Source: Rep. Rush HoltCongressional Record: January 21, 2004 (Extensions) Page E21-E22 INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF IDENTITY AND EMPLOYMENT OF COVERT U.S. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER ______ HON. RUSH D. HOLT of new jersey in the house of representatives Wednesday, January 21, 2004 Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, six months after a syndicated columnist disclosed the identity of a CIA employee, calling her a CIA "operative," the White House and the Department of Justice have yet to find and hold accountable the person or persons who leaked her name to the press. Congress and the men and women [[Page E22]] of our intelligence community deserve answers. I am today introducing a privileged resolution of inquiry to request that President Bush, the U.S. Attorney General, and U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense provide this Congress with factual information in their possession relating to the disclosure of the identity and employment of Ms. Valerie Plame as a covert employee of the CIA. I am pleased to be joined by U.S. Representatives Eshoo, Reyes, Tauscher, Larson, Turner, Spratt, Moran, Waxman, Lantos, and Conyers as original cosponsors of this timely and important legislation. If passed, this resolution will provide Congress with the information it needs to determine independently the facts surrounding this breach of confidentiality, to assess its effects on U.S. national security and intelligence gathering, and to determine whether legislative action is needed to prevent leaks of this nature in the future. I submit that protecting our Nation's intelligence community, and all who serve in it, is vital to our national security and to the safety of all Americans. At this time, a resolution of inquiry is the best tool at the disposal of the House to determine how this leak occurred and who perpetrated it. I am disappointed by the absence of public outrage among senior officials in our intelligence community and in this administration. They should be standing in solidarity with Ms. Plame and the other Americans who serve in our intelligence community, and they should be speaking out against anyone who would presume to unilaterally decide whose identity should be made public. Their silence is deplorable. Protecting our country and the men and women who protect and defend us is not solely the responsibility of one branch of our Government. It is a shared responsibility under our system of checks and balances. Our Government--including both the Congress and the executive branch--has a duty to ensure that all who work within the U.S. intelligence community are not compromised and that all U.S. intelligence agencies are able to effectively do their jobs and protect the American people from more terrorist attacks and other threats. Some have used the weak excuses that this person's identity was already known by some people or that her work was not very important. These excuses are outrageous. Any unauthorized disclosure potentially puts our agents and our sources and their families at risk and thus weakens our ability to protect Americans. At the least, I hope that this resolution will exert pressure on the ongoing Department of Justice investigation. I fully support the investigation, but there is no reason why it should be taking so long to get any answers at all. This investigation should be among the Department's highest priorities. Over the longer term and after we have determined the origin of this leak, I believe that this Congress has an on-going responsibility to examine thoroughly and oversee how our intelligence community uses human sources, human case officers, and various kinds of cover, and how we go about protecting them. We simply cannot accept the public disclosure of an undercover intelligence operative. We must understand what happened and search for ways to prevent it from happening in the future. The effectiveness of our intelligence agencies demands nothing less.
January 21, 2004Washington, DC– Rep. Rush Holt and a group of House Members today introduced a resolution of inquiry that requests the President, 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 passage all documents in the possession of the President and those officials relating to the disclosure of the identity of Valerie Plame. These documents include: 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. Due to the unique nature of the resolution, the Congress has to act on the resolution within 14 legislative days. Rep. Holt is a Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
REP. HOLT ASKS BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO SUPPLY CONGRESS WITH ALL DOCUMENTS AND PHONE RECORDS RELATING TO CIA LEAK
--Holt introduces Resolution of Inquiry --
“Six months after a syndicated columnist disclosed the name of an undercover CIA operative, the White House and the Department of Justice have yet to find and hold accountable the person or persons who revealed her identity to the press,” said Rep. Rush Holt. “Congress and the men and women of our intelligence community deserve answers.”
Congress has many techniques for obtaining documents from the executive branch, including simple requests, committee investigations, subpoenas, and holding executive officials in contempt. One procedure, used only in the House of Representatives, is the resolution of inquiry, which “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” (Congressional Research Service Report RL31909)
“The Department of Justice investigation has the full support of Congress and should be vigorously pursued, but it is not enough,” said Rep. Rush Holt. “Protecting our country and the men and women who defend it is not a job solely for one branch of government. It is a collective responsibility.”
Other cosponsors include: Tom Lantos (CA-12); Ellen Tauscher (CA-10), Anna Eshoo (CA-14), John Spratt (SC-5), John Larson (CT-1), Silvestre Reyes (TX-16); Turner (TX-2); Jim Moran (VA-8); Henry Waxman (CA-30); John Conyers (MI-14)
###What does Holt’s resolution of inquiry request?
Q&A
RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY
Introduced by Rep. Rush Holt (NJ-12)The resolution requests that the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after passage all documents in the possession of the President and those officials relating to the disclosure of the identity of Valerie Plame. These documents include: 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 (the day that Nicholas Kristof’s column appears in the NY Times breaking the story about Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger) and ending on July 31, 2003.
Why is this resolution necessary?
Six months have passed since syndicated columnist Robert Novak revealed the name of Valerie Plame in a Washington Post column claiming that she was a “CIA Operative.” To date, neither the White House nor the Department of Justice has determined who revealed her identity to the press. Congress, the American public, and the men and women of our intelligence community deserve answers. A resolution of inquiry is the best tool that Members of the House have at their disposal to get answers.
Why should Congress get involved?
Protecting our country and the men and women who defend it is not a job solely for one branch of government. It is a collective responsibility. Our government, including both the Executive Branch and the Congress, has a responsibility to ensure that our intelligence community is not compromised, and that the intelligence community is able to effectively serve our government.
Members of Congress also need to send a clear and unqualified message to everybody who works for the federal government and who have access to classified information – that national security cannot, must not, be influenced by politics. Democrat or Republican, there is simply no room for political leaks of this magnitude and severity. It simply cannot go unpunished because it would set a dangerous precedent for the future.
Why isn’t the DoJ investigation enough?
The DoJ investigation has the full support of Congress and should be vigorously pursued, but it is not enough. This resolution complements and reinforces the importance of the DoJ investigation. If something slips through one inquiry, a well-defined, bipartisan congressional investigation may catch it. The credibility of each will be enhanced by parallel and independent investigations in both the executive and legislative branches. The resolution also sends a strong signal to the DoJ that Congress wants prompt and thorough action. After all, DoJ investigations do not operate under a fixed timetable. Lastly, the DoJ investigation is strictly a criminal investigation. A Congressional investigation would examine not only who committed the leak, but how the leak occurred, what its impact was on the intelligence community, what mechanisms could be employed to prevent leaks of this nature in the future, etc.
What is a resolution of inquiry?
Congress has many techniques for obtaining documents from the executive branch, including simple requests, committee investigations, subpoenas, and holding executive officials in contempt. One procedure, used only in the House of Representatives, is the resolution of inquiry, which “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” (Congressional Research Service Report RL31909)
To whom is a resolution of inquiry directed?
Under House Rule XIII, clause 7, a Member may address a resolution of inquiry “to the head of an executive department.” Resolutions of inquiry have been traditionally directed to the President or to a cabinet officer.
Who determines to which House committee (or committees) the resolution is referred?
The Parliamentarian decides to which committees it will be referred, at which time the Chairman of each Committee on his/her own (or in consultation with the Ranking member) must decide how each Committee will act within the required 14 legislative days.
Where is a resolution of inquiry referred?
A resolution of inquiry is usually referred to the committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter, but on a number of occasions two or more committees have been involved in responding to a resolution of inquiry. After a resolution of inquiry is introduced and referred to committee, the committee sends the resolution to the Administration for action, requesting a timely response to allow the committee to act within the deadline for a committee report.
What are the responsibilities of a committee to which a resolution of inquiry is referred?
A committee has a number of choices after a resolution of inquiry is referred to it. It may vote on the resolution up or down or amend it. It can report favorably or adversely, but an “adverse report” is often accompanied by a substantial amount of information prepared by the executive branch. The quality and quantity of this information can bring the Administration into compliance with the resolution, making further congressional action unnecessary. Usually a committee issues a report on a resolution of inquiry; if it does not, it can be discharged.
What is the timetable for passage of the resolution?
Unlike a normal bill or resolution, the referred committee or committees must make its report to the House on the resolution, either favorably or adversely, within 14 legislative days of introduction, exclusive of the day of introduction and the day of discharge. If the referred committee does not report the resolution back to the House within 14 legislative days, a Member of the House may raise a motion to discharge the committee from further consideration of the resolution at which point the resolution goes to the House Floor for a vote.
What happens if the resolution fails?
Historically, resolutions of inquiry have often prompted the executive branch to provide information to the Congress before the referred committee has had a chance to vote on the resolution. In some cases, committees have been so satisfied with the information that they then voted adversely on the resolution.
Can the Senate introduce a resolution of inquiry?
No, there is no counterpart in current Senate practice for resolutions of inquiry. It is unique to the House of Representatives.