If time allowed, there are many other issues that I would like to discuss with the TPM readers.  In the future, I hope to join you again to discuss my legislative efforts to improve education in foreign languages, to protect students from dangerous pesticides at schools, to preserve historic battlefields and landmarks of the American War of Independence, to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to establish a rational national energy policy.

Please contact your legislators, organize with fellow concerned citizens, and do anything else to get involved and help the country.  The government really is of and by the people.

Again, thank you, and I look forward to reading your comments.  To read more about what I am doing and to send me more comments, please visit my Congressional or political websites at www.holt.house.gov or www.RushHolt.com.

I recently joined some of my colleagues and civil rights activists in commemorating the 40th anniversary of enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a watershed moment in American history.  This commemoration served as an important reminder of the brave fights that citizens have conducted to obtain and protect their right to vote.

The sacrifices of voting rights activists over the past century - like my friend Representative John Lewis, and those who bravely registered black voters in the south in the 1960s, despite violent opposition - have paved the way for the enfranchisement that we all seek. The Voting Rights Act has made progress possible, but there is still more to be done.

Application of the Voting Rights Act faces challenges in the 21st century. The 2000 and 2004 presidential elections demonstrated that disenfranchisement, though legally abolished, still exists in practice. In order to preserve influence of the Voting Rights Act, key protections of which are scheduled to expire in 2007, we must address voting irregularities that occurred in recent elections.

I take it as one of my most important responsibilities to help foster and restore citizen faith in their representative government.  In Congress, I try to conduct all of my activities with an eye towards this goal.  That is why it is so important to protect the integrity of the vote, the primary right by which other rights are protected.  

The elected officials of this nation will never be able to foster or restore this faith if they do not take strong action to protect the integrity of every vote.  Among the steps we must take to encourage participation and protect the integrity of every vote are:

*    Stopping improper purging of voter rolls,

*    Ensuring proactive and inclusive voter registration policies,

*    Putting an end to voter intimidation and suppression,

*    Ensuring uniform and fair enforcement of provisional ballot rules,

*    Mitigating unmanageable lines at polling places,

*    Implementing fair voter identification measures that are not subject to uneven enforcement,

*    Monitoring and punishing deceptive practices like distribution of inaccurate information to voters.

Failing to accomplish such goals would serve to diminish the important rights for which so many have fought, and yes, died.

About one-third of all Americans now vote on new electronic voting machines.  Such machines, while clear and easy to use, also provide no mechanism for voter verification or reliable audit, and have been proven extremely susceptible to error or tampering.  Many of you who read this may have been following the progress of my legislation to require a voter-verified paper record for every vote cast (The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessability Act, H.R. 550).  I believe that this legislation is critically important, as there is currently no way to verify and independently audit new electronic voting machines.  Only each voter can verify the accuracy of the vote that he or she cast in the secret booth.  The bill has strong bipartisan support and has benefited from the hard work and advocacy of thousands of citizens across the country.  

Since 2003, I have been working to convince critics that the absence of evidence of inaccurate vote counts or intentional fraud does not mitigate the need for my legislation.  In fact, the lack of evidence itself is the problem.  How can we possibly be sure that the vote counts are accurate if the voter is unable to verify the ballot, and election officials have no way to conduct a recount?

Please visit my website at www.holt.house.gov to learn more about my efforts to address these shortcomings in electronic voting systems.

When I speak with students, I often ask, "What is the greatest invention in history?'' Knowing of my background in physics, they usually suggest some scientific invention. In fact, I believe the greatest invention is our system of Constitutional democracy. It has transformed not just America, but the world, demonstrating that peaceful and productive government with the consent of the governed is possible. That consent is given by the vote.

The trust that voters grant elected officials through the ballot is too sacred to allow continuation of a system that is neither verifiable nor auditable.  Indeed, it jeopardizes every other right that we enjoy.  Election reform that enables auditable elections and strengthens voter rights is not only overdue, it is fundamental to the health of our democracy.

O, yes,

I say it plain,

America never was America to me,

And yet I swear this oath--

America will be!

 -Langston Hughes

Americans got a glimpse of their country this past week and did not like what they saw.   A devastating storm blasted the Gulf Coast.  In advance the authorities instructed people to evacuate, and those with means did so.  Some rented houses in other cities safely removed from the coast.  Some flew to stay with relatives in other states.  Many crowded the highways and drove out of the storm's path.

Those without cars, those without gas money and waiting for the first-of-the-month paychecks, those without vacation homes, did not go and were eventually herded into the Superdome.  The Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies, reputed to have spent four years hammering out a response team of ruthless efficiency, turned out to be at first distant spectators and then a bunch of bumblers.   The ever-busy Army Corps of Engineers seemed to be saying, "We told you so," but had not actually insisted on the necessary fortifications of the levees and seemed clueless watching the gushing water.  The National Guard, spread thin and physically exhausted from carrying much of the war in Iraq, was nowhere to be seen.  

American civilization seemed to be a thin veneer, with our vaunted civil engineering know-how called into question, with looting beginning even before the local police scattered without leadership, with the distribution of food and water so inequitable that people in New Orleans who survived a category-four storm then feared for their lives because of robbers.

Our poor national response shows the importance of leadership.  Americans were looking for someone who would bring some order to the search and rescue and tell volunteers where they could direct their well-meaning efforts, someone who could set a moral tone of dignity and who with a show of compassion and support for the victims could tell them that they will have the help they need to rebuild, someone who could hold out a vision of recovery.  Instead, Americans got a Director of FEMA who put nothing in place before the storm, officials who seemed surprised that those left in need were the poor and weak, cabinet secretaries who seemed at a loss for how to respond graciously to other countries that offered to help, a Speaker of the House who suggested that maybe rebuilding New Orleans was either too big a job or not a worthy undertaking, prominent people making unconsciously racist statements about the victims gladly replacing their dreary former existence with the newfound hospitality of the shelters, and an Energy Secretary who allowed gas price gouging to take place under his nose.

We Americans should expect better of ourselves.  We found ourselves in a country not as efficient or as compassionate as we thought we were or as we want to be.  We can do something about it.  As the old saying goes, every challenge is an opportunity.  Some have suggested that what is missing from our recent response that was present in our response to the attacks of September 11, 2001 are the prayer vigils.  That may be.  Ceremonies that celebrate our dependence on each other and reinforce our common humility in the face of powers greater than ourselves are generally good.  What we really need, though, I think, are individuals who hold up the standards we want to meet--standards of care for the weakest in our society, standards of organization for disaster preparedness, standards of social behavior in times of stress.  

This failure of government over the past week should not be taken as a repudiation of government, but rather as a reminder of our great dependence on government.  After all, government is just another word for doing together those things that we can do better collectively than separately.  A hurricane is a dramatic reminder of the danger of the philosophy that has been gaining such currency in recent years--that you are on your own and better off on your own--with your own retirement savings account, your own medical savings account, your own approach to workplace safety and protection, your own school vouchers, your own environmental clean-up, and your own disaster escape plan-- without any need for the government. The American dream is built much more on community that on individualism, much more on helping each other get ahead than on leaving each other behind.   Yes, if we never forget that we are in this together, America will be.

Science, by definition, is a method of learning about the physical universe by asking questions in a way that they can be answered empirically and verifiably.  If a question cannot be framed so that the answer is testable by looking at physical evidence and by allowing other people to repeat and replicate one's test, then it is not science.  The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.  Intelligent design offers no way to investigate design scientifically. Intelligent design explains complicated phenomena of the natural world by involving a designer. This way of thinking says things behave the way they do because God makes them behave that way.  This treads not into science but into the realm of faith. A prominent physicist, W. Pauli, used to say about such a theory "It is not even wrong".  There is no testable hypothesis or prediction for Intelligent Design.

It is irresponsible for President Bush to cast intelligent design - a repackaged version of creationism - as the "other side" of the evolution "debate."  Creationists and others who denigrate the concept of evolution call it a theory, with a dismissive tone.  They say that, as a theory, it is up for debate.  Sure, evolution is a theory, just as gravitation is a theory.  The mechanisms of evolution are indeed up for debate, just as the details of gravitation and its mathematical relationship with other forces of nature are up for debate. Some people once believed that we are held on the ground by invisible angels above us beating their wings and pushing us against the earth.  If angels always adjusted their beating wings to exert force that diminished as the square of the distance between attracting bodies, it would be just like our idea of gravitation.  The existence of those angels, undetected by any measurements, would not be the subject of science.   Such an idea of gravity is "not even wrong". It is beyond the realm of science.  So, too, is intelligent design.  

Colloquially, a theory is an idea. Scientifically, a theory is an accepted synthesis of a large body of knowledge, consisting of well-tested hypotheses, laws, and scientific facts, which concurrently describe and connect natural phenomena.  There are actually very few theories in science, including atomic theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, and the theory of the standard model of particle physics.  Without the ability to test the hypotheses of Intelligent Design, it cannot be considered a theory in the scientific sense.  

So who cares?  What difference does it make if schools spend time on unscientific ideas?  This raises the role of science education in the United States.  A scientifically literate nation would not permit Intelligent Design to be presented and treated as a scientific theory.  Science education is necessary for all students, especially for those who are not going to become professional scientists.  We must not lose the important American characteristic - hard, practical thinking.

Traditionally, Americans are a faithful people.  Most say they are guided by their faith in their God.  Also, Americans are an intellectually lively people.  Our forbearers did not lapse into lazy thinking.  Sometimes it has been called Yankee ingenuity or good old American know-how.  Whatever you call it, it has been a source of our prosperity and quality of life.  Throughout our history, every farmer, every business owner, every manufacturer, continuously has been thinking how things work and how to make them better.  Americans have thought like scientists.  Not just those in lab coats, but many Americans, even most Americans.  We must not allow this American intellectual habit to be replaced with wishful thinking or lazy thinking.  Intelligent design is lazy thinking.

The push for improving public competence in science and mathematics is justifiable not solely on the grounds of economics, national security, and an informed citizenry.  There is no question that these are vitally important reasons, but we should not forget the reason of personal well-being.  Understanding sciences brings order, harmony, and balance to our lives.  The sciences teach us that the world is intelligible and not capricious.  They give us the skills for lifelong learning, for creating progress itself.

By the way, I am proud to have served on the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching, established to improve the presence and quality of math and science education.  Over the next ten years, we will have to hire 2.2 million teachers just to keep pace with attrition in the workforce.  Most of these teachers will be called on to teach science at some point, and many will feel unprepared to teach it.  To promote the teaching of math and science, I successfully passed legislation to speed up student loan forgiveness to math, science, and special education teachers in high-need areas.  

Congress and the President enacted the most important education reform legislation in 30 years - the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.  I was able to ensure that a math and science partnership program was included, which link school districts with university science, math, and engineering departments to provide high quality, sustained professional development activities for K-12 teachers. Unfortunately, the Act is being poorly implemented and woefully under funded today.  

In the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I worked with several colleagues to improve a federal scholarship program for students pursuing degrees related to science, math, and engineering; pay off a portion of teachers' student loans; and award grants to states to establish Mathematics and Science Education Coordinating Councils composed of education, business, and community leaders.  We must do much more.

Our weakened state of science and mathematics education reverberates throughout national and even global issues, and this should be the focus of our school systems rather than a 'debate' that only diverts attention away from the challenges at hand.  The United States must prepare for the changing global economy through fundamental scientific research fueling technological innovation. When the tenets of critical thinking and scientific investigation are weakened in our classrooms, we are weakening our nation.   That is why I think the President's off-hand comment about intelligent design as the other side of the debate over evolution is such a great disservice to Americans.

My rather lengthy post on the Plame matter generated many responses, and there is one issue I do want to address briefly, namely the concern that a Congressional investigation could compromise a potential prosecution. Some on this blog raised concerns that a potential Congressional investigation into this issue could imperil Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation if witnesses are granted immunity for testifying. I share that concern, but even if my Resolution of Inquiry were to pass the House and the White House and the federal agencies targeted by the Resolution responded in the specified 14 days, hearings would take time to arrange and not be necessary for sometime, if ever.

The basic point is that Congress has a responsibility to equip and to provide protections for those whom we ask to take risks for our national security. That responsibility is distinct from and not seconday to the judicial responsibility to determine culpability and to enjoin or punish those who would violate our laws. So, Congress has work to do and hearings to hold whether or not prosecutor Fitzgerald completes his investigation and indicts individuals.

I voted against the Congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq, primarily because there was no evidence of an Iraq connection to 9/11, because there was no evidence that Saddam posed an immediate threat to us with WMD, and because I believed the President's new-found enthusiasm for a "preemptive war" doctrine was both unconstitutional and dangerous.

I've always scoffed at the perverse, optimistic, and backwards variation on the Vietnam-era domino theory put forward by the Bush administration--that somehow by bringing democracy (even at the end of gun) to Iraq, we would prompt other counties in the region to stand up robust democracies. It was the height of arrogance for the President and his advisors to believe that we could remake Iraq in our image in a few years when our own democracy took centuries to develop and is itself still a work in progress.

After the fall of Saddam's regime, I had hoped that it might be possible to salvage something from the wreckage of Bush's failed Iraq policy, that perhaps the President and the people around him would see the urgent need to internationalize the rebuilding of Iraq's physical, social, and economic infrastructure. But as with so many other aspects of its foreign and domestic policies, the President and his advisors chose to put their faith in their ideology rather than deal with the facts on the ground in Iraq. But facts, as they say, are stubborn things, and they indicate that the situation on the ground in Iraq is not improving. Now, our nation must reassess whether our continued presence in Iraq is helpful or harmful.

The difficulties surrounding the writing of the draft Iraqi constitution is a portent of things to come. I see two principal outcomes in the wake of the October 15 national referendum on the draft constitution, but our response to either should be the same: to commence the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. The only variable in these two scenarios is the speed of our withdrawal.

Should the draft constitution pass without significant Sunni support, the document and the new government that follows in December will face great difficulty in establishing a true sense of legitimacy among the Sunni population. The new, relatively weak central government will almost certainly continue to have difficulty recruiting and retaining security forces that are loyal and effective. That is a problem that the United States cannot solve for the Iraqis and that the U.S. presence actually exacerbates.

We can and should continue to provide aid, technical assistance, training support, and if necessary funding to help the Iraqi government slowly build a police force and military that can secure the country. We should do everything we can to make that aid, assistance, support, and funding international, not so much to reduce our burden as to increase the possibility that the help actually helps. That commitment does not require the continued presence of over 130,000 American troops. If anything, announcing on October 16 that our forces will begin an immediate, phased withdrawal from the country would likely help the new Iraqi government by demonstrating that we're going to keep our word and end the occupation, and without permanent U.S. military bases in the country. It would also provide a fresh opportunity to internationalize the reconstruction of Iraq.

This "best case" scenario produces a weak, struggling Iraqi central government that will have to battle simultaneously the insurgents as well as the tendency of the competing interests of Iraq's sectarian factions to destabilize the government and society. The road back to a stable Iraq will be a long and difficult one, but it is one the Iraqis will have to travel themselves if they are to have a chance of forging a new national identity.

The other post-October 15 scenario is far bleaker.

If the Sunni's follow through with their public threat to campaign against the draft constitution and the measure subsequently fails to gain the approval of Iraqi voters, the existing government will have to be dissolved and the entire process of drafting a constitution started anew.

The first question is whether any Iraqi political faction--particularly the Kurds--will think it worth the effort. The second question will be whether the American people are willing to underwrite--through further expenditure of blood and treasure--another Iraqi attempt to create and approve a constitution. Both issues appear to be in doubt, and I believe it would be unconscionable to ask the American people to sacrifice still more of their loved ones and see more of their tax dollars wasted in the vain hope that the Iraqis will get it right the second time around.

We should not underestimate the centrifugal political forces at work in Iraq. The Kurds have sought a separate national homeland for centuries. Since the end of the 1991 Gulf War, they have enjoyed a de facto independent state in northern Iraq. Many Shiite political factions clearly want the same type of status for Iraq's southern provinces. If the major Sunni political factions succeed in killing the current draft constitution, there is a real danger that both the Kurdish and Shiite factions will abandon any interest in a unitary Iraqi state and begin agitating for the partition of the country along largely sectarian lines. Civil war would not be far behind, and in the midst of that chaos, Abu Musab al Zarqawi and his branch of al Qaeda will find new opportunities to expand their operations and their influence in central Iraq. Dark visions, to be sure, but ones we cannot ignore or wish away.

Should the Iraqi transitional government collapse amidst an ethnic and religious civil war, the rationale for having American troops in Iraq will collapse with it, and the need quickly to withdraw American troops in the wake of the failed referendum will become acute. We should be preparing now for this contingency.

Congress should ask the Defense and State Departments to provide detailed (and if necessary, classified) briefings on their contingency plans should Iraq slide into a civil war. Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte should be required to update the current National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and offer his own assessment of the prospects of an Iraqi civil war/partition and the likely national security consequences of such an event. Mr. Negroponte, FBI Director Muller, and Department of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff should be required to report on what additional, immediate measures (along with any necessary funding requests) would be required to help block the flow of potential al Qaeda operatives from Iraq to Europe and America.

We can continue to hope that none of this will come to pass, but hope is not a course of action. We need to do what the President and his advisors did not do prior to March 2003--look at the world as it is, not through a rose-colored ideological prism, and take appropriate action to protect ourselves and our allies. Our first step in charting a new course of action on Iraq should be to commence the withdrawal of our forces on October 16. It's time to bring our troops home.

I am glad that we in Congress provided the Federal Emergency Management Agency with the additional funds required to ensure that the needed rescue and recovery mission continues unimpeded. We have all seen on the television and read in the news papers about the current situation in the Gulf Coast.  The images and stories are heartbreaking and deeply troubling, but they are of people we know and they are our fellow citizens.  Many of us know people who live in New Orleans, might have been vacationing there, or were supposed to return to college this fall.  These are our family members, our friends, and our neighbors, and we cannot let them down.  My own sister lives in the heart of New Orleans and waited for evacuation for days without running water or power until she was finally rescued after waiting too long like thousands of others.

The essential role of government is to provide for its citizens in their time of need.  Today, we cannot say that we have done a good job in that critical task.  Too many of our own people are suffering in horrific conditions and there exists a general state of lawlessness in a few areas and more concerning is that many feel they have been abandoned.  If we cannot meet the needs of these clearly desperate citizens in the Gulf Coast, we need to seriously reconsider our budget priorities and what we value as a society.  I am troubled that the pleas of regional officials and those from cities like New Orleans for an increased federal commitment to guard against such storms have not been heeded over the past few years  

It is my deep hope that the federal government, with the money we provided last week, will ensure that order is restored to the affected region and that no one anywhere in the Gulf Coast is without food, water or shelter.  But in the weeks and months ahead we need also to ensure that the proper resources are dedicated to guarantee that a tragedy like this and its indescribable scale is not repeated again.   What that means is a commitment by the federal government to the people of America to meet their domestic needs.  For too long this government has tried to do more with less, it has tried to provide for our people on the cheap.  But this week has reminded us that there are too many critical tasks and services that only government can provide and that we ensure that the federal government provides the essential funding that these services require.  

This terrible tragedy has also reminded us of the generous and compassionate nature of the American people.  Already the Red Cross has received well over $100 million in donations to the relief effort.  People all across America are emptying their coin jars and offering empty rooms to help in anyway they can.  I know that this compassion will continue and I encourage all Americans to do what ever they can to help our fellow citizens in their most desperate time of need. However, I am troubled to see instances of greed in this time of desperate need.  I have heard already from a number of my constituents who saw the price of gas skyrocket.  I, along with other members of Congress, will be looking into any instances of price gouging.  In such a time of despair for so many, price gouging can not be tolerated  

Once again, I want to express my condolences to those who have lost loved ones in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and to share my prayers of hope for those who remain in despair.  I know that much remains to be done and I am hopeful that the funding Congress provided will go along way to meeting the desperate needs of those in the Gulf Coast.  The full story of this disaster remains to be told, but I am confident that out of dark moments of this tragedy will come beacons of light for those affected and a serious discussion about our true national priorities.

From the time that Novak's infamous column appeared to the appointment in December 2003 of Chicago-based federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, I and other Democratic members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence repeatedly pressed our Republican colleagues to open a formal Congressional investigation into the matter. Then-chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Porter Goss showed absolutely no interest in pursuing the matter. We received the usual excuses: "The Justice Department is already reviewing this matter," "Internal CIA damage reviews can take care of it," etc. Indeed, it was only under intense public pressure that then-Attorney General Ashcroft finally recused himself from the criminal investigation--almost 6 months after the Novak column ran. That simply wasn't good enough for me.

The reason Congress should deal with this matter, whether or not there a legal inquiry, is that we in Congress have a responsibility to see that those whom we ask to protect America have everything they need to do it. For soldiers in the field that means everything from competent command to body armor. Agents charged to collect intelligence engage  in no less risking undertakings so that with information about the world we can avoid conflict (at least that is supposed to be a purpose of intelligence) or, if there is conflict, to prevail. Agents operating under cover have only their cover to protect them. Some have diplomatic immunity, but others are really "out on limb" without even that. Congress needs to make certain we have in place protections for these people in service to their country.

One of the great problems we face in Washington these days in the general lack of appetite among many in Congress--including, unfortunately, some Democrats--to uphold Congress' Constitutional prerogatives and duties. The most important of these by far is oversight of the executive branch, particularly in the national security arena. The Plame leak investigation is a prime case in point (as are various matters associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq).

On January 21st, 2004, I introduced what is known in Congressional parlance as a "Resolution of Inquiry" (or ROI for short). Such a resolution is a legislative instrument making a direct request or demand of the President or the head of an executive department to furnish the House of Representatives with specific factual. Unlike a normal bill or resolution, the referred committee must report to the House on the Resolution of Inquiry, either favorably or adversely, within 14 legislative days of introduction.  If the referred committee does not report the resolution back to the House within 14 legislative days, a Member of the House may raise a privileged motion to discharge the committee from further consideration of the resolution and to bring the resolution to the House Floor for a vote.

That's the value of the Resolution of Inquiry--there is no way for Congress to avoid a vote on it, even if only a vote is to table it, which is to vote it down. Because my Resolution of Inquiry in 2004 sought documents from the President, the Secretaries of Defense and State, as well as the Attorney General, it was referred to multiple committees, including the HPSCI, of which I am a member. How the Republican majority chose to deal with this ROI spoke volumes about their commitment to upholding Congress's responsibility to police the executive branch.

One week after I introduced it (H. Res. 499), Intelligence Committee Republicans called a meeting of the HPSCI and passed a motion to close the meeting and make the proceedings secret. The committee later reopened the meeting to vote to report the resolution adversely. The Resolution met the same fate with the other committees it was referred to. No investigation. No accountability for White House officials. Case closed.

Except it wasn't--at least not for me, and a few other Members and at least some in the media, who kept after the story even as the war in Iraq and the 2004 presidential contest pushed other issues off the pages of the newspapers.

The issue also consumed the time and energies of special counsel Fitzgerald, who took a rather unusual approach to the case by threatening journalists with jail time unless they cooperated with his investigation. As we all now know, TIME magazine reporter Matthew Cooper's primary source on the Plame story--and Plame's CIA affiliation--was none other than Karl Rove, the chief political advisor and deputy White House chief of staff.  This is the same Karl Rove who had "no role" in this breach of national security, according to the repeated assurances of White House press secretary Scott McCllelan. Based on this latest revelation, as well as Fitzgerald's previous court filings indicating that his investigation was largely complete (with the exception of the ongoing legal battle with TIME and the New York Times to compel their journalists to testify in the case), I decided to reintroduce a series of Resolution's of Inquiry just before the Congressional August recess.

I am particularly interested in learning who in the State Department wrote the June and July 2003 memos that apparently named Valerie Plame Wilson by name, and who among the White House staff and the staffs of the Departments of State and Defense saw the memos, either before, during or after the President's July 2003 trip to Africa--a trip that preceded Novak's column by less than a week. The circumstances surrounding how that classified and sensitive information made its way into a policy memo for then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, and whether it was shown to other people in the administration, deserve a thorough inquiry by Congress.

Very soon, members of key Congressional committees will have to decide whether they intend to take their Constitutional responsibilities seriously and investigate this flagrant breach of national security, or to vote four more times to rubber stamp their approval of an executive branch abuse of power whose damage to our nation's intelligence services will be with us for decades. That process will start Wednesday afternoon at 2pm, when the House Armed Services Committee takes up H. Res. 417, my Resolution of Inquiry that seeks any documents and related materials in the Plame case from the Secretary of Defense.

I will use that hearing, and the subsequent hearings in the other three committees, to remind my colleagues that the issues in this case are far more serious than the damage to one person's career and the harm that may come to those associated with her. The outing of Valerie Plame has damaged the efforts of all those serving America under cover, intelligence officers who from now on will never be sure that their government will not cut them adrift--without even a peep of dismay from the White House. And the damage will be magnified as our clandestine case officers--the people who recruit, manage, and care for the foreign nationals who give us the secret information we need to protect America--find it increasingly difficult to convince their foreign contacts to risk their lives talking to an American. That is why legal accountability in this case and legislative corrective action are both vital, and it's why I'll keep fighting for both for as long as it takes.