69–010 

Calendar No. 438 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 110–203 

THE SECURITY FROM POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN 

JUSTICE ACT OF 2007 

OCTOBER 23, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 1845] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill 

(S. 1845) to provide for limitations in certain communications between the Department of Justice and the White House Office relating to civil and criminal investigations, and for other purposes, 

having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Background and Purpose of the Security From Political Interference 

in Justice Act of 2007 ................................................................................. 2 

II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration ....................................... 7 

III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill ...................................................... 8 

IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 9 

V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation ...................................................................... 9 

VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 9 

VII. Minority Views of Senator Kyl ..................................................................... 11 

VIII. Appendix A—September 29, 1994 Letter From Attorney General Janet 

Reno to White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler ............................................ 13 

IX. Appendix B—April 15, 2002 Memorandum From Attorney General John 

Ashcroft ....................................................................................................... 14 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
2 

X. Appendix C—May 4, 2006 Memorandum From Attorney General 

Alberto Gonzales ........................................................................................ 17 

XI. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 20 

I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE SECURITY FROM POLITICAL

INTERFERENCE IN JUSTICE ACT OF 2007 

A. RULES GOVERNING CONTACT BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

AND WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS

The effectiveness and integrity of the administration of justice 

depends upon the Department of Justice (the Department) operating free of political interference. The most dangerous potential 

source of such interference is the White House. 

In order to minimize the likelihood of improper White House interference in the Department’s affairs, the executive branch has, 

since at least 1993, regulated contact between Department and 

White House officials related to pending investigations and cases. 

Between May, 1993 and April, 2002, seven people at the Department and the White House were permitted to have initial communications regarding pending investigations and cases: the President, Vice President, White House Counsel, Deputy White House 

Counsel, Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and Associate Attorney General. If continuing contact was required on a 

particular matter, the White House Counsel’s Office and the senior 

Department official involved in the matter were required to design 

a process for (and monitor) that continuing contact. This policy did 

not apply to communications regarding matters of policy, appointments, legislation, budgets, public relations and ‘‘other similar matters.’’ It also envisioned periodic communications between the 

White House Counsel’s Office and the Office of Legal Counsel on 

matters in which the White House sought a legal opinion as well 

as White House contact with the Solicitor General’s Office regarding appellate litigation. This policy was memorialized in a September 29, 1994 letter from Attorney General Janet Reno to White 

House Counsel Lloyd Cutler. (Appendix A). 

On April 15, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a 

memorandum while Alberto Gonzales was White House Counsel 

(published in the Department’s Organization and Functions Manual as Rule 32) altering the above-referenced policy. (Appendix B). 

The new policy stated: 

Except with respect to national security matters, all initial communications that concern or may concern a pending criminal investigation or a criminal case pending at 

the trial level should take place only between the Office of 

the Deputy Attorney General and the Office of the Counsel 

to the President. . . . Staff members of the Office of the 

Attorney General, if so designated by the Attorney General, may communicate directly with officials and staff of 

the Office of the President, Office of the Vice President, Office of the Counsel to the President, the National Security 

Council, and the Office of Homeland Security. 

By adding the Offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney 

General, President, Vice President, White House Counsel, National 

Security Council, and Homeland Security, in their entireties, this 

new policy permitted at least 417 people in the White House to 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
3 

communicate with at least 42 people at the Department on non-national security related matters. 

On May 4, 2006, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales issued a 

memorandum altering the policy again. (Appendix C). The new policy added, inter alia, the Chief of Staff and Counsel to the Vice 

President and staff of the Office of Management and Budget to the 

list of those permitted to communicate with staff in the Office of 

the Attorney General regarding pending investigations and cases. 

The new, and still current, policy permits at least 895 people in the 

executive branch to communicate with at least 42 people at the Department on non-national security related matters. The Organization and Functions Manual was never updated to reflect this new 

policy. 

B. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

On April 19, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled ‘‘Department of Justice Oversight,’’ with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appearing as the sole witness. 

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse asked Mr. Gonzales about the 

changed policy regarding contact between the Department and the 

White House (Senator Whitehouse referred to the memorandum 

issued on April 15, 2002 because the most recent, and extant, 

memorandum was not publicly available): 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. What possible interest in the administration of justice is there to kick the portal so wide 

open that this many people now can engage directly about 

criminal cases and matters, compared to before? 

Mr. GONZALES. Senator, I think you’ve raised a good 

point here, one that I was concerned about at the [White 

House] counsel’s office and I remain concerned as Attorney 

General, in terms of making sure that communications 

from the White House and the Department of Justice remain in the appropriate channels. 

I do recall being concerned about that as White House 

counsel. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Quite a pronounced change, isn’t 

it? . . . 

Mr. GONZALES. Senator, let me say this. I am not aware 

that there are initial contacts between the White House 

and the Department of Justice as an initial matter with 

respect to specific criminal cases. 

Or if there are—let me put it this way: I don’t think 

there should be. I think it’s very, very important—I agree 

with you. It is important to try to limit the communications about specific criminal cases between the counsel’s 

office and the Department of Justice. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But when I see the rules opened 

this much, it makes me wonder to what extent this safeguard is considered significant in this administration. 

Attorney General Gonzales did not inform Senator Whitehouse at 

this oversight hearing that the April 15, 2002 policy was no longer 

in effect and had, in fact, been expanded. 

On June 29, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled ‘‘Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice,’’ with AtVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:13 Oct 25, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR203.XXX SR203

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
4 

torney General Gonzales again appearing as the sole witness. During the period of time between this hearing and the above-referenced April 19 hearing, Senator Whitehouse became aware of the 

policy issued by Attorney General Gonzales on May 4, 2006. Senator Whitehouse asked Attorney General Gonzales about the most 

recent policy change: 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Isn’t the White House the number 

one locus of general concern that’s persisted through many 

administrations as to where political influence coming into 

the Department of Justice improperly is going to come 

from? 

Mr. GONZALES. Obviously, that would be certainly a key 

source of concern. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The key—the key, right? 

Mr. GONZALES. Probably the key source of concern. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. And in response to that, as 

we discussed in the last hearing—I’d like to remind you 

there was the 1994 letter from Janet Reno to Lloyd Cutler. 

And in response to that concern, which we agree is a 

very real one, the letter announced—and I believe that the 

letter—I wasn’t here at the time, but I believe the letter 

was actually reduced to writing at the direction and instigation of then-Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, who 

saw this as a significant concern. 

And the letter said this: ‘‘Initial communications between the White House and the Justice Department regarding any pending department investigation or criminal 

or civil case should involve only the White House counsel 

or deputy counsel (or the president or vice president) and 

the attorney general or deputy or associate attorney general’’—seven people. 

As you’ll recall, I showed you a graph of what had been 

done since. 

And in response to that, you seemed to agree that I had 

a somewhat legitimate concern that I was pursuing. You 

said—and this is from your transcript—‘‘I remain concerned as attorney general in terms of making sure that 

communications from the White House and the Department of Justice remain in the appropriate channels.’’ You further said, ‘‘I agree with you, it is important to 

you to try to limit the communications about specific criminal cases between the counsel’s office and the Department 

of Justice.’’ You specifically said, ‘‘I think the safeguards that you’re 

referring to I think are very, very important.’’ And then you said, ‘‘I, like you, am concerned about the 

level of contacts in ensuring that the communications from 

the White House and the Department of Justice occur at 

the appropriate—within the appropriate channels.’’ Mr. GONZALES. Channels. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Now, I then showed you the letter 

that Attorney General—the memorandum that Attorney 

General Ashcroft prepared. And that’s the document that, 

sort of, kicked open the door from seven to hundreds of 

people to be involved and have discussions about ongoing 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
5 

criminal/civil investigative matters. And that’s what led to 

our discussion about all of this. 

Now, you’ve had some time to think about this. You’ve 

indicated desire to clean up the mess at the department. 

I would like to bring to your attention a May 4th, 2006, 

memorandum that is a subsequent document to the 

Ashcroft memorandum. This one is signed by you. 

Here’s what concerns me. In the Ashcroft memorandum, 

which was a subject of concern before, at the very, very 

end of the Ashcroft memorandum, as you’ll remember, 

there was that paragraph under asterisks that changes the 

whole memorandum in front of it. 

It says, ‘‘Notwithstanding any procedures, limitations set 

forth above, the attorney general may communicate directly with the president, vice president, counsel to the 

president, assistant to the president for national security 

affairs, and various others.’’ And then it provides who the 

staff members can consult with: ‘‘directly with officials and 

staff of the Office of President, Office of the Vice President, 

Office of the Counsel to the president, National Security 

Council’’ and so forth. 

Now, I took the position that that was pretty much kicking down a very important door that had protected the department from political influence, but I see in your May 

4th, 2006, memorandum a number of things that concern 

me even more. 

The first is at the bottom of the first page where there 

is an asterisked footnote, which says at the bottom, ‘‘For 

convenience, the executive functions of the vice presidency 

are referred to in this document as the Office of the Vice 

President or OVP, and the provisions of this memorandum 

that apply with respect to communications with the 

EOP’’—Executive Office of the President, I assume that 

is—‘‘will apply in parallel fashion to communications with 

the Office of the Vice President.’’

Let me ask you first, what on Earth business does the 

Office of the Vice President have in the internal workings 

of the Department of Justice with respect to criminal investigations, civil investigations, ongoing matters? 

Mr. GONZALES. As a general matter, I would say that 

that’s a good question. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Why is it here then? 

Mr. GONZALES. I’d have to go back and look at this. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I’d like to know where this came 

from and how that addition was made. 

Then, if you look at the very back, the very last paragraph, once again there’s a final paragraph set off by asterisks that pretty much undercuts everything that was 

said in the previous enumerated paragraphs. 

And here, you can see the difference. It’s almost identical with the previous memorandum, only it adds some 

things: ‘‘Notwithstanding any procedure or limitations set 

forth above, the attorney general may communicate directly with the president, vice president’’—so far, same as 

the Ashcroft memorandum. Then you add, ‘‘their chiefs of 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
6 

staff, counsel to the president,’’ then you add ‘‘or vice president.’’ Somebody took the trouble to write in ‘‘counsel to the 

vice president’’ and provide that individual access to ongoing criminal investigations, ongoing civil investigations 

and ongoing other investigative matters. 

Mr. GONZALES. Which—I don’t know whether or not 

that, in fact, has happened, so I want to—I want to (inaudible) . . . 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Part of what we do around here 

is to prevent things from happening. 

Mr. GONZALES. Exactly, exactly. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And when you kick down doors, 

you invite people to do it whether or not it’s been done. 

Mr. GONZALES. And I agree. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. 

Mr. GONZALES. And on its face, I must say, sitting here, 

I’m troubled by this. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. 

Mr. GONZALES. I will say . . . 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And if you can continue—just let 

me finish, because we’re not done with the paragraph. 

Mr. GONZALES. All right. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If you go further on down, what 

was the staff of the Office of the President has become the 

staff of the White House Office and the entire Office of 

Management and Budget has been thrown in. 

So you come here today with, I think, to put it mildly, 

highly diminished credibility, asserting to us that you 

want to bring—to restore the Department of Justice. 

And yet here, where there is something that you could 

do about it, since our past discussion, nothing has been 

done, the memo that has your signature makes it worse, 

and we’ve agreed that this connection between the White 

House and the Department of Justice is the most dangerous one from a point of view of the potential for the infiltration of political influence into the department. 

How, in the light of all those facts, can I give you any 

credibility for being serious about the promises you’ve 

made that you intend to clean up the mess you’ve made? 

Mr. GONZALES. Well, because we have taken—I’ve taken 

several steps to clean up, to address some of the mistakes 

that have been made, Senator. 

I can say that I have directed my staff to try to understand what happened with respect to the Ashcroft memo, 

what was the genesis of it. And in fact, we went back and 

talked to a former member of the Ashcroft leadership team 

to understand what was the basis of the change. What 

caused this to happen? And so we have been looking at 

this issue because I am concerned about it. 

And with respect to this memo, quite frankly, I’d have 

to look at it. And I would be concerned about inappropriate 

access to ongoing investigations. And it’s something that— if that’s encouraged by this kind of memorandum, I think 

it’s something that we ought to rethink. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
7 

C. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AS AN ESSENTIAL TOOL OF

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

Congress has a compelling interest in protecting the Department 

of Justice from undue political interference and in conducting vigorous oversight of the executive branch. One of the most common, 

and effective, tools of Congressional oversight is to require the executive branch to produce reports to Congress. Indeed, the Department is currently responsible for more than 100 statutorily mandated reports to Congress on issues as varied as the administration 

of the Dispute Resolution Act (Pub. L. 96–160) and the joint United 

States-Canada Alternative Inspections Project (Pub. L. 107–173). 

The White House is responsible for more than 600 statutorily mandated reports to Congress. See ‘‘Reports To Be Made To Congress, 

Communication from the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives,’’ House Document 108–188. 

The Security from Political Interference in Justice Act of 2007 

would create a simple reporting requirement: the Department and 

the White House would be required to make separate, semi-annual 

reports to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees detailing 

which Department and which White House personnel had communications regarding ongoing Department investigations or cases. 

The reporting requirement would not apply to the President, Vice 

President, White House Counsel, Deputy White House Counsel, Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, or Associate Attorney 

General. Furthermore, it would not apply to communications relating to policy, appointments, legislation, rulemaking, budgets, public 

relations, programmatic matters, intergovernmental relations, administrative or personnel matters, appellate litigation, or requests 

for legal advice. The bill would place no restriction on which personnel in either the White House or the Department may have 

such communications. 

II. HISTORY OF THE BILL AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

A. INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL

Senator Whitehouse introduced S. 1845 on July 23, 2007, joined 

by Chairman Leahy. The bill was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary. 

B. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The bill was considered by the Committee on the Judiciary on 

September 20, 2007. During committee consideration, Senator 

Cornyn requested to be added as a cosponsor of the measure. 

After discussions with the offices of Senators Leahy, Hatch, and 

Cornyn, Senator Whitehouse introduced an amendment in the nature of a substitute. In addition to a minor change meant to clarify 

that the bill does not apply to contacts regarding appellate litigation, the substitute amendment deleted language prohibiting noncovered officers from engaging in ‘‘covered communication.’’

Instead, as discussed above, the substitute amendment requires 

the Department and the White House to produce separate, semiannual reports to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees detailing which Department and White House personnel had communications regarding ongoing Department investigations or cases. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
8 

The reporting requirement would not apply to the President, Vice 

President, White House Counsel, Deputy White House Counsel, Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, or Associate Attorney 

General. Furthermore, it would not apply to communications relating to policy, appointments, legislation, rulemaking, budgets, public 

relations, programmatic matters, intergovernmental relations, administrative or personnel matters, appellate litigation, or requests 

for legal advice. The bill would place no restriction on which personnel in either the White House or the Department may have 

such contacts. 

The substitute amendment was accepted by a voice vote. 

The Judiciary Committee then reported the Security from Political Interference in Justice Act of 2007, with an amendment in the 

nature of a substitute, to be reported favorably to the full Senate, 

with a recommendation that the bill do pass. The committee proceeded by roll call vote. 

The vote record is as follows: 

Tally: 14 Yeas, 2 Nays 

Yeas (14): Leahy (D–VT), Specter (R–PA), Kennedy (D–MA), 

Hatch (R–UT), Biden (D–DE), Grassley (R–IA), Kohl (D–WI), Feinstein (D–CA), Feingold (D–WI), Schumer (D–NY), Durbin (D–NY), 

Cornyn (R–TX), Cardin (D–MD), Whitehouse (D–RI) 

Nays (2): Kyl (R–AZ), Coburn (R–OK) 

III. SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Section 1. Short title 

Title: ‘‘The Security from Political Interference in Justice Act of 

2007’’

Sec. 2. Definitions 

This section defines a ‘‘covered communication’’ as any communication relating to an ongoing investigation conducted by the Department of Justice in any civil or criminal matter (regardless of 

whether a civil action or criminal indictment or information has 

been filed). The definition of a ‘‘covered communication’’ specifically 

excludes communications relating to policy, appointments, legislation, rulemaking, budgets, public relations, programmatic matters, 

intergovernmental relations, administrative or personnel matters, 

appellate litigation, or requests for legal advice. 

This section also defines a ‘‘covered Department of Justice officer’’ as the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and Associate Attorney General. It defines a ‘‘covered White House officer’’

as the President, Vice President, Counsel to the President, and 

Counselor to the President. The definitions of covered officers mirror the officials named in the above-referenced September 1994 letter from Attorney General Reno to White House Counsel Cutler. 

Sec. 3. Reports to Congress 

This section would require the Department and the White House 

to make separate, semi-annual reports to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees detailing which Department and which White 

House personnel had communications regarding ongoing Department investigations or cases. Covered Department and White 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
9 

House officers, as defined in Section 2, need not be included in the 

reports. 

IV. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee on the Judiciary sets forth, with respect to the 

bill, S. 1845, the following estimate prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974: 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2007. 

Hon. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1845, the Security from Political Interference in Justice Act of 2007. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Leigh Angres. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1845—Security From Political Interference in Justice Act of 2007 

S. 1845 would require biannual reports on communications between White House and Department of Justice (DOJ) employees regarding ongoing civil or criminal matters. Under the bill, the White 

House and DOJ would report to the Congress the names of its employees who engaged in those communications. The bill would provide a reporting exemption for communications between officials 

specified in the bill. Those officials would include the attorney general, deputy attorney general, and the associate attorney general 

within DOJ, and the President, Vice President, White House counsel, and counselor to the President. 

CBO estimates that the cost of implementing S. 1845 would be 

insignificant. Any such spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

S. 1845 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Leigh Angres. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

V. REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee on the Judiciary finds that no significant regulatory impact will result from the enactment of S. 1845. 

VI. CONCLUSION

The Security from Political Interference in Justice Act of 2007, 

S. 1845, applies a fundamental tool of Congressional oversight—the 

reporting requirement—to the issue of communications between 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
10 

the Department and the White House regarding pending investigations and cases. The legislation would not regulate in any way who 

may have such communications. However, through its reporting 

mechanism, it would provide the Congress, and the public, with a 

clear sense of the degree to which the White House is involved in 

the administration of justice. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
(11) 

VII. MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR KYL

This bill is very likely unnecessary. Members of this committee 

have been reliably informed that the Justice Department’s policies 

regulating intra-executive communications about criminal investigations are currently under review. Moreover, the Senate is about 

to confirm a new U.S. Attorney General. Some might think it wise 

that, before imposing another burdensome and potentially problematic reporting requirement on the Justice Department, this committee allow the new Attorney General an opportunity to complete 

the current policy review and to implement new policies. 

Recognizing, however, that the absence of a need for legislation 

is rarely regarded as grounds for delaying its progress, I will emphasize one change that must be made to this bill before it is allowed to proceed to the floor. The bill requires reporting on some 

potentially very sensitive communications—communications whose 

public disclosure could compromise very important national-security and criminal investigations. For example, if a United States 

Attorney in a rural district is investigating a potential crime of terrorism and communicates with the NSA, public disclosure of the 

fact of that communication may very well alert those who are the 

subject of the investigation that they are under surveillance. Similarly, public disclosure of the existence of communications between 

the Justice Department’s public-integrity section and the staff of 

one of the smaller components of the Executive Office of the President also poses a serious risk of compromising an ongoing investigation. 

This bill at the very least needs to be amended to mandate that 

the reports that it requires to be submitted to Congress be made 

confidential. It is not enough that the relevant committees can 

choose not to disclose the contents of the reports. Whether to reveal 

the facts of these communications and to potentially compromise 

ongoing investigations should not be a matter of legislative discretion. If Congress is to receive reports about these communications, 

it must not make the contents of those reports public. 

I would reiterate, however, that this bill is very unlikely unnecessary. This committee has in recent years required a large number of new reports to be prepared by the Justice Department. The 

recent reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, Public Law 109–177, 

for example, has probably set the record for the greatest number 

of new reports required in a single bill. It is no secret that a large 

number of these reports are never read by the committees who 

mandate their production. And it should be obvious that the more 

resources that the Justice Department is forced to devote to these 

reports, the fewer that it may allocate to its core mission of investigating acts of terrorism and prosecuting federal offenses. I would 

propose that before we unnecessarily add to this reporting burden 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
12 

through this bill, we at least allow the new Attorney General an 

opportunity to review and revise the current policies. 

JON KYL. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
(13) 

VIII. APPENDIX A 

SEPTEMBER 29, 1994. 

LLOYD N. CUTLER, Esq. 

Special Counsel to the President, The White House, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CUTLER: You have asked for my views on the subject 

of communications between the Department of Justice and the 

White House concerning matters pending in the Department. These 

are the principles and procedures I think we should follow. 

In order to ensure the President’s ability to perform his Constitutional obligation to ‘‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’’

the Justice Department will advise the White House concerning 

pending civil or criminal law enforcement matters, where important for the performance of the President’s duties and where appropriate from a law enforcement perspective. Consistent with this 

principle, since May 1993 the Department has followed procedural 

rules governing communications with the White House concerning 

pending Department investigations or criminal or civil cases. Initial communications between the White House and the Justice Department regarding any pending Department investigation or 

criminal or civil case should involve only the White House Counselor, Deputy Counsel (or the President or Vice President), and the 

Attorney General or Deputy or Associate Attorney General. If continuing contact is required on a particular matter, the White House 

Counsel’s Office and the senior Department official with whom it 

is dealing design and monitor that continuing contact. 

This process does not apply to communications regarding matters 

of policy, appointments, legislation, budgets, public relations and 

other similar matters, as to which the White House staff should 

deal with whomever is appropriate in the Department. In addition, 

from time to time the Department establishes specific procedures 

for communications between particular entities. For example, the 

White House Counsel’s Office deals directly with the Office of Legal 

Counsel on matters in which it is seeking the opinion of the Department, and directly with the Office of the Solicitor General regarding the status of supreme court cases. Particularized procedures have also been applied to communications with the Pardon 

Attorney and the National Security Council. 

Sincerely, 

JANET RENO. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
(14) 

IX. APPENDIX B 

APRIL 15, 2002. 

MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF DEPARTMENT COMPONENTS AND

UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

From: The Attorney General 

Subject: Department of Justice Communications with the White 

House 

It is imperative that there be public confidence that the laws of 

the United States are administered and enforced in an impartial 

manner. To that end, all components of the Department of Justice, 

including United States Attorneys’ Offices, shall abide by the following procedures governing communication between the Department of Justice and the White House. 

1. PENDING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND CASES

The Department shall provide the White House with information 

about pending criminal investigations or cases only when doing so 

is important for the performance of the President’s duties and appropriate from a law enforcement perspective. Except with respect 

to national security matters, all initial communications that concern or may concern a pending criminal investigation or a criminal 

case pending at the trial level should take place only between the 

Office of the Deputy Attorney General and the Office of the Counsel to the President, and all initial communications that concern or 

may concern a criminal case pending at the appellate level should 

take place only between the Office of the Counsel to the President 

and either the Office of the Deputy Attorney General or the Office 

of the Solicitor General. If appropriate with regard to a particular 

case or investigation, the Office of the Counsel to the President and 

the senior Justice Department official with whom the White House 

is dealing will design and monitor a process for ongoing contact between the White House and Justice Department concerning that 

particular matter. 

2. PENDING CIVIL INVESTIGATIONS AND CASES

The Department shall provide the White House with information 

about pending civil investigations or cases only when doing so is 

important for the performance of the President’s duties and appropriate from a law enforcement or litigation perspective. Except with 

respect to national security matters, all initial communications that 

concern or may concern a pending civil investigation or a case 

pending at the trial level should take place only between the Office 

of the Counsel to the President and either the Office of the Deputy 

Attorney General or the Office of the Associate Attorney General. 

All initial communications that concern or may concern a civil case 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
15 

pending at the appellate level should take place only between the 

Office of the Counsel to the President and the Office of the Deputy 

Attorney General, the Office of the Associate Attorney General, or 

the Office of the Solicitor General. If appropriate with regard to a 

particular case or investigation, the Office of the Counsel to the 

President and the senior Justice Department official with whom 

the White House is dealing will design and monitor a process for 

ongoing contact between the White House and the Justice Department concerning that particular matter. 

3. NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS

The Office of the Deputy Attorney General may communicate directly with the National Security Council and the Office of Homeland Security concerning investigations and cases involving national security issues. Pursuant to Department of Justice policies 

and procedures, the Criminal Division and the FBI also may communicate directly with the National Security Council and the Office 

of Homeland Security concerning investigations and cases involving 

national security issues. Such communications should be limited to 

those aspects of the matter that implicate national security or 

homeland security. 

4. WHITE HOUSE REQUESTS FOR LEGAL ADVICE

The Office of Legal Counsel and the Office of the Counsel to the 

President may communicate directly concerning requests from the 

White House for legal advice. All requests for formal legal opinions 

from the Department of Justice shall be directed to the Assistant 

Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel or the Attorney 

General. 

5. PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY MATTERS

The Office of the Pardon Attorney and the Office of the Counsel 

to the President may communicate directly concerning Presidential 

clemency matters. 

6. OTHER COMMUNICATIONS NOT RELATING TO PENDING

INVESTIGATIONS OR CRIMINAL OR CIVIL CASES

All communications between the Department of Justice and the 

White House that are limited to policy, legislation, budgeting, appointments, public affairs, intergovernmental relations, administrative or personnel matters or similar matters that do not relate to 

a pending investigation or a criminal or civil case, may be handled 

directly by the parties concerned. As a general matter, such communications should take place with the knowledge of the Department’s lead contact regarding the subject under discussion. 

* * * * * * * 

Notwithstanding any procedures or limitations set forth above, 

the Attorney General may communicate directly with the President, Vice President, Counsel to the President, Assistant to the 

President for National Security Affairs, or Assistant to the President for Homeland Security regarding any matters within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. Staff members of the Office 

of the Attorney General, if so designated by the Attorney General, 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
16 

may communicate directly with officials and staff of the Office of 

the President, Office of the Vice President, Office of the Counsel to 

the President, the National Security Council, and the Office of 

Homeland Security. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
(17) 

* As used in this memorandum, the term ‘‘EOP’’ means the White House Office, the Office 

of Policy Development, the Executive Residence, the Office of Administration, the National Security Council staff: the Homeland Security Council Staff, the Council of Economic Advisers, the 

Office of Management and Budget, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Council on Environmental Quality, the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and the Privacy and 

Civil Liberties Oversight Board. For convenience, the executive functions of the Vice Presidency 

are referred to in this document as the ‘‘Office of the Vice President’’ or ‘‘OVP,’’ and the provisions of this memorandum that apply with respect to communications with the EOP will apply 

in parallel fashion to communications with the OVP. 

X. APPENDIX C 

MAY 4, 2006. 

MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF DEPARTMENT COMPONENTS AND

UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

From: The Attorney General 

Subject: Communications with the Executive Office of the President 

Four years ago, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a memorandum outlining the procedures that govern communications between the Department of Justice and the White House. I write 

today to reiterate those procedures (with some minor revisions and 

clarifications) in order to ensure that new personnel are aware of 

these rules and to remind everyone of their importance. It is imperative that there be public confidence that the laws of the United 

States are administered and enforced in an impartial manner. I 

ask that all components of the Department of Justice, including 

Federal Law enforcement agencies and the United States Attorneys’ Offices, abide by the following procedures on communications 

between the Department and the Executive Office of the President 

(EOP).*

1. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND CASES

The Department shall provide EOP officials and staff with information about a criminal investigation or case only when doing so 

is important for the performance of the President’s duties and appropriate from a law enforcement perspective. Except with respect 

to national security matters, all initial communications that concern or may concern such an investigation or case pending at the 

trial level should take place only between the Office of the Counsel 

to the President and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General 

(ODAG), and all initial communications that concern or may concern a criminal case pending at the appellate level should take 

place only between the Office of the Counsel to the President and 

either ODAG or the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). If appropriate with regard to a particular case or investigation, the Office 

of the Counsel to the President and the senior Justice Department 

official with whom the EOP is dealing will design and monitor a 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
18 

process for ongoing contact between staff at the EOP and the Justice Department concerning that particular matter. 

2. CIVIL INVESTIGATIONS AND CASES

The Department shall provide EOP officials and staff with information about a civil investigation or case only when doing so is important for the performance of the President’s duties and appropriate from a law enforcement and litigation perspective. Except 

with respect to national security matters, all initial communications that concern or may concern such an investigation or case 

pending at the trial level should take place only between the Office 

of the Counsel to the President and either ODAG or the Office of 

the Associate Attorney General (OASG). All initial communications 

that concern or may concern a civil case pending at the appellate 

level should take place only between the Office of the Counsel to 

the President and ODAG, OASG, or OSG. If appropriate with regard to a particular case or investigation, the Office of the Counsel 

to the President and the senior Justice Department official with 

whom the EOP is dealing will design and monitor a process for ongoing contact between staff at the EOP and the Justice Department 

concerning that particular matter. 

3. NATIONAL SECURITY AND HOMELAND SECURITY MATTERS

ODAG may communicate directly with the National Security 

Council (NSC) and the Homeland Security Council (HSC) concerning investigations and cases involving national security or 

homeland security, and OASG may do so with respect to any such 

investigation or case that has become the subject of civil litigation. 

If appropriate with regard to a particular case or investigation, 

ODAG will design and monitor a process for ongoing contact between staff at the NSC or HSC and the Justice Department concerning that particular matter. 

4. REQUESTS FOR LEGAL ADVICE

The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) may communicate directly 

with counsel for each component within the EOP (including, for example, the: Office of the Counsel to the President or the General 

Counsel of the Office of Management and Budget) concerning requests for legal advice. It may be advisable to copy an appropriate 

attorney from the Office of the Counsel to the President on communications with other EOP components. All requests for formal legal 

opinions from the Department of Justice shall be directed to the 

Attorney General or the Assistant Attorney General for OLC. 

5. PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY MATTERS

The Office of the Pardon Attorney may communicate directly 

with the Counsel to the President and the Deputy Counsel to the 

President (and their designee) concerning Presidential clemency 

matters. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
19 

6. OTHER COMMUNICATIONS NOT RELATING TO INVESTIGATIONS OR

CRIMINAL OR CIVIL CASES

All communications between the Department of Justice and the 

EOP that are limited to policy, legislation, budgeting, appointments, public affairs, intergovernmental relations, administrative 

or personnel matters, or similar matters that do not relate to an 

investigation or a criminal or civil case may be handled directly by 

the parties concerned. Such communications should take place with 

the knowledge of the Department’s lead contact regarding the subject under discussion. 

* * * * * * * 

Notwithstanding any procedures or limitations set forth above, 

the Attorney General may communicate directly with the President, Vice President, their Chiefs of Staff, Counsel to the President 

or Vice President, Assistant to the President for National Security 

Affairs, Assistant to the President and Homeland Security Advisor, 

or the head of any office within the EOP regarding any matter 

within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. Staff members 

of the Office of the Attorney General, if so designated by the Attorney General, may communicate directly with officials and staff of 

the White House Office, the Office of the Vice President, the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, and the 

Office of Management and Budget. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
(20) 

XI. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by S. 1845, as 

reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italic): 

In the appropriate place, insert: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Security from Political Interference 

in Justice Act of 2007.’’

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act— (1) the term ‘‘covered communication’’—

(A) means any communication relating to an ongoing investigation conducted by the Department of Justice in any 

civil or criminal matter (regardless of whether a civil action or criminal indictment or information has been filed); 

and 

(B) does not include any communication relating to policy, appointments, legislation, rulemaking, budgets, public 

relations, programmatic matters, intergovernmental relations, administrative or personnel matters, appellate litigation, or requests for legal advice; 

(2) the term ‘‘covered Department of Justice officer’’ means—

(A) the Attorney General; 

(B) the Deputy Attorney General; and 

(C) the Associate Attorney General; and 

(3) the term ‘‘covered White House officer’’ means—

(A) the President; 

(B) the Vice President; 

(C) the Counsel to the President; and 

(D) the Counselor to the President. 

SEC. 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. 

(a) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT.—Not later than 30 days 

after each January 1 and July 1 of each calendar year, the Attorney 

General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report with the name and title of each officer or employee of 

the Department of Justice who made a covered communication during the 6-month period preceding that January 1 or July 1 with any 

officer or employee of the Executive Office of the President. The report need not include any covered Department of Justice officer. 

(b) WHITE HOUSE REPORT.—Not later than 30 days after each 

January 1 and July 1 of each calendar year, the Counsel to the 

President shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the 

Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report with the name and title of each officer or employee of the Executive Office of the President who made a covered 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
21 

communication during the 6-month period preceding that January 

1 or July 1 with any officer or employee of the Department of Justice. The report need not include any covered White House Officer. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT