IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 576 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the 

whistleblower complaint of August 12, 2019, made to the Inspector 

General of the Intelligence Community. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 

Mr. SCHIFF (for himself, Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. SOTO, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mrs. 

DEMINGS, Mr. WELCH, Mr. HIMES, Ms. SEWELL of Alabama, Mr. HECK, 

Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, Mr. 

CASTRO of Texas, Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI, and Mr. SWALWELL of California) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with 

respect to the whistleblower complaint of August 12, 

2019, made to the Inspector General of the Intelligence 

Community. 

Whereas the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of 

the House of Representatives (in this resolution referred 

to as the ‘‘Committee’’) is charged with oversight of the 

intelligence community of the United States and all intelligence-related activities and programs of the Federal 

Government; 

Whereas Federal statutes set forth a procedure for employees, assignees, detailees, and contractors of an element of 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 576 IH 

the intelligence community to disclose classified information related to ‘‘urgent concerns’’ to the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (in this 

resolution referred to as the ‘‘Inspector General’’) and to 

the congressional intelligence committees (as defined by 

section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 

U.S.C. 3003)) in a manner that protects whistleblowers 

from reprisal and threats of reprisal while also protecting 

the national security of the United States, including pursuant to section 103H(k)(5) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 

3033(k)(5)) and section 8H of the Inspector General Act 

of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.); 

Whereas an ‘‘urgent concern’’ is defined by section 

103H(k)(5)(G)(i) of the National Security Act of 1947 

(50 U.S.C. 3033(k)(5)(G)(i)) to include ‘‘[a] serious or 

flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive 

order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not 

include differences of opinions concerning public policy 

matters’’; 

Whereas since at least the establishment of the Inspector 

General in 2010, the Director of National Intelligence 

and the Inspector General have never withheld from the 

Committee a whistleblower complaint under section 

103H(k)(5) of the National Security Act of 1947, regardless of whether the complaint was determined to be credible or satisfy the definition of ‘‘urgent concern’’; 

Whereas, on August 12, 2019, the Inspector General received 

a complaint (in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Complaint’’) from an employee, assignee, detailee, or conVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:38 Sep 25, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR576.IH HR576

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 576 IH 

tractor of an element of the intelligence community (in 

this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Whistleblower’’) regarding an ‘‘urgent concern’’ that the Whistleblower intended to report to Congress; 

Whereas the independent Inspector General, within the 14- 

day period required by section 103H(k)(5)(B) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3033(k)(5)(B)), 

conducted a preliminary review to determine whether the 

information alleged in the Complaint appeared credible 

and whether it met the statutory definition of an ‘‘urgent 

concern’’; 

Whereas the Inspector General concluded that the Complaint 

appeared credible and that it met the statutory definition 

of an ‘‘urgent concern’’; 

Whereas, on August 26, 2019, as required by section 

103H(k)(5)(B) of the National Security Act of 1947, the 

Inspector General transmitted the Complaint, accompanying materials, and the Inspector General’s determination that the Complaint was a credible urgent concern, to the Acting Director of National Intelligence (in 

this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Acting Director’’); 

Whereas section 103H(k)(5)(C) of the National Security Act 

of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3033(k)(5)(C)) states unambiguously 

that the Director of National Intelligence ‘‘shall, within 

7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal 

to the congressional intelligence committees, together 

with any comments the Director considers appropriate’’; 

Whereas contrary to section 103H(k)(5)(C) of the National 

Security Act of 1947, the Acting Director, in consultation 

with the Department of Justice, which conducted its own 

fact-specific analysis, attempted to overrule the indeVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:38 Sep 25, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR576.IH HR576

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
4 

•HRES 576 IH 

pendent Inspector General’s determination and the law, 

claiming that the Complaint did not meet the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘urgent concern’’ because the Complaint 

did not ‘‘relate to the funding, administration or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility 

and supervision of the DNI’’ and that no statute—including statutes governing whistleblowers—requires disclosure of the Complaint to the congressional intelligence 

committees; 

Whereas the Acting Director has breached his obligations 

under section 103H(k)(5)(C) of the National Security 

Act of 1947, and potentially other statutes, by refusing 

to transmit the Complaint to the congressional intelligence committees by no later than September 2, 2019; 

Whereas the Inspector General, in explaining his disagreement with the Acting Director to the congressional intelligence committees, and his view as to why the Complaint 

readily met the definition of an ‘‘urgent concern’’, observed that the Complaint ‘‘relates to one of the most significant and important of the DNI’s responsibilities to 

the American people’’; 

Whereas the Trump Administration’s interpretation of section 103H(k)(5) of the National Security Act of 1947 

represents a stark and unprecedented break with how 

whistleblower procedures have been interpreted in the 

past, raises serious and related questions about the application of Federal laws relating to whistleblowers, and undermines the Committee’s statutory oversight over elements of the intelligence community and intelligence-related activities and programs of the Federal Government; 

Whereas, on September 9, 2019, the Inspector General notified the Committee of the Complaint and the Acting DiVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:38 Sep 25, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR576.IH HR576

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
5 

•HRES 576 IH 

rector’s refusal to transmit the Complaint to the congressional intelligence committees; 

Whereas, on September 13, 2019, in accordance with the 

Rules of Procedure of the Committee and the Rules of 

the House of Representatives for the 116th Congress, the 

Committee served a subpoena (in this resolution referred 

to as the ‘‘Subpoena’’) to the Acting Director to produce 

to the Committee the Complaint and accompanying materials, the Inspector General’s credibility determination, 

and any and all records related to the decision to withhold the Complaint from the Committee; 

Whereas the Acting Director, notwithstanding the Subpoena 

and in violation of a clear statutory command, continues 

to refuse to transmit the Complaint and the Inspector 

General’s determination to the Committee; 

Whereas notwithstanding a specific request from the Inspector General, the Acting Director has refused to provide 

direction to the Whistleblower, through the Inspector 

General, on how to contact the congressional intelligence 

committees directly ‘‘in accordance with appropriate security practices’’ pursuant to clauses (i) and (ii) of section 

103H(k)(5)(D) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 

U.S.C. 3033(k)(5)(D)(i) and (ii)); 

Whereas, as a direct result of the Acting Director’s violation 

of a clear and lawful statutory directive, the Committee 

is not fully and currently informed of alleged significant 

problems and deficiencies relating to programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Committee is unable 

to exercise its constitutionally mandated oversight, investigative, and legislative responsibilities; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
6 

•HRES 576 IH 

Whereas a Washington Post article on September 20, 2019, 

reported that the White House Counsel ‘‘has been engaged in the matter since shortly after the whistleblower 

action surfaced . . . helping to identify legal obstacles to 

the sharing of information that could be politically damaging to [President Donald J.] Trump’’; 

Whereas only days after the Director of National Intelligence 

assured Congress that the Whistleblower would be protected against ‘‘any retaliation or adverse consequence’’, 

President Donald J. Trump himself publicly has derided 

the Whistleblower as ‘‘a political hack job’’ and a ‘‘partisan person’’ and questioned whether the Whistleblower 

is ‘‘on our Country’s side’’; and 

Whereas allegations of such unprecedented and highly inappropriate efforts by President Donald J. Trump, and 

White House and other senior officials of the Trump Administration to— 

(1) discredit the Whistleblower and other lawful 

whistleblowers; 

(2) influence the Acting Director to violate a clear 

statutory command; and 

(3) not comply in full with the Subpoena, 

embody a serious breach of the obligation imposed by article II, section 3 of the Constitution of the United 

States on the President and the subordinates of the 

President to ‘‘take care that the Laws be faithfully executed’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
7 

•HRES 576 IH 

1 (1) the Acting Director immediately must rem2 edy the executive branch’s continuing violation of 

3 section 103H(k)(5) of the National Security Act of 

4 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3033(k)(5)) and related provisions 

5 of law— 

6 (A) by forwarding the Complaint, accom7 panying materials, the Inspector General’s de8 termination that the Complaint was a credible 

9 urgent concern, and any comments the Acting 

10 Director considers appropriate, to the congres11 sional intelligence committees; and 

12 (B) by providing to the Whistleblower, 

13 through the Inspector General, any necessary 

14 direction on how to contact the congressional 

15 intelligence committees directly and in accord16 ance with appropriate security practices; 

17 (2) the Acting Director immediately must com18 ply in full with the Subpoena; 

19 (3) the Acting Director immediately must take 

20 affirmative, public steps to ensure that the Whistle21 blower and any other person who may have knowl22 edge with respect to the allegations contained in the 

23 Complaint, are fully protected from any and all re24 prisal or threats of reprisal, as a consequence of 

25 such reporting; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
8 

•HRES 576 IH 

1 (4) the Acting Director, the Department of Jus2 tice, and the White House immediately must pre3 serve all records, documents, communications, and 

4 other information, regardless of form, which may 

5 refer or relate to allegations advanced by the Com6 plaint, including the decision to withhold the Com7 plaint from the congressional intelligence commit8 tees; and 

9 (5) President Donald J. Trump, his associates, 

10 and senior officials of the Administration imme11 diately must cease their public efforts to discredit 

12 the Whistleblower, as well as others who may have 

13 knowledge with respect to the allegations contained 

14 in the Complaint. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS