109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–30 

DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY 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 THOSE OFFICIALS 

RELATING TO THE SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS AND BACKGROUND 

CHECKS RELATING TO GRANTING ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE OF 

JAMES D. GUCKERT (ALSO KNOWN AS JEFF GANNON) 

APRIL 5, 2005.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

ADVERSE REPORT 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H. Res. 136] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the resolution (H. Res. 136) directing the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security 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 those officials relating to 

the security investigations and background checks relating to 

granting access to the White House of James D. Guckert (also 

known as Jeff Gannon), having considered the same, report unfavorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the resolution not be agreed to. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 9 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 9 

2 

1William Holmes Brown, House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures 

of the House 819 (2003). 2 7 Deschler’s Precedents of the House of Representatives, ch. 24, § 8. 

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 9 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 10 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 10 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 10 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 10 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 10 

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 10 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Resolution, as Reported ......................... 10 

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 11 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 33 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

House Resolution 136, introduced by Representatives Conyers 

and Slaughter on March 3, 2005, directs the Attorney General and 

Secretary of Homeland Security to transmit to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of adoption of 

this resolution, documents in the possession of those officials relating to the security investigations and background checks related to 

granting access to the White House of James D. Guckert (also 

known as Jeff Gannon). 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

HOUSE RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY

House Resolution 136 is a resolution of inquiry. Clause 7 of Rule 

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides that if 

the Committee to which it is referred does not act on the resolution 

within 14 legislative days, a privileged motion to discharge the resolution from the Committee is in order on the House floor. In calculating the days available for Committee consideration, the day of 

introduction and the day of discharge are not counted.1 Upon introduction, H. Res. 136 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on March 3, 2005, and was ordered reported adversely on 

March 16, 2005 by the Committee. Under the rules and precedents 

of the House, a resolution of inquiry passed by the House of Representatives allows the House to request information from the 

President of the United States or to direct the head of one of the 

executive departments to provide such information. According to 

Deschler’s Precedents, it is a ‘‘simple resolution making a direct request or demand of the President or the head of an executive department to furnish the House of Representatives with specific factual information in the possession of the executive branch.’’ 2

As mentioned before, if a Committee does not report the resolution of inquiry in a timely manner, it may be discharged from a 

Committee by House floor vote under a privileged motion. However, if a Committee acts in a timely manner, it may report the resolution either favorably or adversely. 

A Committee that adversely reports a resolution of inquiry does 

not necessarily oppose the resolution under consideration but may 

find it unnecessary. In the past, resolutions of inquiry have oftentimes been reported adversely for several recurring reasons, two of 

which are that an Administration is already in substantial compliance with the request or that there is an ongoing competing invesVerDate Aug 04 2004 12:00 Apr 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR030.XXX HR030
3 

3 H.R. Rep. No. 1079, 92nd Cong., 2nd Sess., (1972). 

tigation. There is also past precedent for a resolution of inquiry to 

be adversely reported because the nature of the information demanded was highly sensitive and inappropriate for such a public 

means of inquiry.3

In this instance, the common circumstances in which a resolution 

of inquiry should be adversely reported are present. First, the Congress received information responsive to the legislative purposes 

sought by the resolution. Second, House Resolution 136 requests 

documents that appear to relate to competing ongoing investigations. In addition, the House Resolution 136 requests documents 

that are of a highly sensitive nature, as they deal with the security 

procedures of the White House itself and Secret Service protection 

of the President and First Family. 

THE TARGET OF THE RESOLUTION—JAMES D. GUCKERT

(ALSO KNOWN AS JEFF GANNON)

According to a February 19, 2005 Washington Post article by 

Howard Kurtz entitled Jeff Gannon Admits Past ‘‘Mistakes,’’ Berates Critics, James Guckert, covered the White House for two conservative Web sites, Talon News and GOPUSA, both owned by a 

Texas Republican activitist. Mr. Guckert resigned in February 

2005. 

The Kurtz article states that ‘‘[Mr. Guckert] became a target 

after asking President Bush a question that slammed Senate 

Democrats and contained false information about Minority Leader 

Harry Reid (D-Nev.)’’ The article also pointed out that while ‘‘Gannon said he began covering the White House in February 2003, at 

least a month before Talon News was created.’’ He then went on 

to explain that he was working for GOPUSA during that time. 

REASON FOR ADVERSELY REPORTING HOUSE RESOLUTION 136

On March 16, 2005 the Committee adversely reported H. Res. 

136 by roll call vote. In adversely reporting the resolution, the 

Committee considered the following factors of paramount importance to its determination that the resolution not be accorded a 

privileged motion on the House floor. 

SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

First, the Committee finds that Administration substantially 

complied with the March 3, 2005 introduced resolution of inquiry 

by its March 7, 2005 letter from the Secret Service to Representatives Conyers and Slaughter. 

On February 10, 2005, Mr. Conyers and Ms. Slaughter sent a letter to Director Basham of the Secret Service stating: 

We write to inquire about the process you employ to clear individuals for attendance at events within a close proximity of the 

President. We have recently become aware that a Republican 

activist, with a potential criminal past, gained access to the 

White House press briefing room and Presidential press conferences and was allowed to work under an assumed name. 

This appears to contradict the strict standards you have set for 

4 

protecting the President in the past and have applied to others 

seeking access to the White House or the President. 

On March 3, 2005, Mr. Conyers and Ms. Slaughter introduced H. 

Res. 136 requesting similar information from the Departments of 

Homeland Security and Justice. 

On March 7, 2005, the Secret Service responded to Mr. Conyers 

and Ms. Slaughter. The Secret Service had its Office of Protective 

Operations investigate the matter of whether there was a deviation 

from Secret Service standards and procedures. The Office of Protective Operations found none. 

The letter stated the Secret Service assessed Mr. Guckert using 

the same criteria as those applied to all individuals seeking day 

pass access to White House briefings. The Secret Service stated 

that it is solely responsible for the security of the White House 

Complex. In the letter, the Secret Service advised the Members 

that those afforded access to the White House may utilize professional names that differ from their legal names, but that a reporter 

seeking a day pass must provide his or her legal name. The Secret 

Service explained that Mr. Guckert used the ‘‘pen name’’ of Jeff 

Gannon, but also provided his legal name, his Social Security number and birth date in applying for a day pass. The Secret Service 

also pointed out that they are bound by a longstanding Federal regulation that requires the Secret Service to be guided ‘‘solely by the 

principle of whether the applicant presents a potential source of 

physical danger to the President and/or the family of the President 

so serious as to justify his or her exclusion from White House press 

privileges.’’ The Secret Service determined that Mr. Guckert was 

not a physical danger to the President. 

The Administration, through this letter from the Secret Service, 

explained that the normal procedures were properly followed and 

the Secret Service did not find that Mr. Guckert posed a threat to 

the President or his family. 

In a March 8, 2005 press release, Representatives Conyers and 

Slaughter acknowledged that the ‘‘conservative activist’’ they inquired about on February 10, 2005, had used his real name when 

he applied for his day pass. 

COMPETING INVESTIGATIONS

A second reason the Committee is reporting H. Res. 136 adversely is because it directs Executive Branch officials to transmit 

to the House of Representatives documents that may be subject to 

ongoing criminal and administrative investigations. 

The sponsors of H. Res. 136 requested criminal and administrative investigations. As a result, these documents may be subject to 

an ongoing criminal investigation and a grand jury investigation. 

On February 10, 2005, Representatives Conyers and Slaughter 

wrote to U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald investigating the alleged leak of 

a CIA operative’s name. The letter requested they investigate the 

‘‘leak of a classified Central Intelligence Agency memo containing 

the identity of undercover agent Valerie Plame to James D. 

Guckert, a member of the White House press corp.’’ 

The Plame criminal investigation stemmed from a July 14, 2003 

article by syndicated columnist Robert Novak, questioning why retired diplomat Joseph Wilson would be sent to Niger on a CIA misVerDate Aug 04 2004 12:00 Apr 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR030.XXX HR030
5 

4 Robert Novak, Editorial, Mission to Niger, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, July 14, 2003, at 31. 5 Id. 

6 John Dickerson & Viveca Novak, Grand Jury Hears Plame Case, Time.com (Jan. 22, 2004), 

available at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,581456,00.html (last visited Jan. 

29, 2004). 7 Charles Doyle, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress: Federal Grand Juries: 

the Law in a Nutshell 1 (Feb. 5, 2002). 

sion.4 Mr. Novak wrote that ‘‘Wilson never worked for the CIA, but 

his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass 

destruction. Two senior administration officials told [Novak] Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate. . . .’’ 5

In late January 2004, the press reported that a grand jury had 

convened in Washington, D.C., to hear testimony on this investigation.6 On January 21, 2004, Representative Holt introduced House 

Resolution 499, a resolution relating to the Plame matters. This 

Committee reported that resolution adversely because of an ongoing grand jury investigation. The Committee concluded ‘‘the Federal grand jury enjoys sweeping authority’’ 7 that allows investigators to subpoena witnesses and request the same documents requested in H. Res. 499, including telephone and electronic mail 

records, logs and calendars, personnel records, and records of internal discussions. On July 21, 2004, the Committee adversely reported H. Res. 700, which requested information related to the 

treatment of detainees because of several competing administrative 

and criminal investigations. 

In this instance, the February 10, 2005 Conyers’ letter asked 

the U.S. Attorney, to: 

investigate the leak of a classified Central Intelligence Agency 

memo containing the identity of undercover agent Valerie 

Plame to James D. Guckert, a member of the White House 

press corps. It appears that the White House was so focused 

on smearing the reputation of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, that 

it knowingly leaked his wife’s identity to a Republican activist 

posing as a journalist. 

James D. Guckert, who operated under the false name ‘‘Jeff 

Gannon,’’ and may have engaged in criminal activity, had been 

attending press events at the White House for up to three 

years. Mr. Guckert reportedly received an internal and classified CIA memo that revealed the identity of Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife. Because of the extremely sensitive nature 

of this leak, and its relation to the investigation you are conducting, we believe that you as special counsel are the most 

appropriate person to conduct the inquiry. 

Mr. Conyers and Ms. Slaughter charged that ‘‘[w]hoever in the 

Administration gave Mr. Guckert the memo risked Ms. Plame’s 

very life and must be punished to the full extent of the law.’’ In 

their letter Representatives Conyers and Slaughter went on to say: 

There is a clear conflict of interest in the Administration investigating Mr. Guckert’s role in this crime. Mr. Guckert and the 

White House press operation work together closely to forward 

the President’s policies. First, Mr. Guckert would not be considered a bona fide journalist by his peers in the press corps, 

as most of his claims to legitimacy have already been discredited. Access to the President and his press corps is highly comVerDate Aug 04 2004 12:00 Apr 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR030.XXX HR030
6 

petitive, and many seasoned journalists have not had the 

honor of attending the events or enjoying the access Mr. 

Guckert has. That a person of these dubious qualifications was 

given such close contact to the President, perhaps in violation 

of standard security procedures, demonstrates the Administration’s affinity for and bias towards Mr. Guckert. Second, Mr. 

Guckert’s questions clearly reiterated the White House’s policy, 

and simply asked for concurrence. Finally, Mr. Guckert’s ‘‘articles,’’ published by a news front for GOPUSA, track White 

House talking points word for word. [emphasis added]. 

Clearly, Mr. Guckert returned the White House’s favor by advancing the President’s policies with gusto. With such a close 

relationship between Mr. Guckert and the White House, the 

conflict of an Administration-led investigation is all too apparent. Finally, the public interest has been thwarted far too long 

over the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity. It has been over a year 

and a half since Robert Novak published Plame’s identity and 

we are no closer to finding who in the Administration illegally 

leaked her status as an undercover agent. Having a special 

counsel immediately follow up this lead is necessary to ensure 

that those who risk their lives for our country to gather intelligence are fully protected. 

On February 23, 2005 Representatives Conyers and Slaughter 

sent another letter to U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald requesting Mr. Fitzgerald subpoena Mr. Guckert to provide his private journal to the 

grand jury: 

We are writing to inform you of the existence of information 

potentially vital to your investigation of the leak of a CIA operative name. A person in the White House briefing room who 

had access to a memo revealing the operative’s name also kept 

a journal of his days covering the White House. We bring this 

to your attention because we believe your office may need to 

subpoena the journal to further the work of the grand jury. 

As many people are aware, James Guckert (aka ‘‘Jeff Gannon’’) 

posed as a journalist and gained entry to the White House 

briefing room. He also may have had access to documents that 

leaked the name of the CIA operative. In an October 2003 

interview with Joseph C. Wilson IV, the husband of the operative, Mr. Guckert referenced a memo written by U.S. intelligence officials indicating the operative suggested Mr. Wilson 

could investigate reports that Iraq had sought uranium. In and 

of itself, this indicates that Mr. Guckert had access to classified information. 

It should be noted that four days prior to Mr. Conyers and Ms. 

Slaughter sending this correspondence, alleging that Mr. Gannon/ 

Guckert received a classified memorandum, Mr. Guckert had 

claimed that he had not received such a briefing in a February 19, 

2005 Washington Post article by Howard Kurtz entitled Jeff Gannon Admits Past ‘‘Mistakes,’’ Berates Critics. Mr. Kurtz reports the 

following: 

Mr. Gannon . . . said he was questioned by the FBI in the 

Valerie Plame leak investigation after referring to a classified 

7 

CIA document when he interviewed the outed CIA operative’s 

husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson. 

But he said yesterday [February 18, 2005]: ‘‘I didn’t have the 

document. I never saw the document. It was written about in 

the Wall Street Journal a week before. I had no special access 

to classified information.’’ 

The Committee has also previously reported resolutions of inquiry adversely because of other types of competing investigations. 

For instance, on July 17, 2003, this Committee adversely reported 

H. Res. 287, a resolution of inquiry, due to an ongoing competing 

investigation of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. 

That resolution of inquiry directed the Attorney General to transmit all physical and electronic records and documents in his possession related to any use of Federal agency resources in any task or 

action involving or relating to Members of the Texas Legislature in 

the period beginning May 11, 2003, and ending May 16, 2003, except information the disclosure of which would harm the national 

security interests of the United States. The Committee’s report 

stated: 

According to a May 12, 2003, press release issued by the Texas 

Department of Public Safety, the public was asked for assistance in locating 53 Texas legislators who had ‘‘disappeared.’’ 

According to the release, under the Texas Constitution, the 

majority of members present in session in the Texas State 

House can vote to compel the presence of enough members to 

make a quorum. Members of the House did so and directed the 

Sergeant-at-Arms of the House and the Department of Public 

Safety to locate the absent members and bring them back to 

the State capital. 

On May 27, 2003, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut sent 

a letter to the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice asking for ‘‘a full investigation into this 

matter.’’ After receipt of the letter from the Senator, in a statement to the press, the Office of the Inspector General disclosed 

that on June 4, 2003, it began investigating what, if any, Department of Justice resources were expended in connection 

with this matter. As of the filing of this report, that investigation is still ongoing. 

In this instance, on February 23, 2005, Mr. Conyers and Ms. 

Slaughter sent a letter to the Comptroller General of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting that the GAO expand on a January 11, 2005 request that asked the Comptroller to 

investigate whether the Administration illegally used appropriated 

money to covertly advocate for seven different programs. The letter 

also requested GAO also look at whether the Administration violated the ban on prepackaged news stories by siphoning print stories to James D. Guckert, also known as ‘‘Jeff Gannon.’’ 

The sponsors of H. Res. 136 sent letters requesting criminal and 

administrative investigations claiming that Mr. Guckert received 

improper access to the White House or White House documents 

and used this access improperly. These letters make serious allegations of conflicts of interest and criminal activity. One letter alleges 

that he ‘‘posed as a journalist and gained access to the White 

8 

House briefing room, and that this allowed him access to a memo 

that leaked the name of a CIA operative to the press.’’ In another 

letter, Mr. Conyers and Ms. Slaughter even requested the U.S. Attorney to subpoena Mr. Guckert’s private journal. These letters (2/ 

10, 2/23) and the introduction of the resolution of inquiry itself (3/ 

3) predate the Secret Service response (3/7) which demonstrates 

that procedures were followed, that Mr. Guckert did not get special 

treatment, that Mr. Guckert did not give a false name—thus he did 

not ‘‘pose as a journalist,’’ and that there was no reason to deny 

him access under current procedures and Federal regulations. 

Whether Members of the Committee agree or disagree about the 

need for Congress to investigate the allegations contained in the 

resolution of inquiry, the sponsors themselves requested these competing investigations that preclude Congressional involvement 

based on previous precedents. Accordingly, the Committee is adversely reporting H. Res. 136 on these grounds as well. 

SENSITIVE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED

A third reason to report this resolution adversely is the fact that 

H. Res. 136 requests information about the security procedures and 

Secret Service practices involved in protecting the President and 

First Family and controlling access for White House press, much 

of which is of a highly sensitive nature. For instance, the resolution 

requests all documents setting forth policies and procedures discussing security clearances and background checks related to 

granting access into the White House. Such documents could reveal 

highly sensitive information about the Secret Service and its manner of protection for the President, First Family, and White House 

grounds. Such revelations could expose potential vulnerabilities for 

those who would do harm. Additionally, the letter the Secret Service already sent responded in the negative to the sponsors concerns 

that Mr. Guckert used a false name and he received special treatment, but did so without revealing sensitive information. 

CONCLUSION

The Committee reports this resolution of inquiry adversely for 

the reasons outlined above. First, the Administration has substantially complied with information requested as the sponsors have received information responsive to the resolution. The March 7, 2005 

letter from the Secret Service responded to the resolution of inquiry’s core allegations and requests. Second, the authors of the 

resolution themselves requested additional criminal and administrative investigations into the relationship between Mr. Guckert 

and the White House. A competing investigation is a common reason that Committees have opposed resolutions of inquiry in the 

past. Finally, the resolution requests documents of a highly sensitive nature as they relate to the security of the White House, Secret Service procedures, and potential vulnerabilities. 

Accordingly, this resolution is reported adversely by the Committee because the Administration has already substantially complied without revealing sensitive information that could jeopardize 

the safety of the President, and because this request could interfere 

with the competing investigations that were requested by the sponsors of the resolution themselves. 

9 

HEARINGS

The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H. Res. 136. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On March 16, 2005, the Committee met in open session and adversely reported the resolution, H. Res. 136, by a recorded vote of 

21 ayes to 10 noes, a quorum being present. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there were no 

recorded votes during the Committee’s consideration of H. Res. 136. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Inglis ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Hostettler .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Flake ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney .........................................................................................................

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner .........................................................................................................

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Washington) ....................................................................................

Mr. Van Hollen .................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 21 10 

10 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(d)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee estimates the costs of implementing the resolution would be minimal. The Congressional 

Budget Office did not provide a cost estimate for the resolution. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

H. Res. 136 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 3(c)(4) 

of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds that the rule does not 

apply because H. Res. 136 is not a bill or joint resolution that may 

be enacted into law. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The resolution directs that the Attorney General and Secretary 

of Homeland Security transmit to the House of Representatives not 

later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution 

all documents in the possession of those officials relating to the security investigations and background checks relating to granting 

access to the White House of James D. Guckert (also known as Jeff 

Gannon) and any requisite instruction for handling such documents. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE RESOLUTION, 

AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that H. Res. 136 

makes no changes to existing law. 

11 

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

MARCH 16, 2005 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

[Intervening business.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Now, pursuant to notice, I call up 

House Resolution 136, directing the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this 

resolution documents in possession of those officials relating to the 

security investigations and background checks relating to granting 

access to the White House of James D. Guckert, also known as Jeff 

Gannon, for purposes of markup and move its—report it adversely 

to the House. Without objection, the resolution will be considered 

as read and open for amendment at any time. 

[The resolution, H. Res. 136, follows:] 

12 

1

IV

109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 136

Directing the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security

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 those officials relating to the security investigations and background checks relating to granting access to the White House of James

D. Guckert (also known as Jeff Gannon).

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 3, 2005

Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. THOMPSON

of Mississippi, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. DEFAZIO,

Mr. MCDERMOTT, Ms. WATERS, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. NADLER, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas,

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. LEE, Mr. WEINER, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr.

CAPUANO, Ms. WATSON, Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California, Mr. VAN

HOLLEN, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. OLVER, and Mrs.

MALONEY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Directing the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security 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

those officials relating to the security investigations and

background checks relating to granting access to the

White House of James D. Guckert (also known as Jeff

Gannon).


I136.AAB
13 

2

•HRES 136 IH

1 Resolved, That the Attorney General and the Sec2 retary of Homeland Security are each directed to transmit

3 to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days

4 after the date of the adoption of this resolution all docu5 ments in their possession relating to the security investiga6 tions and background checks relating to granting access

7 to the White House of James D. Guckert (also known as

8 Jeff Gannon) and any requisite instructions for handling

9 such documents, including—

10 (1) all records setting forth or discussing

11 whether an individual granted access to the Presi12 dent or to the White House briefing room may use

13 a false name;

14 (2) all records setting forth or discussing poli15 cies, procedures, or guidelines discussing security

16 clearances and background checks relating to grant17 ing access into the White House briefing room;

18 (3) all records indicating how the policies, pro19 cedures, or guidelines referred to above were com20 municated to Mr. Guckert;

21 (4) all records indicating the officer or office re22 sponsible for requesting that the Secret Service

23 carry out a security investigation or background

24 check with respect to an individual seeking access to

25 the President or to the White House briefing room;


I136.AAC
14 

3

•HRES 136 IH

1 (5) all records setting forth the standards for

2 security investigations or background checks with re3 spect to ‘‘day pass’’ credentials;

4 (6) all records indicating or discussing whether

5 and to what extent an individual who is cleared for

6 a day pass for a given date is required to receive

7 further security clearance for a day pass for a later

8 date;

9 (7) all records setting forth or discussing which

10 officer or officers, if any, has the authority to ex11 empt an individual seeking access to the President

12 or to the White House briefing room from the stand13 ards for security investigations or background

14 checks that otherwise apply; and

15 (8) all records of communication between the

16 Secret Service and Mr. Guckert, including not only

17 postal correspondence but also electronic mail cor18 respondence, facsimile correspondence, records of

19 telephone conversations, and any other records of

20 communication.

Æ


I136.AAD
15 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. I would strike the requisite number of words. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. And I would like to point out to the Members of 

the Committee that this resolution of inquiry is brought under the 

rules of the House of Representatives and mandates that we determine how to dispose of the matter and that it cannot be ignored 

or passed over within the number of days that the Chairman has 

correctly stated. We’re here because of the Jeff Gannon, phony reporter in the White House issue. It defies credibility that a reporter 

operating under an alias, who couldn’t even get privileges in the 

House or Senate press gallery, could receive scores of consecutive 

White House day passes without the intervention of someone at the 

White House. Who? We do not know. And, further, the Administration will not tell us nor will they cooperate. 

Now, there are Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists who are regularly turned down for White House press credentials, and yet a 

sham journalist working for a politically controlled media front operation could receive open-ended access to the White House press 

room because someone let him in. 

We’re here today because we have an Administration that has 

consistently refused cooperation, and we now have a Congress that 

under our rules imposed upon the Judiciary Committee a determination that we should investigate this most serious of ethical 

transgressions. 

We are here because the Administration has either rejected or ignored every bona fide request for information concerning the socalled Jeff Gannon. On February 9, the gentlelady from New York, 

Louise Slaughter, asked the White House in writing about this. Ignored. 

On February 10, the gentlelady from New York and I posed the 

question to the Secret Service and received a non-responsive response. 

On February 15, the gentlelady from New York and I filed a 

Freedom of Information request with the Department of Homeland 

Security and again no response. 

In light of this, we have no choice but to ask our distinguished 

Committee on the Judiciary to assist us in this job and request the 

materials from the Administration, simply the information, because 

they are—because others in Government are simply unwilling to 

give us the cooperation. And we cannot tolerate phony news set-ups 

in the Administration, the purchasing of news from columnists, or 

anything that takes Federal money and uses it for political or propagandistic purposes. Taxpayers don’t want their money used that 

way, and neither do we. We can no longer tolerate paying reporters 

for opinions when we can’t find funds for our job programs and our 

poverty programs. Americans don’t want the White House press 

room to churn out press releases that reporters like Jeff Gannon 

plagiarize and report as their own. 

So, in conclusion, what we have today is a Government that is 

ruled almost by one party, totally lacking in accountability, instead 

of a system of checks and balances. And if we don’t investigate this 

matter thoroughly, impartially, and in a bipartisan sense, where 

16 

and when will we draw the line? If we don’t act now, when will 

there be someone to say enough is enough? 

I plead with my Committee Members in the Judiciary to support 

this very plain but necessary and imperative resolution of inquiry, 

and I return my time, and I thank the Chairman of the Committee. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair strikes the last word. 

The Administration, in my opinion, has already substantially 

complied with the terms of this resolution by providing the information requested by it. There also appears to be ongoing competing 

investigations into the relationship between Mr. Guckert and the 

White House at the request of the Ranking Member himself. 

On February 10, Representatives Conyers and Slaughter sent the 

Secret Service letter—a letter requesting similar information. The 

Secret Service requested its Office of Protective Operations to examine whether the Service deviated from established standards 

and procedures when granting Mr. Guckert access to the White 

House. 

In a March 7 letter to the two Representatives, the Service stated that the OPO investigated their concern and found no evidence 

to suggest that Mr. Guckert received special treatment when obtaining access to the White House. The letter further stated that 

the Secret Service assessed Mr. Guckert utilizing the same criteria 

as those applied to all individuals seeking day pass access to White 

House briefings. 

The Secret Service also indicated that it is solely responsible for 

the security of the White House complex. The letter informed our 

colleagues that those afforded access to the White House may use 

professional names that differ from their legal names, that the Secret Service, nevertheless, requires legal names be provided to receive access, and that Mr. Guckert used the pen name of Jeff Gannon. 

The letter also stated that Mr. Guckert provided his legal name, 

Social Security number, and birth date for access and that Federal 

regulation requires the Secret Service to be guided solely by the 

principle of whether the applicant presents a potential source of 

physical danger to the President and/or the family of the President 

so serious as to justify his or her exclusion from White House press 

privileges, unquote. The letter concluded by stating that the Secret 

Service had determined that Mr. Guckert did not pose a physical 

danger to the President or his family. 

In a March 8 press release, our colleagues did acknowledge that 

Mr. Guckert, whom they deemed ‘‘a conservative activist,’’ used his 

legal name when he applied for his day pass. The information already provided by the Secret Service provides a basis to adversely 

support this resolution. However, additional letters sent by the 

Ranking Member to the Comptroller General and the U.S. Attorney 

for the Northern District of Illinois, Patrick Fitzgerald, provide additional reasons to adversely report the resolution in order to avoid 

interfering with those investigations. 

Our colleagues requested Attorney Fitzgerald to include Mr. 

Guckert in the Valerie Plame investigation in two separate letters 

dated February 10 and February 23. The Plame criminal investigation stems from a 2003 article by syndicated columnist Robert 

Novak. The leak of Valerie Plame’s name is currently under investigation by U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald. 

17 

Moreover, on February 23, our colleagues requested the GAO to 

expand on a January 11, 2005, request to investigate whether the 

Administration illegally used appropriated money to covertly advocate for seven different Administration programs. This letter requested GAO to examine whether the Administration violated the 

ban on prepackaged news stories by siphoning print stories to 

James D. Guckert. 

Avoiding competing investigations is a common and well-founded 

reason that Committees have opposed resolutions of inquiry in the 

past. This Committee has previously reported such resolutions adversely for this precise reason, and I urge my colleagues to do so 

today. 

I would reiterate the fact that the Administration has substantially complied with the request for information, and the sponsors 

of this resolution have requested Mr. Guckert be included in a 

criminal grand jury investigation and a GAO investigation. I urge 

Members to support the motion to report adversely. 

I would like to introduce into the record a reprint of 31 Code of 

Federal Regulations Chapter 4, Part 409(1) relating to standards 

for security clearances that has been in the Code of Federal Regulations since June 22, 1978. Without objection, this information will 

be included. 

[The information follows:] 

18 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members’ 

opening statements will appear in the record at this point. 

Are there amendments? The gentleman from California. 

Mr. BERMAN. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think by definition the fact that 

this resolution of inquiry is before is confirmation of the fact that 

the people who requested the information, namely, the Ranking 

Member and the gentlelady from New York, did not receive answers to the questions they asked. Those specifically were who or 

what office was responsible for ultimately granting access to the 

White House, given the applicant passes, his background check, inVerDate Aug 04 2004 12:00 Apr 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR030.XXX HR030

136A.eps
19 

cluding who or what office asked the Secret Service to complete a 

background check on Mr. Guckert, specifically whether a single 

clearance lasts indefinitely or whether the applicant must reapply 

for each day pass, and how many times and on what days Mr. 

Guckert was cleared and who requested that clearance. 

While the Secret Service has partially responded to the Ranking 

Member’s request, the very specific questions related to the belief 

and the allegation that essentially a conservative activist was promoted by the White House to seek a clearance for being able to ask 

a question as an independent news reporters have not been answered, and those are the questions for which we and the sponsor 

of the resolution of inquiry and the Ranking Member are seeking 

information. And that’s why this resolution should be adopted. 

And may I just put in the record a copy of the letters dated February 10, February 23—two of February 23, and February 15 to 

Patrick Fitzgerald; to Patrick Fitzgerald again; to David Walker, 

Comptroller General, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and 

to the Honorable Tom Ridge—letters sent by Ranking Member 

Conyers and Ranking Member of Rules Louise Slaughter. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you. 

[The material referred to follows:] 

20 


G136A1.eps
21 


G136A2.eps
22 


G136B.eps
23 


G136E1.eps
24 


G136E2.eps
25 


G136D1.eps
26 


G136D2.eps
27 


G136D3.eps
28 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And without objection, the Chair 

will introduce into the record a reply dated March 7 to the Ranking 

Member, Mr. Conyers, and Representative Slaughter on this subject, signed by Conrad A. Everett, Deputy Assistant Director of the 

Secret Service. 

[The material referred to follows:] 


G136C.eps
29 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments, further 

amendments? The gentlewoman from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I recognize that there have been a number of initiatives taken by 

the White House to self-investigate, but I clearly believe that the 

level of violations that may be confronted with the actions regarding Mr. Gannon, sometimes known in news transcripts as James 

D. Guckert, known alternatively as a right-wing activist, with 

seemingly no press credentials, and access to the White House 

briefing room and Presidential press conferences, cries out for a 

House investigation. 

I frankly believe that this is no less serious than what my colleagues thought the proceedings dealing with the Clinton impeachment were for them. This is a penetration of the White House, 

maybe a security breach, and I do not believe it can be answered 

with self-investigation. 

First of all, it appears that this is a longstanding practice—that 

it has violated a longstanding practice of carefully screening contacts with the President. This special access not only raises security concerns, but calls into question the fundamental fairness of 

White House press corps. In fact, the favoritism bestowed on this 

fake reporter may even have violated Federal law. Mr. Guckert’s 

efforts as a mouthpiece for the White House likely violated statutes 

banning the Administration from using appropriated money for 

propaganda purposes. We see what happened with a number of columnists who had been paid by Federal dollars to promote the Federal agenda. 

In addition, Mr. Guckert has claimed that he had access to classified Central Intelligence Agency documents that revealed the undercover status of Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife. It’s now been 

over a year and a half since Valerie Plame was maliciously ousted, 

her life destroyed, her profession destroyed, and we appear to be 

no closer and there seems to be no great interest on the part of the 

Administration in finding out who in the Administration played 

with her life for political purposes. 

I believe this resolution by Mr. Conyers—and I applaud him and 

the gentlelady from New York for their evenhandedness in this resolution. But I believe this resolution may shed some light on 

whether Mr. Guckert, the White House go-to propagandist, also received classified information and from whom. 

Mr. Chairman, we’re in a time when homeland security cannot 

be taken for granted. We’re now meeting and having hearings on 

how we can secure the homeland, but also, as we recently passed 

the intelligence reform bill of 2004, how we can be assured that 

there are no security breaches, while I believe that Mr. Gannon/Mr. 

Guckert is a crying example, a glaring example and cries out—a 

glaring example of security breach and cries out for resolution. This 

resolution that has been offered by Mr. Conyers is straightforward, 

simple, and to the point, and it allows this Judiciary Committee to 

do its job, that is, to rise above partisanship and to be bipartisan 

in ethics and in deserving and finding out the truth. 

30 

I hope my colleagues will enthusiastically support this resolution, 

for I believe that the danger that we put Valerie Plame in, the potential breach and leaks from the CIA documents, and the potential that someone else today is sitting in the White House equally 

disguised, with equally false documents, really cries out for us to 

do something. 

Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I’d be happy to yield to the distinguished—— 

Mr. CONYERS. I commend you for pointing out the international 

character of this inquiry. The safety of the country is involved if 

the person in question really has had access to CIA and information. 

And I want to say that if this Committee doesn’t support this 

resolution of inquiry, which only asks essentially who let Gannon 

in the White House—somebody in the White House let him in. If 

we don’t want to know, then we become a part of this conspiracy 

to cover this matter up. But like most things around here, the 

truth will come out, and I thank the gentlelady for yielding. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Conyers, I thank you for your thoughtfulness. If we don’t want to find out—— 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE.—we have not done our job. I ask for support 

of the resolution of inquiry. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Other amendments? 

[No response.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is reporting the resolution adversely. A reporting quorum is present. Those in favor of reporting the resolution adversely will say aye. 

Opposed, no? 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and—— 

Mr. CONYERS. May we get a record vote on this resolution? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A rollcall will be ordered. This will 

be the last rollcall of the day, I hope. Those in favor of reporting 

the resolution adversely will, as your names are called, answer aye, 

those opposed, no, and the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Lungren? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren, aye. Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus? 

31 

Mr. BACHUS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus, aye. Mr. Inglis? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, aye. Mr. Issa? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake? 

Mr. FLAKE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, aye. Mr. Pence? 

Mr. PENCE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence, aye. Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Feeney? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, aye. Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gohmert, aye. Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, no. Mr. Berman? 

Mr. BERMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt? 

Mr. WATT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, no. Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, no. Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan? 

Mr. MEEHAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan, no. Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, no. Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. No. 

32 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, no. Mr. Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen, no. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Members in the chamber who wish 

to cast or change their vote? The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Issa. 

Mr. ISSA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from South Carolina, 

Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members in the chamber 

who wish to cast or change their vote? If not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 21 ayes and 10 noes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the motion to report adversely 

is agreed to. 

The business scheduled before the Committee having been completed, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:42 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(33) 

DISSENTING VIEWS

We vigorously dissent from the Majority’s decision to report adversely H. Res. 136, which would have requested the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security disclose information concerning the manner in which Jeffrey Gannon (aka James 

A. Guckert) received White House press privileges. 

We dissent because we believe 1) Mr. Gannon was granted preferential access by the White House; 2) the granting of such access 

via temporary passes raises serious security issues; 3) the Administration’s course of dealings with Mr. Gannon may also have violated various legal requirements; and 4) there are no other means 

available to pursue these lines of inquiry. 

By defeating this Resolution, all of the above questions will remain unanswered, and the Majority continues a long line of inaction on their part which runs totally counter to the principles of accountability and checks and balances that our nation was founded 

upon. The Majority’s perfunctory rejection of this important Resolution, on a party line vote of 21–10, at the end of a long day of 

markup of other business, does a disservice to the 33 Members, including 14 members of this Committee, who submitted this Resolution of Inquiry to the House. 

It is an unfortunate fact of life that we have an Administration 

that is all too willing to flaunt the law, and a Republican-controlled 

Congress that refuses to investigate even the most serious ethical 

transgressions. Whether it is torture at Abu Ghraib, sole source 

contracts with Haliburton, or the outing of a CIA operative, this 

Congress has been unwilling and unable to ask the hard questions 

or issue the difficult subpoenas. The Committee’s failure to request 

even the most cursory of information regarding Mr. Gannon from 

the Administration represents a disturbing continuation of this 

trend, and illustrates the ongoing problem of one-party rule in 

Washington. 

When our Committee enacted its rules on January 26, 2005, Rep. 

Conyers offered an amendment to insure that the Minority could 

request oversight hearings into ethical abuses by the Administration. The Chairman rejected the proposal stating, among other 

things, that the resolution of inquiry was the Minority’s vehicle for 

investigation. Yet, now that we have proposed such a Resolution, 

the Majority has rejected it based on the specious contentions that 

our requests for information have been complied with, and that 

other investigations are ongoing. These assertions are neither accurate or relevant. 

In the following several pages, we set forth relevant background 

on this matter, and detail the reasons for our dissent in greater detail. 

34 

1Presidential Press Conference, Jan. 26, 2005. 

2See Eric Boehlert, Fake News, Fake Reporter, Salon.com, Feb. 10, 2005, at http:// 

www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/10/gannon—affair. 3See id. 

4 According to online magazine Salon.com’s interview of a Baltimore Sun reporter seated on 

the Standing Committee of Correspondents, the Standing Committee’s non-recognition of the publication led it to inquire as to what Talon was. After further independent investigation revealed 

that Talon was owned by the GOPUSA’s owner, Baltimore Sun reporter Julie Davis recounts 

what transpired as follows: ‘‘We had asked for some proof of Talon’s independence from 

[GOPUSA] . . . They didn’t provide anything, so we denied their credentials, which is pretty 

BACKGROUND

It is now widely known that James D. Guckert, a Republican activist, gained repeated access to the White House press briefing 

room and presidential press conferences from January of 2003 to 

January of 2005. He was allowed to work under the assumed name 

of ‘‘Jeff Gannon.’’ 

Almost immediately after President Bush called on Mr. Gannon 

by name during a January 26, 2005 press conference (to ask a controversial question deriding the Senate Democratic Leadership), 1

the blogosphere began investigating Mr. Gannon’s real identity, his 

journalistic ties, and his relationships within the Republican party. 

It is now clear that Talon News, for which Mr. Gannon served as 

the White House correspondent, has close working ties with Republican operatives, as well as a GOPUSA.com website. In fact, the 

same individual, Bobby Eberle, a Texas Republican activist and 

previous GOP delegate, owns both of these organizations. While 

Mr. Eberle’s Talon website claims to be ‘‘committed to delivering 

accurate, unbiased news coverage to [its] readers,’’ his 

GOPUSA.com site asserts itself as ‘‘bringing the conservative message to America.’’ 2

Further evidencing the tie between this alleged nonpartisan organization and its partisan counterpart is the fact that both organizations’ websites are registered to what appears to be Mr. Eberle’s 

Pearland, Texas personal residence address, and even 

TalonNews.com’s domain name registration contains Mr. Eberle’s 

GOPUSA email address. After learning of this, online advocacy 

group Media Matters for America concluded, ‘‘Talon News apparently consists of little more than Eberle, Gannon, and a few volunteers, and is virtually indistinguishable from GOPUSA.com . . . 

GOPUSA’s officers and directors show a similar lack of journalism 

experience, but plenty of experience working for Republican 

causes.’’ 3

It became readily apparent that Mr. Eberle and Mr. Gannon did 

not want the public to know of this connection. Shortly after Media 

Matters publicized this relationship to the American people, Talon 

quickly pulled its staff and reporter biographies from its website. 

It is, however, worth noting though that these biographies were 

still likely available at the time that Mr. Gannon and Talon requested access to the White House. 

The Standing Committee of Correspondents, a group of congressional reporters charged with overseeing the credentialing of press 

on Capitol Hill, quickly uncovered this relationship. On April 7, 

2004, the Standing Committee denied Mr. Gannon’s application for 

a press pass based on its inability to conclude that Talon was a legitimate, independent news organization. 4

35 

rare.’’ See Eric Boehlert, Giving ‘‘Gannon’’ a Pass, Salon.com, Feb. 11, 2005, at http:// 

www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/11/gannon. 5 Interview with Carl Cannon, immediate past president of the White House Correspondents’ 

Association, Hotline, Feb. 16, 2004. 6 Joe Strupp, Scott McClellan Reveals that Gannon/Guckert Got GOPUSA Press Pass, EDITOR

AND PUBLISHER,&&&& FEB. 18, 2005. 7 Id. 

Further investigation of Talon News revealed that its staff consisted of largely volunteer Republican activists having no journalism experience. Online advocacy group Media Matters for America analyzed several of Mr. Gannon’s posted articles and found on 

multiple occasions that Mr. Gannon had copied entire sections 

straight from White House press releases and pasted them into his 

filed dispatches as if it was his own writing. 

Standard operating procedure requires that anyone who has regular access to the White House receive a permanent or ‘‘hard pass.’’ 

Hard pass recipients must meet the following five criteria: 1) they 

must work for a news organization that is either based in Washington, or which has a Washington Bureau; 2) they must live in the 

Washington area; 3) they must demonstrate a need to be at the 

White House on a regular basis (this is usually done in a letter 

from a bureau chief to the Secret Service); 4) they must have a 

pass authorizing them to cover the U.S. Senate or House congressional galleries; and 5) they must undergo a Secret Service background check. 5

As noted above, Mr. Gannon was refused a congressional pass 

after the House and the Senate learned that he worked for 

GOPUSA. This prevented Mr. Gannon from receiving a hard pass. 

With White House approval, however, he was able to circumvent 

this requirement and obtained almost daily access to the White 

House, by virtue of receiving a series of ‘‘day passes’’ over an approximately two-year period. 

According to White House Press Secretary Scott McClellean, only 

20 to 25 day passes are handed out each day. 6 Those passes are 

handled by the same staff assistant every day, and are given to 

members of the press who are not part of the Washington news 

corps generally, but are covering a very specific issue or event that 

the White House is addressing on that day. 7

GROUNDS FOR DISSENT

1. Mr. Gannon Was Granted Preferential Access by the White House 

First and foremost, we are concerned that Mr. Gannon was 

granted preferential access by the White House over an approximately two-year period. This in turn raises questions as to whether 

the ordinary press requirements and safeguards were obviated 

merely to provide the Administration with a sympathetic questioner at White House briefings. 

Mr. Gannon’s use of an alias, as well as the circumstances surrounding his access to the White House, contradict the strict standards the Secret Service sets for protecting the President and deviate substantially from standards applied to others seeking access 

to the White House or the President. To the best of our knowledge, 

Gannon is the only member of the White House press corps to receive such a privileged standing. In fact, Pulitzer Prize winning 

36 

8Maureen Dowd, Bush’s Barberini Faun, NY TIMES, Feb. 17, 2005. 9See generally Jim Drinkard, Report: PR Spending Doubled Under Bush, USA Today, Jan. 

26, 2005, available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-26-williams -usat— 

x.htm (reporting that the Bush Administration spent at least $88 million in Fiscal Year 2004 

on contracts with major public relations firms, a number that is double what the Administration 

spent in President Bush’s first year in office). 10The Hotline, Feb. 16, 2005. 

journalists have been turned down for press passes. 8 It therefore 

appears to be highly unlikely that Mr. Gannon could have been repeatedly allowed into the White House over such a lengthy period 

without the intervention of someone very high up at the White 

House. 

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. This Administration has come under severe questioning for its involvement in 

‘‘manufactured’’ news. Among other things, Armstrong Williams received $240,000 from the Bush Administration to help promote the 

President’s ‘‘No Child Left Behind’’ program to minority audiences 

through his nationally-syndicated column. Michael McManus, author of the syndicated column, ‘‘Ethics & Religion,’’ which appears 

in 50 newspapers nationwide, was paid to champion a marriage initiative on the Administration’s behalf and also did not disclose to 

his readers that he was contracted to help make the initiative a 

success. 

These are just two of many contracts doled out by the Bush Administration, which has expended more than $88 million in taxpayer funds to disseminate manufactured news and propaganda. 9

In the present case, we have a very real concern that the White 

House intervened to grant such access with the specific intent of 

having a Republican partisan conveniently available to pose sympathetic questions at White House press briefings. Adoption of this 

Resolution of Inquiry would allow us to resolve these concerns. 

2. The Granting of Such Access Via Temporary Passes Raises Serious Security Issues 

By creating a loophole to the ordinary means of obtaining a 

White House press pass granting preferential access to Mr. Gannon, the Administration may have unwittingly jeopardized the security of the president. 

Mr. Gannon received access to the White House through the repeated issuance of day passes. Unlike permanent or ‘‘hard passes,’’ 

a day pass does not require a full Secret Service background check. 

In fact, clearance for a hard pass can take two to three months to 

complete. 

According to Carl Cannon, the immediate past President of the 

White House Correspondents Association, day passes are given to 

those who need access only for a short time to cover a specific event 

or immediate story. 10 However, it appears that the Bush Administration may have abused this process to keep Mr. Gannon in what 

amounts to near-constant access to the President. By repeatedly 

issuing day passes to Mr. Gannon, the White House was allowed 

to sidestep the usual clearance process for anyone with such regular access to press events. 

The precedent of such a waiver is quite alarming. It allows individuals who are unable to meet the criteria necessary to obtain a 

hard pass to obviate those requirements by obtaining special reVerDate Aug 04 2004 12:00 Apr 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR030.XXX HR030
37 

11Letter from David M. Walker, Comptroller General to Heads of Departments, Agencies and 

Others Concerned, Feb. 17, 2005 (B–304272), available at http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/ 

302710.pdf. 12 Joe Strupp, ’Gannon’ Interview: No Plame Subpoena, No Tie to White House, He Says, EDI- TOR AND PUBLISHER, Feb. 11, 2005. 

course to day pass procedures. At a minimum, this is highly dubious and dangerous alternative in the post 9/11 world when security 

concerns should be among the White House’s highest priorities. 

This concern alone justifies the adoption by the Committee of H. 

Res. 136 so that we may explore the issue in greater depth. 

3. The Administration’s Course of Dealings with Mr. Gannon May 

Have Violated Various Legal Requirements 

We also believe it is important to obtain information concerning 

Mr. Gannon’s interactions with the White House in order to resolve 

concerns the White House may have illegally published propaganda 

and improperly granted access to classified information. 

On numerous occasions Mr. Gannon reprinted White House talking points and press releases word for word as his own work. The 

non-partisan GAO has determined that it is illegal for the Administration to use appropriated money to broadcast or publish propaganda without taking credit for it. 11 Accordingly, the White House 

may have violated this ban when it gave prepackaged print stories 

to Mr. Gannon, which he reprinted wholesale without disclosing 

that they were authored by the Administration. 

A separate legal concern relates to the fact that Mr. Guckert may 

have had access to classified information, in violation of laws that 

protect the identity of undercover agents. This is because he 

claimed to have seen a classified CIA document identifying Valerie 

Plame as an undercover agent. 12

4. There Are No Other Means Available to Pursue These Lines of 

Inquiry 

It is important that we pursue this information from the Administration through a Resolution of Inquiry since all other potential 

avenues of obtaining the information have either been ignored or 

rejected by the Administration. 

This resolution comes only after numerous Congressional inquiries that have gone unanswered (all attached herewith): 

• Feb. 9, 2005: Representative Slaughter writes to President 

Bush inquiring how Mr. Gannon repeatedly got access to the 

White House press corps—No response received to date. 

• Feb. 10, 2005: Representatives Slaughter and Conyers write 

special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to inquire whether he 

was aware that Mr. Gannon claimed he had access to a classified CIA memo outing Valerie Plame as a undercover 

agent—Mr. Fitzgerald acknowledged receipt, but would not 

comment on the status of his investigation. 

• Feb. 10, 2005: Representatives Slaughter and Conyers write 

to the head of the Secret Service to inquire whether Mr. 

Gannon went through standard clearance procedures, and 

who in the White House requested his access—The Secret 

Service responded by confirming that Mr. Gannon was 

cleared for access under his real name, James Guckert, howVerDate Aug 04 2004 12:00 Apr 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR030.XXX HR030
38 

ever, they did not answer any of the other questions such as 

whether he had a full background check or who requested his 

access to the White House. 

• Feb. 15, 2005: Representatives Slaughter and Conyers make 

a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Homeland 

Security Department Secretary Tom Ridge, asking for all information the Secret Service has on how one gains access to 

the White House press corps, and how those policies were 

applied to Mr. Gannon—The FOIA office is searching its 

records. 

• Feb. 23, 2005: Representatives Slaughter and Conyers write 

to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to note that Mr. 

Gannon claimed to have a journal chronicling all 200 days 

he was given access to the White House—Mr. Fitzgerald acknowledged receipt, but would not comment on the status of 

his investigation. 

• Feb. 23, 2005: Representatives Slaughter and Conyers write 

to the GAO to ask that they include an investigation of Mr. 

Gannon in their review of how the Bush Administration has 

illegally used funds for propaganda purposes—No response 

received to date. 

• Feb. 25, 2005: Senators Durbin, Kerry, Kennedy, Lautenburg 

and Reid write to the White House, requesting a thorough 

investigation into Mr. Gannon’s White House access and any 

security breaches that may have resulted—No response received to date. 

We categorically reject the contention of the Majority, made at 

the markup that the Administration has already complied with our 

requests. The fact is that all but one of Mr. Conyers and Ms. 

Slaughters letters has gone substantively unanswered, and the response they received was grossly incomplete. As a result, nearly 

two months after a series of inquiries were made to the Administration, we still don’t know who in the White House arranged for 

Mr. Gannon’s unfettered access to the president. 

We further reject the Majority’s contention that a request for information by the Committee would compete with other investigations being conducted. First, we are unaware of any current investigations of this scandal by the Administration, Congress or the 

GAO. Even if there were such an investigation, we are aware of no 

rule or principle that impedes the Committee from simultaneously 

conducting its own investigation. Indeed, one need look no further 

that the Clinton Administration to find numerous instances of Congress investigating allegations of misconduct that were being separately investigated—from travelgate, to allegations of improper 

campaign contributions, to the impeachment of the president. Had 

such a limitation on congressional prerogatives been obeyed by 

Congress during the Watergate era, it is doubtful the Nixon Administration’s full array of misconduct would have been unearthed. 

It is also important to note, that by its terms, H. Res. 136 is not 

binding on the Administration, it is merely a request. If the Administration was aware of some legal or other impediment to supplying 

the information, they would be free to state as such. However, at 

least we would have a higher level of public accountability. By adVerDate Aug 04 2004 12:00 Apr 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR030.XXX HR030
39 

versely reporting this Resolution, the Majority simply makes it 

easier for the Administration to avoid embarrassing questions. 

CONCLUSION

We dissent from the Majority’s decision to adversely report this 

Resolution of Inquiry because we believe the time is long past due 

for the Congress to demand accountability from the Administration 

for its ethical transgressions. 

In our judgment it simply defies credibility that a phony reporter, operating under an alias, who couldn’t get privileges in the 

House or Senate press gallery, could receives hundreds of White 

House ‘‘day passes’’ without the intervention of someone very high 

up at the White House. We are also unable to believe that while 

Pulitzer Prize winning journalists have been turned down for 

White House press passes, a neophyte, pseudo-journalist working 

for a Republican-controlled media front operation could receive virtually open-ended access to the White House press room in the absence of preferential treatment. In this context, we believe the full 

House is entitled to vote on H. Res. 136 to present these questions 

directly to the Administration. 

JOHN CONYERS, JR. 

RICK BOUCHER. 

JERROLD NADLER. 

ROBERT C. SCOTT. 

ZOE LOFGREN. 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE. 

MAXINE WATERS. 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN. 

ROBERT WEXLER. 

ANTHONY D. WEINER. 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ. 

ADAM SMITH. 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN. 

40 

ATTACHMENTS 


G136A1.eps
41 


G136A2.eps
42 


G136B.eps
43 


G136E1.eps
44 


G136E2.eps
45 


G136D1.eps
46 


G136D2.eps
47 


G136D3.eps
48 


G136C.eps
49 


G136F.eps
50 


G136G1.eps
51 


G136G2.eps
52 


G136H1.eps
53 

Æ 


G136H2.eps