REPRESENTATIVE RUSH HOLT
RE: CIA LEAK - VIEW OF REPRESENTATIVE RUSH HOLT
Thu Feb 5 16:54:06 2004
64.140.159.211

DISSENTING VIEW OF REPRESENTATIVE RUSH HOLT
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_rpt/h108-413

Mr. Chairman, I offer a dissenting view following the consideration and adverse report of H. Res. 499 by this Committee.

More than six months after columnist Robert Novak printed the name of a former intelligence employee and alleged that she was a covert agent, the White House and the Department of Justice have yet to find and hold accountable those officials responsible for the leak. Answers are overdue.

Last week, I introduced a resolution of inquiry, H. Res. 499, in the U.S. House of Representatives requesting that the Bush Administration provide Congress with all factual information in its possession, including phone records, relating to this leak. If passed, this resolution will provide Congress with the information it needs to determine independently the facts surrounding the leak, assess its damaging effects on U.S. national security and intelligence gathering, and determine whether legislative action is needed to prevent leaks of this nature in the future.

Protecting the functioning of 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 this House to determine how this leak occurred and who perpetrated it.

H. Res. 499 has been referred to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the Judiciary, International Relations, and Armed Services Committees. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was the first to act earlier today, albeit prematurely in my estimation.

If we have learned anything from the war against terrorism, it is that our national security hinges upon human intelligence and the men and women who gather it. Before I introduced this resolution, I talked with a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and they told me I was doing the right thing. I wish all of them had been willing to stand up today for the men and women in the Intelligence Community who put their lives at risk to keep our nation safe.

Congress, especially this Committee, has an oversight role. To say that Congress should not act because the Department of Justice, another agency, is investigating is like saying that if the Securities and Exchange Commission is looking at wrongdoing at Enron, no Congressional inquiry is appropriate.

I am severely disappointed at the lack of bipartisan cooperation on this Committee on a matter so fundamental to the national security of this country. I am disappointed that the Chairman did not even permit an open hearing to allow the public the ability to assess and judge for themselves our deliberations. This matter could have, and should have, been discussed without reference to any classified information. I must conclude that the hearing was closed to stifle debate, rather than to protect classified information. I am disappointed that he did not permit, at the least, opening statements to be on the public record. And I am disappointed that a majority of my colleagues voted yes on the motion to report H. Res. 499 adversely.

Intelligence officers are surely disappointed too, not only by today's vote, but also by the general lack of public outrage among senior officials in our Intelligence Community, the White House, and now in the Congress at the leak of the officer's identity. To underscore this point, I included with my remarks the January 22, 2004 letter sent by ten of our retired intelligence professionals urging an immediate bi-partisan Congressional investigation of this affair.

I propose that the members of this Committee who did not want to report H. Res. 499 favorably go with me to stand before our intelligence officers to explain the Committee's action. Let us tell them face-to-face not to worry because we believe that somebody else is looking out for their interest. Let us tell them that there might be a criminal prosecution at some time, so Congress need not do anything.

There used to be a strong code of secrecy with respect to national intelligence. Maybe the days are past when the CIA was hidden behind the Army Mapping Center, the NSA was `no such agency', and the National Reconnaissance Office did not exist, but preserving the cover of officers remains essential not only for them to work and recruit sources, but even to survive.

Our intelligence officers deserve better treatment from this committee. I am hopeful that members of the Judiciary, International Relations, and Armed Services committees will stand up for them in our inexcusable absence.

Attachment.

RUSH HOLT.

Insert offset folio 15 here HR413.001

Insert offset folio 16 here HR413.002

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

It cannot be doubted that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) is dedicated to the protection of the nation's intelligence assets. It fact, with one unfortunate exception in the mid-1990s, the HPSCI has expressed time and again its commitment to the integrity of classified information provided to it by the Executive Branch. The reason for this is because we understand very certainly that exposing sources and methods not just hinders the nation's ability to protect itself from those who seek to do us harm, but also because it can mean life or death for our human assets. It is for this very reason that a substantial portion of the Committee's business is carried out in closed session. The Committee takes seriously its responsibilities in this regard and the Committee closed a portion of the mark up on this Resolution of Inquiry because, in fact, classified information was discussed. To not have closed a portion of the meeting to the public would have been nothing short of irresponsible.

The HPSCI is committed to strict enforcement of the laws and regulations that exist to protect the nation's classified intelligence information, including the enforcement of the `Intelligence Identifies Protection Act of 1982.' The HPSCI has and will continue to engage in dedicated and responsible oversight of issues relating to any potential leak of classified intelligence information, as well as other matters affecting the U.S. Intelligence Community. The fact that much of the HPSCI's oversight work must take place in closed session does not mitigate the importance of, or the probing nature of, the oversight to which U.S. Intelligence Community is subjected by the HPSCI. To suggest otherwise de-legitimizes the critical and significant work in which all Members of the HPSCI engage on behalf of their constituents and their colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The facts of the matter underlying the Resolution of Inquiry establish that the Department of Justice is taking this investigation very seriously. The Department of Justice is taking all appropriate steps to resolve the issues presented to it and using all investigative and prosecutorial tools available to it to determine, to the extent possible, legal responsibility for this matter. The HPSCI, of course, will continue to monitor developments of this matter in the course of its oversight responsibilities.

The men and women of the U.S. Intelligence Community can be assured that if there were any proof available that the Justice Department was not pursing that matter as vigorously as they should, or that there were any irregularities in the processes that are being used, there may very well have been a different outcome on this Resolution in the HPSCI. The vote of the HPSCI on this Resolution, and the procedure used to dispose of this Resolution in committee, should in no way he used to characterize an individual Member's motives.

Regrettably, partisanship does exist in the world. We on the HPSCI must avoid it in every way possible. It should not intrude upon the serious and substantive oversight work of the HPSCI. The vote on the motion to report the Resolution of Inquiry to the House adversely was a bi-partisan/non-partisan vote. The HPSCI should be applauded for its continued ability to act in the best interests of the nation, even during such political times.

Porter J. Goss,

Chairman.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_rpt/h108-413