Markup: The Microenterprise Results and Accountability Act of 2004; Requesting Documents in the Possession of the President and Officials Relating to the Disclosure of the Identity and Employment of Ms. Valerie Plame, etc., etc.

SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS

 Page 1       TOP OF DOC

92–187PDF
2004
THE MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2004; REQUESTING DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PRESIDENT AND OFFICIALS RELATING TO THE DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY AND EMPLOYMENT OF MS. VALERIE PLAME; AMENDING THE STATE DEPARTMENT BASIC AUTHORITIES ACT OF 1956 TO EXPAND THE REWARDS PROGRAM; THE BELARUS DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003; URGING PASSAGE OF A RESOLUTION ADDRESSING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; COMMENDING INDIA ON ITS CELEBRATION OF REPUBLIC DAY; EXPRESSING SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIMS OF THE DEC. 26, 2003 EARTHQUAKE IN BAM, IRAN; AND RECOGNIZING STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE U.S. AND THE PEOPLE OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS IN THE PURSUIT OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY, ETC.

MARKUP

BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON
H.R. 3818, H. Res. 499, H.R. 3782, H.R. 854, H. Res. 530,

 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

H. Con. Res. 15, H. Res. 526 and H. Con. Res. 364

FEBRUARY 25, 2004

Serial No. 108–100

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey,
Vice Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York

 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
RON PAUL, Texas
NICK SMITH, Michigan
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM SMITH, Washington
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
CHRIS BELL, Texas

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel
ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director
JOCK SCHARFEN, Chief Counsel
LIBERTY DUNN, Staff Associate

C O N T E N T S

MARKUP OF

H.R. 3818, To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to improve the results and accountability of microenterprise development assistance programs, and for other purposes

 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

En Bloc Amendments to H.R. 3818 offered by the Honorable Gregory W. Meeks, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York

    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

    H.R. 3782, To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to increase the maximum amount of an award available under the Department of State rewards program, to expand the eligibility criteria to receive an award, to authorize nonmonetary awards, to publicize the existence of the rewards program, and for other purposes

    H.R. 854, To provide for the promotion of democracy, human rights, and rule of law in the Republic of Belarus and for the consolidation and strengthening of Belarus sovereignty and independence

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 854 offered by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and Vice Chairman, Committee on International Relations

    H. Res. 530, Urging the appropriate representative of the United States to the 60th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to introduce a resolution calling upon the Government of the People's Republic of China to end its human rights violations in China, and for other purposes

 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    H. Con. Res. 15, Commending India on its celebration of Republic Day

    H. Res. 526, Expressing the sympathy of the House of Representatives for the victims of the devastating earthquake that occurred on December 26, 2003, in Bam, Iran

    H. Con. Res. 364, To recognize more than 5 decades of strategic partnership between the United States and the people of the Marshall Islands in the pursuit of international peace and security, and for other purposes

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations: Prepared statement on H. Res. 499

APPENDIX

    The Honorable Henry J. Hyde: Prepared statement on H. Res. 3782

    The Honorable Doug Bereuter, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska: Prepared statement on H.R. 854

    The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the State of California: Prepared statement on H. Con. Res. 15

 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Honorable Ron Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas: Prepared statements on H. Res. 499 and H. Res. 854

    The Honorable Nick Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan: Prepared statement on H. Res. 499

    The Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of California: Prepared statement on H. Res. 499

THE MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2004; REQUESTING DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PRESIDENT AND OFFICIALS RELATING TO THE DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY AND EMPLOYMENT OF MS. VALERIE PLAME; AMENDING THE STATE DEPARTMENT BASIC AUTHORITIES ACT OF 1956 TO EXPAND THE REWARDS PROGRAM; THE BELARUS DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003; URGING PASSAGE OF A RESOLUTION ADDRESSING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; COMMENDING INDIA ON ITS CELEBRATION OF REPUBLIC DAY; EXPRESSING SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIMS OF THE DEC. 26, 2003 EARTHQUAKE IN BAM, IRAN; AND RECOGNIZING STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE U.S. AND THE PEOPLE OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS IN THE PURSUIT OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY, ETC.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2004

House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:50 a.m. in Room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 3818, ''The Microenterprise Results and Accountability Act of 2004,'' for purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the House. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The Chair recognizes Mr. Smith for purposes of a statement.

    [H.R. 3818 follows:]




92187a.AAB




92187a.AAC




92187a.AAD

 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

92187a.AAE




92187a.AAF




92187a.AAG




92187a.AAH




92187a.AAI

 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

92187a.AAJ




92187a.AAK




92187a.AAL




92187a.AAM




92187a.AAN

 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

92187a.AAO




92187a.AAP




92187a.AAQ




92187a.AAR




92187a.AAS

 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

92187a.AAT




92187a.AAU




92187a.AAV




92187a.AAW

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as you know, in recent years congressional and non-government support for microenterprise programs had grown tremendously. Two bills authorizing funding for microenterprise programs have passed Congress and been signed into law since the year 2000. The most recent bill became law in 2003 and authorized microenterprise programs for fiscal year 2004.

 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Briefly, as my colleagues know, microenterprise programs are popular because they provide loans to poor entrepreneurs in the developing world to help them start up and expand their own small businesses and to build existing financial institutions. Microenterprise has been an effective means of empowering the poor and expanding their economic earnings potential. It is based on the hands up rather than hand out philosophy.

    Despite the program's successes, however, a recent GAO report requested by you, Chairman Hyde, highlighted problems with the implementation of existing programs. The GAO found that these programs are indeed helping poor people expand their businesses, but found that a lack of coordination in reporting in USAID is hampering results.

    Currently there is no official account, amazingly, for microenterprise within the Agency for International Development, no centralized accountability for microenterprise funds, and private sector consultants are contracted out to distribute an inappropriately large portion of the program.

    In fact, USAID's own recent assessment showed that of $110 million given directly to microenterprise organizations, nearly $18 million went to consultants. With numerous worthwhile established organizations who have the capacity, capability and expertise to deliver services directly to poor clients, this clearly is not the most effective use of funds.

    This legislation, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3818, which you and Mr. Lantos have both co-sponsored, will make a significant difference in trying to improve an already fine enterprise. It increases the Administration's oversight of and responsibility for dispensing a microenterprise fund, increases better accountability through the establishment of an official program director and a microenterprise account.

 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    It ensures that more money goes directly to impoverished clients instead of extensive consultants and emphasizes the importance of microenterprise by establishing a separate title called the ''Microenterprise Development Assistance in the Foreign Assistance Act,'' and it reauthorizes the funding for microenterprise programs for 2005 and 2006.

    Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank all the Members and not only the co-sponsors, you and Mr. Lantos, but I also want to thank your staff. I want to especially thank Peter Smith for his hard and diligent work on this, George Phillips, who has also worked very hard, David Abramowitz again for his input and help in drafting and working out all the details. Without that crucial staff support, this bill would not be before us today, and I do want to thank them sincerely.

    I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman HYDE. Thank you. The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman?

    Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you and Mr. Smith for working with the Democratic side on a bill that truly does improve upon U.S. microenterprise assistance programs.

    I will not take the Committee's time to dwell on the horrible problems with the world's three billion poor people who cannot find work, but essentially microenterprise has become the way in which these people create their own jobs by starting small businesses.

 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Microenterprise assistance provides micro loans to these people, sometimes as small as $100, as well as business training which helps stimulate productivity, enables the microenterprise client to build assets, purchase inventory at the best prices, and by investing and repaying the loan and increasing his or her business as a result the borrower reaps not only an increase in income, but also increased self-esteem through self-help

    I do not know about the rest of you, but people I know who have looked at and worked with these programs think they are the most remarkable thing that we do in all the foreign assistance sphere.

    Mr. Smith has talked about what this legislation does, and I do want to mention that recent GAO reports have pointed out some weaknesses in the current microenterprise programs, and this legislation creates greater oversight by obtaining more detailed information regarding the implementation of those programs.

    I am also pleased to see this legislation seeks to increase the support for the microenterprise institutions, working tireless to help those living in poverty get much needed financial tools and resources.

    I would like to reiterate our support for USAID and groups such as Results, Axion, Opportunity National and countless others that are working in poor communities around the world to help the very poorest families get the financial tools they need to support and provide for their families.

 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I believe the gentleman from New York has a few amendments to this legislation.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

    Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman, and the Chair recognizes Mr. Meeks.

    Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to thank my colleagues and Mr. Smith and Mr. Berman and yourself for creating a well-designed bill that will help move impoverished communities toward stability. I would like to offer my three amendments en block.

    Chairman HYDE. Without objection. So ordered. The clerk will report the en block amendment.

    Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks. Page 6, after Line 5 insert the following:

''Given that microenterprise programs have been successful in empowering . . .''——

    Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading for the en block amendments is dispensed with.

 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    [The en bloc amendments of Mr. Meeks follow:]

92187a.eps

92187b.eps

92187c.eps

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendments.

    Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The first amendment would help to target microenterprise programs to racial and ethnic groups in countries in which a strong relationship between race and ethnicity or poverty exists, such as in many Latin American countries where indigent persons and persons of African descent make up the bulk of the poor.

    Because microenterprise programs have been successful empowering disenfranchised groups such as women, it seems that these programs could have a similar impact in communities where persons have been disenfranchised due to their race or ethnic ancestry. This inclusion to the bill would only help to further target impoverished communities.

    The second amendment would provide grants to microenterprise institutions for training, technical assistance and business development services in the areas of market analysis and product development. Market analysis and product development are integral for any business to be effective and competitive, especially if merchandise from the business is to be sold in the United States market.

 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    This change would be especially instrumental for programs in Africa that help hand craft goods coming to the United States market. This is a small change to the bill that can have a large—a huge—impact on helping microenterprises increase their revenue and build their assets, and I believe we all support that goal.

    Finally, similar to the first amendment, the third would focus on microenterprise programs in countries in which a strong relationship between race and ethnicity or poverty exists. However, this amendment requests report language on the percentage of beneficiaries of assistance in these countries.

    This will allow us to continue to monitor so that we know how successful our current programs are and in fact empower these groups that have been disenfranchised based upon their ancestry, and it could also help determine in the future the extent to which these programs could be targeted to groups and other groups in the future.

    Mr. Chairman, I strongly would urge my colleagues to support these amendments for our bill. They only would enhance the bill and make sure that we can begin to eradicate some problems that have been long-existing just simply based upon some ancestry throughout whether it is Africa, Latin America or other parts of the world.

    I yield back.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Chairman?

 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman HYDE. Who is seeking recognition?

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Chris Smith.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Houghton?

    Mr. HOUGHTON. I do not know that I am next, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask Mr. Meeks a question.

    In terms of training, if you are interested in starting your own business, need the funds, do you first have the training or start the business and then have it parallel to your business experience?

    Mr. MEEKS. Well, I think it is basically parallel because what happens is first with a lot of these places you have to introduce them to the opportunity of having a business there and that they have a desire. If they have a desire and they are training with the idea we are able to include more people and have a greater likelihood of success.

    Some individuals who want to get in business now, they just do not have the wherewithal, and we want to encourage them to continue to get involved with a business.

    Chairman HYDE. Is there any further discussion?

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Chairman? Very briefly on your right.

 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Smith of New Jersey.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the amendments offered by Mr. Meeks do strengthen the language in the bill. As we have found or as GAO has found, I should say, micro finance, for example, generally has served the poor clustered around the poverty line, but not the very poor.

    It would be interesting to know, and I think in the interest of accountability and reaching the poorest of the poor, which, as GAO indicates, are not being reached, there may be a link here, and I think his amendment only strengthens the bill.

    Chairman HYDE. Is there any further discussion?

    [No response.]

    Chairman HYDE. If not, the question occurs on the amendment en block. All in favor say aye.

    [Chorus of ayes.]

    Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.

    [No response.]

 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.

    Are there any further amendments?

    [No response.]

    Chairman HYDE. If not, the question occurs on the motion to report the bill, H.R. 3818, favorably as amended. All in favor say aye.

    [Chorus of ayes.]

    Chairman HYDE. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to report the bill. Further proceedings on this motion will be postponed until the Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum.

    Pursuant to notice, I now call up 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,'' for purposes of markup and move its adverse recommendation to the House.

 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

92187c.AAB




92187c.AAC

    Chairman HYDE. Without objection, the resolution will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The Chair yields himself 5 minutes for the purpose of a statement.

    On January 21, 2004, Representative Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, introduced H. Res. 499, a resolution of inquiry, ''Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of State, 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.''

    The resolution of inquiry, which is the fourth such resolution concerning Iraq in one way or another that this Committee has considered during the past year, has been referred to three other House Committees, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Armed Services.

    H. Res. 499 would direct the Executive Branch officials to transmit to the House documents that are the subject of an ongoing grand jury investigation by the Department of Justice. In light of this, the resolution of inquiry should be reported adversely on the grounds that a competing criminal investigation is ongoing.

 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Department of Justice opened the criminal investigation in September 2003 into whether the government officials who allegedly identified Valerie Plame to the press violated Federal law that prohibits identifying covert agents.

    On October 3, 2003, the White House Counsel sent a memorandum to all White House employees to turn in copies of documents for the ongoing probe into who leaked the name of a CIA operative. The press reported that the investigation soon included the State and Defense Departments, as well as the White House and the CIA.

    Press reports indicate that the FBI has interviewed more than three dozen Bush Administration officials, including political advisor Carl Rove and Press Secretary Scott McClellan. Reportedly, box loads of documents have been forwarded to the FBI investigation team, including White House phone logs and e-mails.

    The Attorney General recused himself from the case in December 2003. Deputy Attorney General James Comey then appointed United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to lead the investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald is a veteran prosecutor with experience in national security matters and by all accounts enjoys a stellar reputation.

    According to press reports, Mr. Fitzgerald has more independence than required under Department of Justice Regulations. For instance, he, unlike other U.S. Attorneys, does not have to seek approval from Justice officials before issuing subpoenas or granting immunity.

 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Just last month, the press reported that a grand jury convened in Washington to hear testimony on this matter. As we all know, grand juries have sweeping authority that allows investigators to subpoena witnesses and documents, including the same documents requested in House Res. 499.

    By all reports, Mr. Fitzgerald is pursuing the investigation into the Valerie Plame matter aggressively and responsibly. It would be irresponsible for this Committee to allow H. Res. 499 to jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation by the Department of Justice. Under the circumstances, this is a matter that is best left to the grand jury.

    Of equal importance to deliberations of this Committee is the action taken by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee of primary jurisdiction over the subject matter of H. Res. 499. The Intelligence Committee, in a bipartisan vote that saw only three of the five Democrats present vote in favor of the resolution, reported unfavorably without amendment on the resolution.

    As a former Member of the Intelligence Committee, I am confident that the Committee remains committed to the enforcement of the laws and regulations that exist to protect the nation's classified intelligence information, including the enforcement of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

    I have no reason to doubt the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee when he publicly commits his Committee to continue to monitor and conduct oversight of this matter. Protecting the identities of our intelligence agents, after all, is best left to the Intelligence Committee. Consequently, it is my intention to have H. Res. 499 reported adversely.

 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I would like to mention parenthetically that Mr. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor named by the Attorney General, is the U.S. Attorney for the Chicago region and has just recently indicted several Republicans, including the last Governor of the State of Illinois, on 22 counts. I think it is safe to say he is not in the least bit moved by political consideration.

    I now turn to my esteemed colleague, Mr. Berman, for any remarks he may wish to make.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hyde follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

H. RES. 499

    On January 21, 2004, Rep. Holt (D–NJ) introduced H. Res. 499, a resolution of inquiry 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.

    This resolution of inquiry—the fourth such resolution concerning Iraq, in one way or another, that this Committee has considered during the past year—has been referred to three other House Committees: the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI); the Committee on the Judiciary; and the Committee on Armed Services.

 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    H. Res. 499 would direct the Executive Branch officials to transmit to the House of Representatives documents that are the subject of an ongoing grand jury investigation by the Department of Justice. In light of this, the resolution of inquiry should be reported adversely on the grounds that a competing criminal investigation is ongoing.

    The Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation in September 2003 into whether government officials who allegedly identified Valerie Plame to the press violated Federal law that prohibits identifying covert agents. On October 3, 2003, the White House Counsel sent a memorandum to all White House employees to turn in copies of documents for the ongoing probe into who leaked the name of a CIA operative. The press reported that the investigation soon included the State and Defense Departments, as well as the White House and CIA.

    Press reports indicate that the FBI has interviewed more than three dozen Bush Administration officials, including political adviser Karl Rove and press secretary Scott McClellan. Reportedly, ''boxloads'' of documents have been forwarded to the FBI investigation team, including White House phone logs and e-mails.

    The Attorney General recused himself from the case in December 2003. Deputy Attorney General James Comey then appointed United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to lead the investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald is a veteran prosecutor with experience in national security matters and by all accounts enjoys a stellar reputation.

    According to press reports, Mr. Fitzgerald has more independence than required under Department of Justice Regulations. For instance, Mr. Fitzgerald, unlike other U.S. attorneys, does not have to seek approval from Justice officials in Washington before issuing subpoenas or granting immunity.

 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Just last month, the press reported that a grand jury convened in Washington, D.C., to hear testimony on this matter. As we all know, a grand jury has sweeping authority that allows investigators to subpoena witnesses and documents, including the same documents requested in H. Res. 499.

    By all reports, Mr. Fitzgerald is pursuing the investigation into the Valerie Plame matter aggressively and responsibly. It would be irresponsible for this committee to allow H. Res. 499 to jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation by the Department of Justice. Under the circumstances, that is a matter best left to the grand jury.

    Of equal importance to deliberations of this committee is the action taken by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the committee of primary jurisdiction over the subject matter of H. Res. 499. The Intelligence Committee, in a bipartisan vote that saw only three of the five democrats present vote in favor of the resolution, reported unfavorably without amendment on the resolution.

    As a former member of the Intelligence Committee, I am confident that the Committee remains committed to the enforcement of the laws and regulations that exist to protect the Nation's classified intelligence information, including the enforcement of the ''Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.'' I have no reason to doubt the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee when he publicly commits his Committee to continue to monitor and conduct oversight of this matter. Protecting the identities of our intelligence agents, after all, is best left to the Intelligence Committee.

 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Consequently, it is my intention to have H. Res. 499 reported adversely.

    I now turn to my esteemed colleague, Howard Berman, for any remarks he may wish to make.

    Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to raise several points that you discussed in your opening statement.

    First, this is not about Iraq. This is about the question of whether or not the intentional disclosure of the identity of a U.S. covert intelligence agent poses the kind of threat to our national security and to the dedicated intelligence officers who risk their lives for their country daily and the extent to which Congress appropriately has a role in pursuing this issue independently of any criminal investigation.

    The thing that most stuns me about the comments in the opening statement were the notion that somehow there is something inappropriate about Congress pursuing through investigations, subpoenas, calling witnesses, subpoenaing witnesses, trying to get documents from the Executive Branch at the time there is a criminal investigation. This is a case of terrible short-term memory loss.

    Chairman HYDE. Would the gentleman yield?

    Mr. BERMAN. Yes, I would be happy to.

    Chairman HYDE. I am trying to understand the gentleman's displeasure with my concept of when you have a grand jury and you have a very effective U.S. Attorney or special prosecutor and you have the Intelligence Committee exercising oversight to have additional Committees looking at the same matters can impair the expedition and the movement toward a resolution.

 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    While I know it provides publicity for those people seeking it and maybe some political advantage, it does not help get to the bottom of who did make this disclosure, if anybody did, and whether it was intentional or inadvertent.

    We need to know those things, but we are finding them out through a grand jury. I just simply think redundancy in a matter like this is not helpful. That is my only purpose.

    Thank you, Mr. Berman.

    Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time, let me try to elaborate why I am so stunned to hear the Chairman and a very distinguished Member, who I am sure is aware of what happened on his Committee and on the Government Reform Committee and on the International Relations Committee, on the Judiciary Committee, during the past five or 6 years in terms of congressional investigations while grand juries were being convened either through the Justice Department or with independent counsel to pursue documents and to pursue matters that they thought was of interest and appropriate for congressional oversight.

    Let us start with United States technology transfers to China. There are distinguished Members of this Committee who were involved in that. The Department of Defense investigation included a grand jury. At the same time that they were looking at Lockheed-Martin and Boeing, the International Relations and National Security Committees held hearings. The House Science Committee held hearings.

 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China held hearings in 1998 and 1999 with a report in May 1999. They used their subpoena power. They brought witnesses. They dealt very directly with the issue of having both criminal and civil liability consequences for individuals and companies at the same time as the Justice Department was pursuing a grand jury investigation.

    There is no attack in this matter on Mr. Fitzgerald. He has a tremendous reputation, as the Chairman mentioned. The fact is all of his powers and all his authority that he has now are delegated to him by the Administration and can be taken away at any given moment by the Administration. He is an appointment of the President, and even if he were under the old independent counsel law, the notion that this Congress does not pursue matters that are under investigation by the Executive Branch in terms of law enforcement boggles the mind.

    Think about the Travel Office of the White House. Think about the investigation by the Congress of the security related disclosures involving John Wong. Think about the matters involving Waco, Inslaw—the small computer company that the Justice Department helped run it into insolvency.

    The Government Affairs Committee investigated campaign financing while the FBI and the DOJ's campaign finance task force were conducting a criminal investigation, the House Government Reform Committee conducted its own investigation into possible campaign improprieties by the Clinton Administration, the House Government Reform Committee investigated President Clinton's use of pardons.

    Every one of these was going on while in that case U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White was conducting her own criminal investigation at the very same time. The notion that anyone in the Majority here would now suggest in response to this that this is totally inappropriate and then to charge that it is political——

 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Well, I would say that when you have a disclosure of the identity of a covert operative for one of our intelligence agencies into the newspapers and every authorized Committee of Congress refuses to conduct an investigation, and I have no information that would make me think that the House Select Committee on Intelligence or the National Security Committee or the House Judiciary Committee or this Committee or the House Government Reform Committee is pursuing any investigation of this matter at this particular time.

    I would suggest that if we are going to ascribe motivation to what people are doing and why they are doing it, one could come to the conclusion that it was a political effort to insulate an Administration from not only an embarrassing, but, much more seriously, a very damaging breach, a potential breach of the law and certainly of appropriate conduct by Executive Branch officials.

    I do not know that we want to go back and forth about what is political or not. All I know is that 10 former intelligence agents, not agents of the Democratic National Committee, not agents of the Democratic leadership in the House, 10 agents of the U.S. intelligence community asked us, the Congress, through a letter to Speaker Hastert with copies to the bipartisan congressional leadership to please investigate this reckless revelation of a covert intelligence officer's identity and to do it forthwith.

    We can easily do this in a fashion which does not impede any criminal investigation. It has been done over and over again by the Majority every single time. The only reason we have a resolution of inquiry is because we are in the Minority, and we cannot schedule the kind of investigation that the Majority did over and over and over again over the past 6 years.

 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Even now and even under this Administration, the Committee has subpoenaed targets of investigations in the Enron scandal for testimony in front of its Committee, the Commerce Committee, at the same time as the grand jury is very obviously looking at whether or not to indict officials of that company. Those targets are being subpoenaed and questioned in front of congressional Committees.

    The notion that this branch of government is a potted plant and should somehow sit back and wait for months and years before looking at what is going on with political manipulation about intelligence operations and the revelation of things which seem on the surface to clearly lie, I think it is a compelling case, and it has nothing to do with Iraq.

    It has to do with the fundamental way we handle and respect and honor and protect both our intelligence agents and the people who source them because when this happens then all of a sudden the foreign sources—we spend so much time talking about the degradation of the capacity for human intelligence. Things like this happen, and they probably send as much of a message to undermine our capacity in that area than anything could.

    With that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your——

    Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman. Would the gentleman yield for just a question?

    Mr. BERMAN. Sure.

 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman HYDE. Does the gentleman suggest that the grand jury suspend while we proceed with our investigation?

    Mr. BERMAN. Absolutely not.

    Chairman HYDE. Or are you suggesting we have both investigations?

    Mr. BERMAN. I suggest we have both investigations proceeding just as they did in the Travel Office, as they are doing in Enron, as they did in the Presidential pardon case, as they did in the Martha Stewart case. I would argue there may be a more serious issue here than there, but, in any event, to do it in a fashion that respects the need to protect what is going on in the grand jury.

    We are not talking about revealing grand jury information or invading the secrecy of the grand jury. We are talking about simply an inquiry and an effort and a request to receive primary documents; the same kinds of documents that would go to the grand jury have come to Congress when classified to be protected under all rules of classification and in a fashion that works in tandem with the law enforcement effort, not in violation of it.

    I was Ranking Democrat on the Ethics Committee. There were times when we pursued matters that were also under investigation that we worked very closely in cooperation with a U.S. Attorney who was investigating for criminal matters so that we did not impede in any way on their investigation. It is very easy to do for those who want to do it the right way.

 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman.

    Is there further discussion?

    Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman? I am sorry. Could I ask unanimous consent to put the letter from the 10 former analysts, case officers, intelligence officers with the U.S. intelligence agencies requesting this investigation into the record? [Not submitted.]

    Chairman HYDE. Without objection. So ordered.

    Mr. BERMAN. Thank you.

    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman?

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Bereuter?

    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As some of my colleagues know, I also serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee with primary jurisdiction on this matter.

    I would say that if the conduct alleged that there was an intentional outing of an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency allegedly for retribution against her husband, this is a very grave matter indeed. This kind of conduct should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. It should mean that people, no matter where they serve, in the White House or otherwise, are fired and subject to the highest penalties.

 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    One of the disappointing or maybe one of the very most disappointing things I have learned since I have arrived here is that you cannot necessarily expect justice from the Justice Department when it comes to investigating their own Administration. It was true, for example, of the Meese Justice Department. It was true of the Reno Justice Department.

    I am not critical of Mr. Holt or anyone who brings such a resolution before us because while there may be a partisan edge to it, it is a part of the oversight and pressure that needs to be brought upon an Administration, especially at a time when the Administration is of the same party as the controlling majority in the House and the Senate.

    I was heartened by the reputation of the special prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald. I think if there is any indication that his investigation has been subject to interference at any time then by a strong bipartisan effort, Congress should insert itself into this process.

    I have been following this issue closely, as most of us have been, and I would expect that we would have justice with the impaneling of the grand jury as a result of Mr. Fitzgerald's appointment. I think at this point we need to watch very carefully. We need to insert ourselves in the process, this Committee and the Intelligence Committee, if there is any indication that this is not going to be pursued aggressively and in a timely fashion.

    At this point I have not reached that conclusion. That is why I voted for an adverse recommendation from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I expect to today, but I can actually commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for keeping the pressure on this issue. It is important for the integrity of our intelligence collection process.

 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    If we are beginning to out persons for their political purposes here, we damage our ability to work with liaison services and put these people in danger. It is a very grave matter indeed.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman HYDE. Thank you.

    Mr. Blumenauer?

    Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I associate myself with the comments from my colleague from Nebraska, but I reach a different conclusion.

    Mr. Berman outlined what has happened just in the short tenure that I have been in Congress where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had no qualms whatsoever about pursuing a dual track. I am not here to judge whether it was political that motivated those or whether it was a sincere desire to provide the legitimate oversight that Congress is to be expected to provide.

    The matters that were dealt with earlier were relatively trivial, with all due respect. There was very little that happened to them in terms of massive corruption. Nothing came out of the Whitewater investigation, despite millions, tens of millions of dollars. There are those that would even raise questions about whether the impeachment of the President of the United States was, in the global scheme of things, something that merited the time and attention and disruption that was accorded it.

 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    That is for others to judge, but something that is incontrovertible is that the episode of a deliberate outing of an intelligence operative is serious at the highest level. This is not trivial. This is not something that is minimal scoring of political points. This is something that speaks to the integrity, just as my friend from Nebraska pointed out, to our being able to conduct sensitive intelligence operations.

    Our moving forward with a serious congressional inquiry is a solid signal to the men and women who serve us and put their lives at risk. It is a serious signal to our allies that we take the responsibility of protecting the intelligence mechanisms of the United States. We take that seriously. It is a signal to the people in the press that they are not to play fast and loose with the lives of men and women who are providing an essential service to this country.

    Mr. Chairman, on several occasions I have offered reflections about why I am honored to be a Member of this Committee. We have the potential of being able to put the spotlight on items that speak to life and death and the direction of this country.

    Mr. Chairman, there are few in Congress who have the respect of people on both sides of the aisle that you have earned through your long and distinguished career. I am honored to serve with Mr. Lantos, our distinguished Ranking Member, and have watched the two of you craft resolutions. Sometimes, when I did not even agree with them, I marveled at your ability to work together to have an open and thoughtful process.

    I can think of no two leaders in this Congress who are better equipped to carry forth the tradition on the highest level of what congressional inquiry represents than you and Mr. Lantos, but to somehow brush this aside actually invites partisan speculation.

 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I hear back home why is it that Congress can jump on Janet Jackson in 57 seconds and have inquiry and command the press and fall all over one another to do some things that I think are actually kind of goofy, and something here that is the integrity of our intelligence system, that means lives of people who work with us and the ability for it to work with our allies and friends alike, and somehow we are asleep at the switch. We are going to wait. It is not important enough for congressional Committees to operate is the description.

    You know, Mr. Chairman, I do not have an answer for people at home. I would respectfully suggest that the tradition of congressional inquiry represents the best and worst. The witch hunts of the McCarthy era may well have been the worst. It was Congress who put the heat on Watergate that got to the bottom of things when special prosecutors were removed by President Nixon. It was one of Congress' finest hours.

    I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that by moving forward with this resolution that it could be one of the finest hours of this Committee to provide valuable service, and I can think of no two congressional leaders other than you and Mr. Lantos better equipped.

    I would hope that even though I do not know that you will, I would hope that you would reconsider your position on this resolution of inquiry.

    Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman for his generous remarks.

    The Chair announces that we are going to interrupt this bill for a very brief few moments, but I note the presence of a reporting quorum and so the question occurs on the motion to report H.R. 3818, the microenterprise bill as amended.

 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    All those in favor say aye.

    [Chorus of ayes.]

    Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.

    [No response.]

    Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to, and the bill is adopted as amended. The staff is directed to make technical and conforming changes.

    Now we will return to the matter at hand. Is there anybody else? Mr. Rohrabacher seeks recognition.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be supporting the Chairman in this matter. Let me note that this whole thing does not pass the smell test. There are a lot of politics being played inside the bureaucracy and outside the bureaucracy on this particular issue.

    To the degree that we are talking about the need for congressional oversight, I certainly agree with my colleagues that congressional oversight and hearings to make sure that we know what is going on is part of our job and an important part of our job, but let me note there seems to be some mighty selectivity going on as to what deserves our attention from the other side of the aisle.

 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Let me note that The Washington Post in the last week has had a two-part series on American foreign policy toward the Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Let me also note that that two-part series verified charges that I made before this Committee over a number of years as to the Clinton Administration's real policy toward the Taliban and Al Qaeda, which was a clandestine support for the Taliban.

    Read that Washington Post report of what was going on inside the State Department and inside the CIA at the time, yet we all can remember when I was demanding the documents about American foreign policy toward the Taliban. People here should remember that. At that time, Chairman Gilman backed me up in that request.

    You read The Washington Post series on it, and it verifies that we did not get the documents and that obviously congressional oversight on something as important as this, that congressional oversight was made basically into a sham by the State Department giving us nonsensical documents and leaving out important information that we had requested from the Clinton State Department as to what the position of the Administration was on the Taliban.

    Now, something of this magnitude is not being investigated, and the people on the other side of the aisle are not moving forward to find out how we had a major policy of our government toward a regime that eventually led to the murder of 3,000 Americans. Well, then I am a little bit hesitant to go along with what this particular case is, which is of interest, but is indicative of the type of game playing that was going on over the years within the CIA and within the State Department.

 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we look into the matter of what American foreign policy was during the Clinton Administration that led to 9/11 and let us also investigate how Congress' oversight was intentionally thwarted during that time period, and then maybe we can get down to some of these personality issues and game playing that was going on inside the bureaucracy in terms of American intelligence that we are discussing today.

    Thank you very much.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez?

    Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that we can seek to justify a way to either not support the inquiry or to even vote for a release of the resolution unfavorably, but I think that my colleagues on the Committee, we have a simple few questions to ask ourselves today.

    Do we support the law of the land, which clearly states that disclosing the name of a covert agent is a crime? Will we stand up for the men and women who risk their lives as covert agents around the world to protect the national security of the United States? In doing so, will we protect the national security of the United States?

    How are we going to recruit future covert agents, which we desperately need for the purposes of human intelligence in critical parts of the world, if they think that clearly their names will be made public if there is an interest, political or otherwise, to do so and for which those who make that information public face very little consequence, if any? Do we believe that Congress must fulfill its own oversight function?

 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    If your answer is yes to each of these questions then you should support the inquiry and vote no on the motion before the Committee, which would stop an independent congressional investigation by reporting it unfavorably.

    Let me be clear. Congress cannot advocate its own oversight roles, especially with the sensitivity of this issue. We have an obligation to the American people and to the intelligence community to investigate this issue ourselves period.

    I also have to raise some serious concerns over how this investigation has moved forward, which can only underline the need for congressional oversight. First, the Executive Branch is in essence conducting an investigation of itself. This creates a serious concern over conflict of interest and clearly at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.

    Attorney General Ashcroft only recused himself from this case in December after intense pressure. He did not choose to appoint an independent counsel, but instead appointed Mr. Comey, who then appointed Mr. Fitzgerald.

    The public deserves an outside and unbiased assessment with no potential for conflict of interest. To avoid any appearance of bias, the White House should have appointed a special prosecutor. This is particularly true given the serious allegations that Valerie Plame's name was leaked in retaliation for her husband's comments on the Administration's policy on the Iraq War.

    The resolution is simple. All it means is that Congress and this Committee will have the information needed to conduct its own investigation into this case. Now, as it has been said, but I have to reiterate, during the previous Administration the Majority saw no problem to spend thousands of dollars, millions of taxpayer dollars, in investigating far less pressing issues. We should do so now on a serious, legitimate issue that affects the national security of the United States no matter where it leads us.

 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Now, these investigations that have been taking place in the past, some of which Mr. Berman has recognized and others that could be recognized, were done regardless of what investigatory agency was pursuing an investigation. It was done regardless of how many Committees had concurring jurisdiction. I also am concerned with the increasing frequency in which the modus of Members of either this Committee or this body get questioned as they pursue their legitimate responsibility as an individual Member of Congress.

    In closing, I remind the Members of this Committee of what of what President Ford once said, ''Truth is the glue that holds government together.'' Truth is what we want, and truth is what we intend to get.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff? Mr. Schiff is here now. He was attending another Committee meeting in the other room.

    Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last words.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

    Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the Chairman.

    It is hard to imagine a more important issue than the one that this is inextricably intertwined with, and that is the question of our intelligence agencies, the question of why we have not found yet what we have been looking for in Iraq. In that context, I think we need to approach this question about whether we should undertake congressional oversight of whether a CIA officer's identity was leaked for political purposes.

 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    When I listen to my colleagues speaking here, and we have had a contemporaneous hearing in the Judiciary Committee, I do not hear anyone questioning the seriousness of the allegation. I do not hear anyone saying this is a frivolous claim. I do not hear anyone saying that it is not Congress' responsibility to investigate whether its intelligence operatives are being undermined, whether improper political influences are being brought to bear.

    Instead I hear principally two arguments that are being made. One, that there is a political overtone to this because Democrats seem eager to undertake the investigation, and Republicans do not. And I hear more policy oriented objections that something about a congressional oversight investigation taking place during a criminal investigation will impede the more important of the two, and the more important of the two, it being suggested, is the criminal investigation.

    On the first point of whether this is a partisan exercise or a policy debate, I would only say that it is hard to estimate the importance and the significance of getting a clear answer to this question regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on or who occupies the White House.

    We can talk about the length and breadth of the investigation to the last Administration or the partisan lineup in terms of who controls Congress and who controls the White House, but there is little question divorced from this building and from the Capitol what America thinks about the necessity of looking into a question of whether an agent had their identity betrayed for political purposes. They support the most thorough, the most objective and the most nonpartisan investigation into that question.

 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    So what about the argument that this would somehow irreparably interfere with a criminal investigation? As a former prosecutor who worked in the Corruption Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office, I suffer from the fate of all former prosecutors of enjoying referring to my days as a prosecutor, which are not always an accurate reflection of or can be extrapolated generally.

    But, while if this were my case, if I were Mr. Fitzgerald, I would not eagerly anticipate a parallel investigation going on because I would have my job to do and be solely focused on my own job, neither would it be a bar to my going forward and doing the investigation I needed to do to determine if a crime had been committed if another investigative body, if the Congress of the land, was also undertaking its investigation. The two can be done on parallel tracks without interference one to the other.

    The reason I might not like it as a prosecutor is because my job is to find out if a crime has been committed and prosecute it. It is not my job to determine what policy in Congress ought to be.

    Likewise, it is our job in Congress to determine what policy ought to be. It is our job to determine what our intelligence failures have been, if they have been manifest, and I think there is a clear indication we have some significant problems in our intelligence gathering or analysis.

    It is our job to determine whether improper political influences being brought to bear not only in the case of Valerie Plame, but, more broadly, in the intelligence that is sifting from our agencies to the top and being used in policy determinations.

 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Fitzgerald, however, as good a prosecutor he is, cannot answer the question of what Congress should do, and however good our oversight job is, we cannot bring back an indictment against those who may have leaked this information. We have two separate responsibilities. They can be conducted at the same time. They should be conducted at the same time.

    It is hard to overstate the importance not only to this country, but in our relation with the rest of the world that we do the most objective, the most thorough, the most nonpartisan investigation of any intelligence failures we have experienced, particularly when it is claimed that those failures are the result of political influence.

    I urge my colleagues to give this another thought, to divorce themselves for the moment from party affiliation, to ask themselves what would their vote be on this resolution if there were no criminal investigation going, if that argument were not available. What would the argument be if this were the Clinton Administration, not the Bush Administration, what would their vote have been, and addressing themselves solely to the policy at stake, vote their conscience in support of H. Res. 499.

    I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Watson?

    Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now speak as an Ambassador of the United States to Micronesia.

 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I cannot think of any more serious threat to the security of our country and to the security of the people who work in the best interest of our country at a time when we are in war and a time when our national security is being threatened. We have operatives that can infiltrate and must do that to protect our nation and other free nations of the world.

    As an Ambassador, often I had to meet with the CIA and FBI and undercover agents. Certainly Micronesia was not a threatened or risky part of the world, but we started to see drugs coming into that area, and we were trying to get on top of it.

    Had someone leaked the name—a name—of the people that I had to meet with as an Ambassador, there would be a serious threat to the security of the countries we associated with and their contacts.

    Many of you sitting around this circle have no idea how serious an offense it was to leak the name of a CIA operative, and the journalist who states that oh, he did not know, he thought it was public knowledge, needs to be charged as well.

    Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation as an oversight body to look into this, take the politics out of it, but to get to those persons who were trying to retaliate. How dare us not do that. We endanger our country's safety. I want you to know, those of us who are with the State Department out there representing you ought to be protected by all of us as we go about serving our country. Do not leave us out there without the oversight, without the protection, because you place us at risk. Then we place this whole country at risk.

 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I am kind of stunned and shocked as I sit here and listen to the debate that that is not clearly seen by every Member of Congress and particularly this Committee because we are out there in foreign lands representing this country. Our integrity is at stake.

    We invaded a country because we thought they were a threat to us. Are you saying that we should not have people to go in there who can infiltrate and give us the information as to how threatening they can be to the continental United States or any other ally? If we let this go and see it as a fluke, then we are causing our country to be at the greatest risk ever. I am appalled that this Committee cannot see clearly as to the problem.

    I would like to suggest that we immediately support this legislation, we immediately respond because the safety of our country is at stake.

    Thank you, Mr Chairman.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to note for the record that I for one do not have any concerns about Mr. Fitzgerald. I am aware of his reputation. I know him by reputation to be a man of integrity and confidence and professionalism. I recognize that he is moving forward with a criminal investigation.

    I would note for the record that just recently, last week, there was a report by UPI. Let me quote from it:

 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

''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. The investigation, which is continuing, could lead to indictments, a Justice Department official said.''

    According to this source, John Hannah and Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby, were the two Cheney employees. At least from this report, it would corroborate your observation, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Fitzgerald is a straight shooter, so to speak, and will do the job. There is nothing again in his background that would indicate otherwise.

    To pick up on the point made by my colleague from California, Mr. Schiff, a congressional inquiry and a criminal investigation are not mutually exclusive. It has been the precedent established by this Congress at least since I have served in this body since 1997. The Ranking Member du jour, Mr. Berman, enumerated a number of cases where there was congressional action and at the same time criminal investigation, some of which actually ended up in indictment.

    You, Mr. Chairman, indicate that it would be irresponsible to interfere with a criminal investigation. There is absolutely no evidence that I can discern from any quarter that would indicate that what we are looking for in terms of this resolution would interfere or impede with a criminal investigation. You simply make the statement and make the conclusion.

    Is there a new presumption that if Congress acts simultaneously with an investigation of a potential criminal misconduct that is interfering?

    Chairman HYDE. Will the gentleman yield?

 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. DELAHUNT. I will.

    Chairman HYDE. If the special prosecutor wants to grant a witness immunity, and whoever is running the congressional inquiry does not want to grant immunity, do they flip a coin?

    Mr. DELAHUNT. No, because I would hope that there would be interaction, as there has been on numerous occasions.

    Mr. Chairman, you know and I know that to get to that particular point there would be conversations, and hopefully there would be negotiations. This is not Iran Contra. This is not the conferring of immunity as occurred in that particular matter, which later turned into the reversal of guilty verdicts of Oliver North and John Poindexter.

    Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield on that point?

    Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

    Mr. BERMAN. Of course, in that case it was the Congress who, deciding that they wanted to help the show along, decided to grant immunity to the witness and thereby screwed up the judicial process.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. I am familiar with that. Reclaiming my time, I think that that is clearly distinguishable from the case before us today, but there is no exclusivity here.

 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    What we are concerned about is does the current policy, do the current statutes that were enacted to protect men and women who are serving this country at the risk of their lives, are they being adequately protected by the existing policy.

    You, Mr. Chairman, were the one that referenced whether it is inadvertent. Well, maybe we want to review the policy to determine whether inadvertence is unacceptable. That is why we should be proceeding. We should be protecting these men and women who, as I said, are putting their lives at risk. This is about national security, and this is about policy.

    Let me conclude with a question. Have we heard from anyone in the Executive Branch, from the White House, from the Department of Justice, from Mr. Fitzgerald, whom I respect, that in any way, shape or form the release of this information to this Committee would impede or interfere with a criminal investigation?

    Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Berkley?

    Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The intentional disclosure of the identity of a covert intelligence operative poses a grave threat. Not only is it a threat to the life and safety of the agent; it is a grave threat to the national security of the United States.

    I believe that this Committee and this Congress has an opportunity and a responsibility here, an opportunity to fulfill our responsibility of oversight of the Executive Branch in matters that affect foreign policy and an opportunity to help ensure the safety and security of the United States. Instead, it appears that Congress has chosen to step aside, and in doing so we have reneged on the responsibilities of our office and of our responsibilities to the American people.

 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Last summer, a high ranking official within the Administration reportedly called as many as half a dozen reporters with the identity of an undercover CIA operative. This was done in retaliation for Ambassador Joseph Wilson's honesty and frankness in detailing several of the Administration's pre-war claims regarding weapons of mass destruction. Ambassador Wilson should have been commended for his honesty and for his candor of this reporting. As events have turned out, he was correct. Administration officials have since admitted that claims regarding Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium were greatly exaggerated.

    It seems that the White House could not resist putting politics before policy, tarnishing a man's reputation, risking his wife's life and ultimately threatening the safety and security of the United States and our intelligence agencies.

    What astounds me the most about this entire unfortunate incident is that if I were President of the United States I would be absolutely furious, and I would feel it was my responsibility to find out who did this and get them out of my White House, if nothing else as a demonstration to everyone else that I took this seriously, and this is a matter of grave national security interest.

    As a Congresswoman, if the President will not act I think it is my responsibility to do so. If he is not outraged enough about the behavior of some of his staff members in the White House, I am outraged enough for him.

    I wholeheartedly support this resolution. It is time that Congress and the American people were told the truth regarding this unfortunate incident, and it is time that certain White House officials are held accountable for their actions. To do less would be a dereliction of our duties.

 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentlelady yield? Would the gentlelady yield?

    Ms. BERKLEY. Yes, I will.

    Mr. BERMAN. Thank you. I want to thank her for her very powerful statement and also just to say to my colleagues and friends on the other side let us assume there was no investigation by the Justice Department, by a special prosecutor. It is not an independent counsel, but by Mr. Fitzgerald. None of that was going on.

    Can any of you tell us you would then vote for this resolution of inquiry? You would then launch an investigation? Because if you cannot say that you would do that, you cannot use the argument, given your track record over 10 years of control of the oversight process in this Congress.

    You cannot say with a straight face that it is the existence of this criminal investigation that stops every relevant Committee from doing any investigation whatsoever of a matter that, as I think Mr. Blumenauer said early on, is so much more serious and so much more consequential and so much more affects the conduct of our international relations and the protection of our national security than the things you chose to launch while a criminal investigation was going on.

    You cannot say that with a straight face. I suggest you would not vote for it with the investigation going on. You would not vote for it without the investigation going on. Maybe it is because you will not vote for anything that we propose. Maybe it is because there are other motivations, which I understand the world we are in, but do not pretend that it is because there is an independent criminal investigation going on.

 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    With that, I yield back to the gentlelady.

    Chairman HYDE. Would the gentleman yield?

    Mr. BERMAN. Sure.

    Chairman HYDE. I want to make it perfectly clear. My vote will be cast against this proposition put forward by the resolution and for reporting it adversely because there is a grand jury investigation being directed by a prosecutor who is relentless and unyielding, and God forbid he should prosecute any of us.

    Mr. BERMAN. If I may ask the gentlelady to yield to me?

    I understand the sincerity with which the Chairman says that, and I respect it, but I am at a loss to explain the conduct of this Majority over the past 10 years in nearly every single Committee that has exercised its oversight responsibility on matters important and unimportant to plow ahead without regard to the existence of an independent investigation unless you are saying every career prosecutor in the Justice Department, every independent counsel chosen by those three judges, was an agent of the Executive Branch, unless you say they were all evil, and we finally found a truly honest prosecutor who is moving in, and all the other ones were contaminated and corrupted.

    I do not believe anyone thinks that. Therefore, I cannot understand the position. Therefore, I have to assume we are in a situational position where all of a sudden the feeling about allowing the criminal investigation to go on unfettered by any congressional investigation, regardless of the importance of the substantive matters, regardless of our oversight responsibilities, regardless of our jurisdiction, that all of a sudden it is in this case where all of a sudden that becomes the compelling, overriding——

 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. BERKLEY. Can I reclaim my time just to ask a question?

    Chairman HYDE. You have no time.

    Ms. BERKLEY. I have no time?

    Chairman HYDE. You have no time.

    Ms. BERKLEY. Can I ask a quick question, and perhaps someone could answer it?

    Chairman HYDE. Certainly. We will stretch the regulations for you, Ms. Berkley.

    Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Forgive me if I am having a senior moment. I am sorry I was not here to hear everybody else's opening statement, but am I mistaken in remembering back prior to when I was in Congress—was there not an independent investigation of President Clinton's activities? And, were we not having a million——

    Mr. BERMAN. A couple hundred.

    Ms. BERKLEY [continuing]. A couple hundred congressional investigations at the same time that the independent investigation was going on, and was Ken Starr not a relentless prosecutor in that particular issue? I mean, can anybody enlighten me on this?

 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman HYDE. I cannot comment on the relentness nature of Mr. Starr, but Capitol Hill seethes investigation. I remember the October surprise——

    Ms. BERKLEY. Do we not want to seethe?

    Chairman HYDE [continuing]. Where charges were made that Vice President Bush flew over to Paris to arrange for the Iranians to hold our Embassy personnel until after the election. I remember endless hearings on that goofy idea.

    All investigations are not alike. We have a grand jury. We have a tough prosecutor. Give it a chance to work. If it does not work, we can leave it at this, but meanwhile I would like to get to the question if we have all exhausted ourselves on this. I hope we have.

    The question occurs on the motion to report the resolution, H. Res. 499, adversely. Let us call the roll on this. We will not waste time on a voice vote. Call the roll.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach?

    [No response.]

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bereuter?

    Mr. BEREUTER. Yes.

 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bereuter votes yes.

    Mr. Smith of New Jersey?

    [No response.]

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton?

    [No response.]

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly?

    Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly votes yes.

    Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?

    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes.

    Mr. Ballenger?

    Mr. BALLENGER. Yes.

 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.

    Mr. Rohrabacher?

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.

    Mr. Royce?

    Mr. ROYCE. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes yes.

    Mr. King?

    Mr. KING. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. King votes yes.

    Mr. Chabot?

    Mr. CHABOT. Yes.

 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot votes yes.

    Mr. Houghton?

    Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Houghton votes yes.

    Mr. McHugh?

    [No response.]

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Blunt?

    [No response.]

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo?

    Mr. TANCREDO. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes yes.

    Mr. Paul?

    [No response.]

 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Michigan?

    Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Michigan votes yes.

    Mr. Pitts?

    Mr. PITTS. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pitts votes yes.

    Mr. Flake?

    [No response.]

    Ms. RUSH. Mrs. Davis?

    [No response.]

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green?

    Mr. GREEN. Yes.

 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes yes.

    Mr. Weller?

    Mr. WELLER. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller votes yes.

    Mr. Pence?

    Mr. PENCE. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes yes.

    Mr. McCotter?

    Mr. MCCOTTER. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes yes.

    Ms. Harris?

    Ms. HARRIS. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris votes yes.

 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Lantos?

    [No response.]

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman?

    Mr. BERMAN. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman votes no.

    Mr. Ackerman?

    Mr. ACKERMAN. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman votes no.

    Mr. Faleomavaega?

    Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.

    Mr. Payne?

 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. PAYNE. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne votes no.

    Mr. Menendez?

    Mr. MENENDEZ. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Menendez votes no.

    Mr. Brown?

    Mr. BROWN. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown votes no.

    Mr. Sherman?

    [No response.]

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler?

    Mr. WEXLER. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler votes no.

 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Engel?

    Mr. ENGEL. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel votes no.

    Mr. Delahunt?

    Mr. DELAHUNT. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt votes no.

    Mr. Meeks?

    Mr. MEEKS. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks votes no.

    Ms. Lee?

    Ms. LEE. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes no.

 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Crowley?

    Mr. CROWLEY. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Crowley votes no.

    Mr. Hoeffel?

    Mr. HOEFFEL. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hoeffel votes no.

    Mr. Blumenauer?

    Mr. BLUMENAUER. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Blumenauer votes no.

    Ms. Berkley?

    Ms. BERKLEY. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley votes no.

    Ms. Napolitano?

 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. NAPOLITANO. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Ms. Napolitano votes no.

    Mr. Schiff?

    Mr. SCHIFF. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff votes no.

    Ms. Watson?

    Ms. WATSON. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Ms. Watson votes no.

    Mr. Smith of Washington?

    Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Washington votes no.

    Ms. McCollum?

 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. MCCOLLUM. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes no.

    Mr. Bell?

    Mr. BELL. No.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bell votes no.

    Chairman Hyde?

    Chairman HYDE. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Chairman Hyde votes yes.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Leach?

    Mr. LEACH. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes yes.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Burton?

    Mr. BURTON. Yes.

 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton votes yes.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Flake?

    Mr. FLAKE. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes yes.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Chris Smith?

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey votes yes.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. McHugh?

    Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. McHugh votes yes.

    Chairman HYDE. Have all voted who wish?

    [No response.]

 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman HYDE. The clerk will announce the roll.

    Mr. Sherman? Madam Clerk, Mr. Sherman?

    Ms. RUSH. He is not recorded.

    Mr. SHERMAN. No.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Sherman votes no.

    Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes no.

    Chairman HYDE. Ms. Davis?

    Ms. RUSH. Mrs. Davis?

    Mrs. DAVIS. Aye.

    Ms. RUSH. Mrs. Davis votes yes.

    Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.

    Ms. RUSH. On this vote there are 24 ayes and 22 noes.

    Chairman HYDE. 24 ayes and 22 noes. The ayes have it. The motion to report adversely is adopted. Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to seek consideration of the following—the Chair is having trouble hearing.

 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to seek consideration of the following bills under suspension of the rules: H.R. 3782, To amend the Department of State rewards program; H.R. 854, Belarus Democracy Act of 2003 as amended; H. Res. 530, Urging a resolution addressing human rights abuses in People's Republic of China at the U.N. Commission of Human Rights; H. Con. Res. 15, Commending India on its celebration of Republic Day; H. Res. 526, Expressing sympathy for the victims of the devastating earthquake that occurred in Bam, Iran; and H. Con. Res. 364, Recognizing the strategic partnership between the United States and the Marshall Island.

    [The bills referred to and submitted amendments follow:]




92187b.AAB




92187b.AAC

 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

92187b.AAD




92187b.AAE




92187b.AAF




92187d.AAB




92187d.AAC

 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

92187d.AAD




92187d.AAE




92187d.AAF




92187d.AAG




92187d.AAH

 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

92187d.AAI




92187d.AAJ




92187d.AAK




92187d.AAL




92187d.AAM

 Page 74       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

92187d.AAN




92187d.AAO




92187d.AAP




92187d.AAQ




92187e.AAB

 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

92187e.AAC




92187e.AAD




92187e.AAE




92187e.AAF




92187e.AAG

 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

92187e.AAH




92187e.AAI




92187e.AAJ




92187e.AAK




92187e.AAL

 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

92187e.AAM




92187e.AAN




92187f.AAB




92187f.AAC




92187f.AAD

 Page 78       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

92187f.AAE




92187f.AAF




92187f.AAG




92187f.AAH




92187f.AAI

 Page 79       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

92187f.AAJ




92187f.AAK




92187f.AAL




92187g.AAB




92187g.AAC

 Page 80       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

92187g.AAD




92187h.AAB




92187h.AAC




92187h.AAD




92187i.AAB

 Page 81       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

92187i.AAC




92187i.AAD




92187i.AAE




92187i.AAF

    Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman?

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Faleomavaega?

    Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman observes the right to object.

 Page 82       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my deepest appreciation to you and our senior Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, for bringing this resolution before the Members and our Committee for consideration, House Resolution 364. This resolution commemorates a very unique 50-year strategic relationship between the Republic of the Marshall Islands and our nation.

    Again, I want to first offer my commendation to the Chairman of the House Resources Committee and the chief sponsor of this bill, Mr. Pombo from California, and also the senior Ranking Member of the Resources Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall, for their support and sponsorship of this legislation.

    Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Lantos, for your support and leadership in bringing this resolution for markup by our Committee. I also want to thank the Chairman of our Asia Pacific Subcommittee for his support and leadership in this resolution, my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Leach.

    Mr. Chairman, just a couple of months ago with your leadership and Mr. Lantos and Members of our Committee, we successfully provided for the passage of the renewal of the Compact of Free Association between the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia and our nation.

    Mr. Chairman, for the history of the Members of our Committee, during World War II in the Pacific theater the Marshall Islands, along with other Pacific island groups, played very critical roles as major staging areas for thousands of our Marines and soldiers who fought valiantly against the military dictatorship of Japan. The Marshall Islands also have become one of the most important strategic interests in the region simply because of the fact that we have the largest missile testing facility at Quadulan, as well as the fact that since the 1950s and the 1960s we detonated over 67 nuclear devices so as to better our understanding of nuclear weapons systems.

 Page 83       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    It was this tiny group of the Marshall Islands that really sacrificed tremendously, allowing several of their islands in Atolls to allow us to do this testing procedure. It was in 1954 that the most powerful hydrogen bomb was ever exploded. It was called the Bravo shot, and was estimated to be 1,000 times more powerful than the bombs that we dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    For this reason, Mr. Chairman, the leaders of the Republic of the Marshall Islands and certainly Chairman Pombo and those of us who are Members of the Committee want to thank you for your leadership for allowing this resolution to be brought for consideration. I urge passage of this legislation.

    What time that I have left, Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend, the distinguished lady from California, Ms. Watson.

    Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady reserves the right to object.

    Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Congressmen Pombo and Faleomavaega for introducing this resolution that recognizes the 5 decades of strategic partnership between the United States and the people of the Marshall Islands. I wholeheartedly support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

    In particular, this important resolution recognizes the fiftieth anniversary of the Bravo nuclear weapon test, which occurred on March 1, 1954, of a device that yielded approximately 1,000 times greater explosive power than the bomb dropped in Hiroshima.

 Page 84       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The United States has had a long and close relationship with the people of the Marshall Islands. During World War II, the Marshallese people joined the allied forces in liberating the islands from Japanese military rule. At the end of World War II, the United States began a 4-decade trusteeship of the Marshall Islands, culminating in Marshallese independence in 1982 under the terms of the Compact of Free Association with the United States.

    Appropriately, Congress just last year renewed the Compact of Free Association, which is the guiding document for American relations with the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia.

    The United States nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands did enormous and long-term damage to the health of the Marshallese people and the environment if the islands. My good friend and colleague, Mr. Faleomavaega, accompanied me to these islands last year, and we still found people bearing long lasting injuries and suffering the greatest of poverty, along with a disconnect from health services.

    Despite the close political and strategic and social relationships between the United States and the people of the Marshall Islands, I do not believe that we can forget the ongoing legacy of health issues facing the residents of the Marshall Islands, which are directly tied to the numerous nuclear tests conducted by the United States in those islands.

    Congress and the Administration, therefore, must continue to play a role in addressing the legacy of health issues and the loss of land the Republic of the Marshall Islands has undergone as a result of nuclear weapons testing in that area 50 years ago.

 Page 85       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I want to let the Chairman know and my colleagues that to fly over that area and see islands that were blown off the map, nothing but the rim of the island at the water level is appearing, the way people had to leave their homes and go to other islands, which have lost its topsoil, their topsoil, and not able to grow a grain and have to have food flown in every day. It is heart breaking.

    As we commemorate March 1 as the fiftieth anniversary of the Bravo test and celebrate the nearly 60 years of friendship and amity between America and the Marshallese people, let us also reaffirm our nation's responsibilities for problems and issues related to our nation's testing of nuclear devices in the Marshall Islands.

    Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman?

    Ms. WATSON. I withdraw my reservation.

    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY [presiding]. The gentleman is recognized on his reservation

    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say a couple words about H.R. 854 only because I think it is important to tell our colleagues still remaining, and also the public generally, that on the Wednesday before the President's Day recess, Speaker Hastert made time in his very busy schedule to meet with eight Belarusians who had come to this country. He invited several Members, Mr. Shimkus and I were able to attend.

 Page 86       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The reason for this is that these eight Belarusians represented five opposition parties in Belarus. They call themselves Forum Five Plus. They span the spectrum from right of center to Communist, but they are advancing a slate of 100 candidates for the upcoming Parliamentary election.

    As the gentleman well knows, it is his legislation that examines the lack of progress and democracy in human rights and civil rights in Belarus. Personal freedoms do not exist in any substantial extent in Belarus, and these five parties and the slate of candidates they will support in general, are really courageous.

    I think it is important that we shine the international spotlight of scrutiny on the upcoming election so that Mr. Lukashenko does not in fact thwart this effort to move ahead to a democracy and does not in fact jeopardize the life and safety of these candidates and the political parties.

    I volunteer to pledge to the Speaker that the Europe Subcommittee will be holding hearings on this and doing other things to bring the international spotlight of scrutiny to bear on Mr. Lukashenko and the Belarusian elections.

    I would close under my reservation by commending the gentleman from New Jersey for the legislation which he offered which was unanimously approved by the Europe Subcommittee in April of last year.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Would Mr. Bereuter yield on his reservation?

 Page 87       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. BEREUTER. I would yield on my reservation.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I thank my friend for yielding.

    I just want to thank him for his strong support for this bill, for holding a markup earlier last year, I should say, on the Belarus Democracy Act. It is a bill that seeks to strengthen civil society, to promote free and fair elections, human rights monitoring, free press, which is nonexistent in Belarus or at least to any extent.

    I agree because I, too, met with the unified opposition. I have known many of them for a number of years, including Mr. Labedco, who is a very courageous and heroic human rights activist and former Parliamentarian who was disenfranchised when Lukashenko just dissolved the Supreme Soviet after an election that was adjudicated to be largely free and fair.

    I want to thank my friend for his strong support for the bill, and I yield back to him.

    Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the Chair for his initiative as I indicated.

    I would just say one concluding thing, and that is that the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, where I have served since 1986, has revoked the membership, in this case the associate membership, of only one country in the 50 year history of the Assembly and that was, in fact, Belarus because after repeated warnings they were taking all the steps backwards from democratic institutions and free election.

 Page 88       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. I withdraw my reservations, and shortly hereafter I will ask general leave for all Members to submit statements on all of the bills that are being considered under unanimous consent.

    Thank you.

    Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman?

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Flake?

    Mr. FLAKE. I reserve the right to object.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The gentleman is recognized.

    Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to commend the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, for bringing this forward. I have had the opportunity now twice to visit the Marshall Islands, and in doing so you realize pretty quickly the strategic relationship and the importance of our relationship with the people of the Marshall Islands.

    I think it is important that we make sure that they know that that relationship is important. I commend those who worked on the Compact of Free Association. It is a good document and really charts the course for the foreseeable future.

    I commend the resolution and withdraw my right to object.

 Page 89       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman?

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Faleomavaega?

    Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Before I withdraw my reservation to object, I want to commend my good friend from Arizona, Mr. Flake, and Ms. Watson from California for their supportive statements in this resolution. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

    I withdraw my reservation.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The gentleman withdraws his reservation.

    Any other reservations?

    [No response.]

    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that under general leave all Members may submit their statements on the various resolutions that are being considered by unanimous consent.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Without objection.

    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.

 Page 90       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The gentleman's unanimous consent request is agreed to.

    Let me conclude. The unanimous consent request made by Chairman Hyde is ordered, and the markup is adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 2:24 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

H.R. 3782

    I was pleased to introduce H.R. 3782, the ''Counter-Terrorist and Narco-Terrorist Rewards Program Act,'' along with the distinguished Ranking Democratic Member of this Committee and our colleague from Illinois, Mark Steven Kirk. This bill makes changes and modifications to the long-established U.S. State Department Rewards Program to reflect the growing links between illicit drugs and the financing and support of terrorism.

    The State Department Rewards Program has clearly prevented acts of terrorism in the past, has helped bring to justice long-sought terrorists, such as the individual who fled to Pakistan after assassinating our CIA employees in Virginia, and has served as a valuable intelligence tool in the global war on terrorism. The Rewards Program could do even more, if we enact this bill, with its reforms.

 Page 91       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

It is time for a renewed, expanded reward authority in the State Department, one that tackles and contends with the growing links, as recently reported in the press, of the illicit drug trade and the financing and supporting of terrorism. Our terrorist enemies may very well be changing their methods and means, and we need to be even more flexible and creative than they are.

H. R. 3782 would:

Clarify that any information provided which can be used to disrupt terrorist financing networks, including information related to illicit narcotics production or international trafficking, is eligible for reward monies.

Provide authority to the Secretary of State to give rewards other than money for information related to terrorism and narco-terrorism, such as vehicles, appliances, commodities, and other goods and services.

Add authority for the Secretary of State to conduct media surveys and create or purchase advertisements for the rewards program.

Require the Administration to submit a plan to the Congress that maximizes the publicity surrounding the reward for Osama bin Laden's capture.

Raise the statutory maximum amount of terrorist and narco-terrorist rewards from $5 million to $25 million.

 Page 92       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Provide the Secretary of State the authority to raise the reward for the capture of Osama bin Laden to $50 million, or double the current authorized reward.



PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
H.R. 854—BELARUS

    Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Europe Subcommittee I speak in support of H.R. 854 regarding the promotion of democracy, human rights and rule of law in Belarus. The Europe Subcommittee unanimously reported this bill, as amended, in April of 2003.

    Before turning to the author of the legislation for more detail regarding the contents of the bill, I want to restate that the current lack of democracy, civil and human rights and real freedom for its citizens in Belarus is outrageously unacceptable.

    All of us here are interested in the independence and sovereignty of Belarus and its integration into the European community of democracies. Unfortunately, the current government in Minsk does not seem interested in and certainly has not demonstrated even a rudimentary commitment to democracy and citizen freedoms.

    Two days before the President's Day Recess, this Member attended a meeting hosted by Speaker Hastert in which he, Mr. Shimkus and I met with eight members of the Belarus opposition political parties known as the ''Coalition 5 Plus''. Although they represent the entire spectrum of political ideology, they were united in the goal of promoting democracy in Belarus and to oppose the dictatorship of Mr. Luchashenko. The progress of the Five-Plus coalition in unifying the democratic opposition and developing a common platform and slate of candidates for democratic change has given new momentum to the struggle for freedom. In preparation for the October elections the Five-Plus coalition has brought together independent trade unions, NGO's, and a number of prominent leaders to wage a unified campaign for a slate of parliament candidates. We support their courageous efforts and should continue to encourage them to move forward with their plans to bring democracy to Belarus.

 Page 93       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Also, during that meeting, I volunteered a pledge to the Speaker that the Europe Subcommittee would hold a hearing on Belarus and would follow the upcoming Parliamentary elections with great interest. We need to shine the spotlight of international security.

    The provisions of this legislation are an appropriate approach to a regime which refuses to recognize the realities of the 21st century.

    I urge adoption of this bill.



PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. ROYCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

H. CON. RES. 15—COMMENDING INDIA ON ITS CELEBRATION OF REPUBLIC DAY

    Mr. Chairman:

    I want to say a few words about this resolution, of which I'm an original cosponsor.

    We rightly spend much of our time in this committee focused on what's wrong throughout the world—whether it be the authoritarian regime of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, or Kim Jong Il in North Korea.

 Page 94       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In this context, I think it is proper for the committee to recognize positive developments—in this case, the vibrant democracy that is India.

    India adopted its Constitution on January 26, 1950, which formalized her identity as a parliamentary democracy. The framers of India's Constitution were greatly influenced by our Founding Fathers, and many of the same freedoms enshrined in our Constitution are in India's Constitution.

    Today, India is the world's largest democracy. That is an impressive distinction. It's growth as a world power is creating the chance for peace and stability in South Asia.

    Last month, the committee had a chance to meet with India's Foreign Minister to discuss the growing bilateral relationship in the areas of space and science. This resolution signals Congress' interest in furthering this important relationship.

    I urge the passage of the resolution.



PREPARED STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE RON PAUL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

H. RES. 499

 Page 95       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Chairman, though it appears that bringing this bill forward in this manner is essentially a political exercise by those on the other side of the aisle, I would like to comment briefly on what the bill actually does rather than the manner in which it is brought forth. This is a bill that seeks Congressional access to information regarding the exposure of the identity of one of our clandestine agents, possibly as an act of political retaliation. I think that we most certainly are entitled to know this information in our Congressional oversight role. So, I do not think this request is preposterous in the slightest.

    Those who argue that we should kill this request in Committee to prevent it from coming to the floor are using the specious argument that because the judicial branch of government is already looking into the matter, we should just sit back and do nothing. As has been pointed out, however, there is ample precedent for Congress conducting a simultaneous investigation of matters such as this. So, I am afraid I do not buy the argument of those who seek to bury this legislation.

    This is a serious matter and one deserving of Congressional attention. Yet once again Congress is demanding to be left out of the loop. Once again Congress is shirking its oversight responsibility. Though some here wish to bury this legislation because it might embarrass the president, it is interesting that shirking our Constitutional duties with regard to Iraq—refusing to declare war and instead granting the president the right to use force as he sees fit—has actually left the president much more vulnerable, as the stated reasons for going to war have not proven out. We are in a position now where we are debating the correctness of the Iraq war after the fact, rather than beforehand as the Constitution requires. This is why the Framers of our Constitution put so much effort into crafting a system where the powers are separated and subject to checks and balances. So, I don't think we are doing anything good by once again abrogating our responsibilities and authority. This constant weakening of the Legislative Branch of government does not bode well for the future of our constitutional republic.

 Page 96       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

H.R. 854—THE BELARUS DEMOCRACY ACT

    Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to this counter-productive legislation. HR 854 leads us down the road to sanctions and closes the door to peaceful negotiations, trade, diplomacy, and improving relations with the Republic of Belarus.

    In particularly Orwellian fashion, the Belarus Democracy Act states that ''the United States has a vital interest in the independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Belarus . . .'' and then proceeds to undermine the independence and sovereignty of that country throughout the remainder of the legislation. It appropriates ''such sums as may be necessary'' to affect the outcome of the coming elections in Belarus. The money will be used to fund one political party over another—something that is rightly illegal in both Belarus and here in the United States. Is it the place of the United States to decide which political party should win elections in Belarus? I do know that one of the ''opposition parties'' that this bill intends to finance is the communist party. Is that the kind of party we want to ask the American taxpayer to finance?

    Part of this legislation demands to know the personal wealth of the president of Belarus and his top officials. Is this any of our business? If this is to become the standard, perhaps we should begin by scrutinizing the personal wealth of the scores of oppressive leaders who have enjoyed billions of dollars in US foreign aid through the decades.

    Dealing with the substance of the bill, like most everyone here I am no expert on Belarus. I don't know whether these findings are accurate. I do know that some of the ''disappeared'' people have turned up in places like London and elsewhere. As we have seen with the sudden ''disappearance'' and re-appearance of Russian President Vladimir Putin's rival in their upcoming elections, these are often political publicity stunts. I do know that some of the human rights groups that have monitored the elections condemned in this legislation have come to different conclusions. I do know that Belarus lives at peace with its neighbors.

 Page 97       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The problem when we get into the business of ''democracy-building'' or ''nation-building'' abroad is that, the immorality of doing so aside, we simply do not know enough about these countries to make coherent policy decisions. We are expected to appropriate ''such funds as may be necessary'' to affect a political outcome in a foreign country without knowing a thing about who or what we are funding. I find this terribly irresponsible.

    There is a much better approach to international relations. Time and time again we see that peaceful trade and good relations with other countries does much more to foster democratization and liberalization than sanctions, diplomatic expulsions, and accusations.

    I think constructive engagement is a much better approach to relations with Belarus and with the rest of the world. That is why yesterday I introduced HR 3823, the ''Belarus Freedom Act of 2004,'' which extends permanent normal trade relations to Belarus. More engagement with Belarus, more trade, more contacts, will go much further toward fostering peace and freedom than sanctions, intervention in their internal electoral politics, and isolation.

    I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead to co-sponsor my pro-engagement bill.



PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICK SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

 Page 98       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

H. RES. 499—CONCERNING VALERIE PLAME

    We all agree that revealing Ms. Plame's identity as a CIA agent is a crime and has serious security ramifications. We all agree that the revealing of her identity should be investigated. And we all agree that we must punish those who revealed her name to the full extent of the law. To the extent that the supporters of this resolution are concerned with these questions, I share and applaud their efforts.

    The issue before us is how to best proceed. As a former intelligence officer, I understand the dangers of not handling this investigation properly. The Attorney General has appointed a capable prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald, to uncover this criminal activity. Mr. Fitzgerald has been given extraordinarily wide latitude in his investigation. He has called high-level witnesses from the administration, including the President's press secretary and political advisor. And he has demanded and received extensive cooperation. Press reports indicate that the grand jury investigation will lead to indictments. While Congress does not have access to the grand jury's proceedings, to protect everyone involved, these reports suggest that the proper action is being pursued.

    This resolution directs the agencies to provide documents to Congress related to Ms. Plame. This could disrupt the criminal investigation that Mr. Fitzgerald is pursuing. Therefore, I will vote to report this resolution adversely.



PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARBARA LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 Page 99       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

H. RES. 499—RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY RE DISCLOSURE OF CIA OPERATIVE'S IDENTITY

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak in support of this resolution of inquiry, of which I am a cosponsor, and I firmly believe that our committee should favorably report it out and that the House should immediately act on it.

    The disclosure of an agent's name for political reasons is inexcusable and dangerous. Confidential information should never be the subject of political game-playing.

    These questions rise to very high levels of the executive branch and they raise allegations of serious abuse of political power in order to embarrass Administration critics and deflect attention from the real truth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    H. Res. 499 requires the Administration to provide Congress with the information it needs to fulfill its Constitutional oversight obligations.

    This is a national security issue which warrants our oversight.

    We have witnessed a wide pattern of the apparent distortion of intelligence information.

    It needs to stop, and we need to get the facts about this case and about the broader misuse of intelligence. I yield back the balance of my time.

 Page 100       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC