes to the disclosure of 

national security secrets by high ranking White House officials, 

there is a sudden lack of appetite for fulfilling our constitutional 

oversight responsibility. That is a shame.

JOHN CONYERS, JR. 

HOWARD L. BERMAN. 

RICK BOUCHER. 

JERROLD NADLER. 

MELVIN L. WATT. 

ZOE LOFGREN. 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE. 

MAXINE WATERS. 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN. 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT. 

ROBERT WEXLER. 

TAMMY BALDWIN. 

ANTHONY D. WEINER. 

ADAM B. SCHIFF. 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ.

Æ