```

[House Report 111-538]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-538

======================================================================

 
      DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF 
 REPRESENTATIVES COPIES OF CERTAIN COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN 
         RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ADMINISTRATION APPOINTMENTS

                                _______
                                

   July 15, 2010.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Conyers, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                             ADVERSE REPORT

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                      [To accompany H. Res. 1455]

                  [Including Committee Cost Estimate]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
resolution (H. Res. 1455) directing the Attorney General to 
transmit to the House of Representatives copies of certain 
communications relating to certain recommendations regarding 
administration appointments, having considered the same, 
reports unfavorably thereon without amendment and recommends 
that the resolution not be agreed to.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background.......................................................     2
Hearings.........................................................     3
Committee Consideration..........................................     4
Committee Votes..................................................     4
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     5
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................     5
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     5
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     5
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     5
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     5
Dissenting Views.................................................     6

                          Purpose and Summary

    On June 17, 2010, Ranking Member Lamar Smith, along with 
Representative James Sensenbrenner, introduced H. Res. 1455. 
The resolution directs the Attorney General to transmit to the 
House of Representatives copies of any document, record, memo, 
correspondence, or other communication of the Department of 
Justice, including the Office of the Solicitor General, or any 
portion of any such communication, that refers or relates to:

        (1) Lany guidance or recommendations made by the 
        Department since January 20, 2009, regarding 
        discussions of administration appointments by White 
        House staff, or persons acting on behalf of White House 
        staff, with any candidate for public office in exchange 
        for such candidate's withdrawal from any election; or

        (2) Lany inquiry, investigation or review by the 
        Department, including appointment of a Special Counsel, 
        regarding such discussions.

                               Background

    Under the rules and precedents of the House of 
Representatives, a resolution of inquiry is one of the methods 
that the House can use to obtain information from the Executive 
Branch.\1\ 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\ The typical practice has been to use the verb 
``request'' when asking for information from the President, and 
``direct'' when addressing Executive department heads.\3\ 
Clause 7 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives provides that if the committee to which the 
resolution is referred does not act on it within 14 legislative 
days, a privileged motion to discharge the resolution from the 
committee is in order on the House floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Christopher Davis, House Resolutions of Inquiry, CRS Report, 
November 25, 2008, at 1 (quoting U.S. Congress, House, Deschler's 
Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, H. Doc. 94-
661, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., vol. 7, ch. 24, Sec. 8.
    \2\Id.
    \3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the reasons summarized below, the Committee believes 
that the resolution is unwarranted.
    First, although there is no credible evidence that the 
Justice Department had any involvement in or knowledge of any 
alleged offers to Representative Sestak or Mr. Romanoff, the 
Department has already responded to multiple inquiries from 
Republican Members on this issue, in letters of May 21, June 
14, and June 15, 2010. Attorney General Holder responded to 
questions on this subject before this Committee on May 13, 
2010. The Department has made clear that any allegations of 
criminal conduct by public officials will be ``reviewed 
carefully by career prosecutors and law enforcement agents,'' 
who will take any ``appropriate action.'' In addition, the 
White House Counsel released a memo on May 28,2010, describing 
what happened concerning Representative Sestak, and White House 
e-mail to Mr. Romanoff has also been publicly released.
    Second, as former high-ranking Bush Administration lawyers 
and career prosecutors agree, there is nothing illegal about 
offering a potential candidate for office an administration-
appointed political position, even if partially motivated by a 
desire to avoid a divisive primary.
    For example:

         LSteven Bradbury, former Bush Assistant 
        Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal 
        Counsel, acknowledged that there could be no proper 
        criminal prosecution based on the conduct at issue 
        here.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\See Is the Obama Brand ``Irrevocably Shattered,'' Politico (blog 
post), June 3, 2010

         LFormer Bush White House ethics adviser 
        Richard Painter said on May 28, 2010 that, in light of 
        the information released by the White House, it is 
        ``even more apparent that this is a non-issue. No 
        scandal. Time to move on.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\See Sargent, The Plum Line, Washintonpost.com, May 28, 2010

         LFormer DOJ Public Integrity prosecutor Peter 
        Zeidenberg, who once pursued charges against a top 
        Hilary Clinton fundraiser, commented that ``you'd be 
        laughed out of the courtroom'' for trying to prosecute 
        for the alleged conduct concerning Rep. Sestak.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\See Gerstein & Lee, WH: Clinton Spoke to Sestak on Post, 
Politico, May 28, 2010

    Third, and particularly in light of the above, there is no 
proper basis for the Resolution's specific document requests. 
There has been no indication that there was any ``guidance or 
recommendation'' from the Department to the White House on this 
matter. And the FBI has explained that, if there were any newly 
opened investigation by DOJ or the FBI as to any alleged 
improper conduct, it would contravene longstanding Department 
policy and jeopardize an investigation to either confirm or 
deny its existence.\7\ Providing all documents relating to any 
newly opened inquiry, as demanded in the second request, would 
be even more inappropriate and harmful to law enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Letter from Stephen Kelly, Assistant Director, Office of 
Congressional Affairs, FBI, to Rep. Lamar Smith, June 15, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Department has also explained the long history of 
career officials handling such matters ``professionally and 
independently, without the need to appoint a special 
counsel.''\8\ Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who 
did appoint a special prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney matter, 
has agreed that there is no basis for one here.\9\ As the DOJ 
Inspector General found, the U.S. Attorney matter involved 
improper conduct concerning and by the Department of Justice, 
and improper political pressure on Federal prosecutors.\10\ At 
its core, that investigation was about ensuring the proper 
functioning of the criminal justice system. None of that is 
involved here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Letter from Assistant Attorney General Ron Weich to Rep. Darrell 
Issa, May 21, 2010.
    \9\See Reilly, ``Mukasey: `Really a Stretch' to Say Sestak Offer 
Was a Crime,'' Main Justice, May 28, 2010.
    \10\See Department of Justice Office of Inspector General and 
Office of Professional Responsibility, An Investigation into the 
Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006, September, 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held in the Committee on H. Res.1455.

                        Committee Consideration

    On June 23, 2010, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered H. Res. 1455 adversely reported, without amendment, by 
a rollcall vote of 15 yeas to 12 nays, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
following rollcall vote occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H. Res. 1455:
    H. Res. 1455 was ordered reported unfavorably by a vote of 
15 to 12.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................              X
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................              X
Mr. Quigley.....................................................              X
Ms. Chu.........................................................              X
Mr. Deutch......................................................              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Maffei......................................................
Mr. Polis.......................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................                              X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................
Mr. Rooney......................................................                              X
Mr. Harper......................................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             15              12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises 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 resolution 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 that 
implementing the resolution would not result in any significant 
costs. The Congressional Budget Office did not provide a cost 
estimate for the resolution.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    Clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable, because H. Res. 1455 does not 
authorize funding.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable, because H. Res. 1455 is not a 
bill or a joint resolution that may be enacted into law.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    Clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable, because H. Res. 1455 is not a 
bill or a joint resolution.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    H. Res. 1455 directs the Attorney General to transmit to 
the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the 
date of adoption, copies of any document, record, memo, 
correspondence, or other communication of the Department of 
Justice, including the Office of the Solicitor General, or any 
portion of any such communication, that refers or relates to:

        (1) Lany guidance or recommendations made by the 
        Department since January 20, 2009, regarding 
        discussions of administration appointments by White 
        House staff, or persons acting on behalf of White House 
        staff, with any candidate for public office in exchange 
        for such candidate's withdrawal from any election; or

        (2) Lany inquiry, investigation or review by the 
        Department, including appointment of a Special Counsel.

                            Dissenting Views

                            I. INTRODUCTION

    H. Res. 1455 was introduced on June 17, 2010, by the 
Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary Lamar 
Smith and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties F. James 
Sensenbrenner in response to confirmed reports that the White 
House made unethical and potentially illegal quid pro quo 
offers to Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Colorado's former 
Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff (D). This Resolution of 
Inquiry directs the Department of Justice to transmit to the 
House of Representatives all documents and communications 
relating to any guidance the Department may have given the 
White House about these discussions.
    In May and June 2010, the Obama Administration confirmed 
that it discussed with Rep. Sestak and Speaker Romanoff, 
separately, their possible appointment to high-ranking Federal 
positions if they would agree not to run in their respective 
States' Democratic primaries for Senate. These admissions raise 
the question of whether these discussions violated Federal 
criminal statutes that generally prohibit quid pro quo offers, 
and, if so, whether White House officials sought to determine 
the legality of their actions prior to their contact with Rep. 
Sestak and Mr. Romanoff. In addition, the passage of three 
months time between Rep. Sestak's first comments about his 
conversation with the White House and the White House's 
admission that it did indeed have a conversation with Rep. 
Sestak--and the behavior of key White House officials just 
before this official acknowledgment--have raised questions 
about the credibility of White House Counsel Robert Bauer's 
eventual conclusion that no wrongdoing has occurred. We 
strongly support H. Res. 1455 and, accordingly, oppose its 
being reported adversely to the House of Representatives.

                             II. BACKGROUND

A. White House's Discussions with Rep. Joe Sestak
    The Obama Administration's offer of a Federal appointment 
to Rep. Sestak likely had its genesis months before Rep. Sestak 
was even a candidate in the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate 
primary when incumbent Senator Arlen Specter had left the 
Republican Party in April 2009 and joined the Democratic Party, 
in large part to avoid an anticipated Republican primary 
challenger in the 2010 election cycle.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See Rep. Sestak's campaign ad ``The Switch,'' in which Sen. 
Specter says, ``My change in party will enable me to be re-elected.'' 
Available at 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x97DdZho11k (last visited June 28, 
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As soon as Sen. Specter switched his party affiliation, 
President Obama and White House officials committed to 
investing their resources to ensuring Sen. Specter's successful 
candidacy for reelection in the Democratic primary and the 
November 2010 general election. According to an April 28, 2009, 
New York Times article, ``White House officials said there was 
no realistic way to flat out promise Mr. Specter that he would 
not face a primary in the Democratic Party for the nomination, 
but noted that there is no Democrat out there in a position to 
resist the State's political machine and make a realistic 
challenge. More than that, White House officials said that they 
had assured Mr. Specter that he would have the full backing of 
Mr. Obama should he change parties. They also said that the 
president would happily campaign for Mr. Specter and raise 
money for him if that was necessary.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Hulse, C. ``Specter Switches Parties.'' The Caucus Blog (New 
York Times Online) (internet), Apr. 28, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    White House attempts to make good on its assurances to Sen. 
Specter became apparent when, on February 18, 2010, Rep. Sestak 
admitted to a Philadelphia talk show host that, during the 
summer of 2009, the Obama Administration had approached him to 
determine whether he was interested in accepting a Federal 
appointment in exchange for his agreement not to run against 
Sen. Specter in Pennsylvania's Democratic Senate primary.\3\ 
Rep. Sestak added that the position he was offered was ``high-
ranking,'' but declined to state what the position was.\4\ 
Commentators believed that the position was Secretary of the 
Navy, a hypothesis later denied by the White House. The bargain 
was obviously not accepted, as Rep. Sestak announced his 
candidacy for Senate on August 4, 2009, and ultimately won the 
Democratic primary on May 18, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\See Fitzgerald, T. ``Sestak Holds to Story of Job Offer.'' 
Philadelphia Inquirer (internet), Feb. 20, 2010.
    \4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. LThe Administration's Refusal to Provide Information Necessary to 
        Address Concerns of Impropriety Surrounding These Incidents
    In light of Rep. Sestak's revelation, several lawmakers and 
legal scholars questioned whether the Administration's 
discussions with Rep. Sestak may have constituted an illegal 
quid pro quo offer. At least three provisions of Federal 
criminal law--18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 211, 595, and 600--and the 
Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7324, generally prohibit the offering 
or acceptance of anything of value in exchange for any 
political activity. These laws are designed to decrease 
corruption in the administration of government and protect the 
integrity of fair democratic elections. It is difficult, 
however, to form an opinion about whether a crime was committed 
because neither the Obama Administration nor Rep. Sestak has 
provided sufficient additional facts to form a coherent, 
credible understanding about their secret summer 2009 
discussions.
    Despite a number of inquiries, the Administration has 
rejected requests to provide additional details about these 
matters. Following Rep. Sestak's February announcement, 
congressional Republicans asked numerous times for more 
information from the Obama Administration about the Sestak 
offer. On March 10, 2010, House Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee Ranking Member Darrell Issa wrote Counsel to the 
President (the ``White House Counsel'') Robert Bauer seeking 
details about the Sestak offer and outlining the Federal 
criminal statutes that the White House may have violated.\5\ 
Ranking Member Issa received no written reply, but on March 16, 
in response to a reporter's question, White House Press 
Secretary Robert Gibbs stated: ``I've talked with several 
people in the White House. I've talked to people who have 
talked to others in the White House . . . I'm told that 
whatever conversations have been had are not problematic. I 
think Congressman Sestak has discussed that this is--whatever 
happened is in the past and he is focused on the primary.''\6\ 
In other words, the White House said, ``We have investigated 
ourselves and we don't think we've done anything wrong.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Letter from Rep. D. Issa to White House Counsel Robert Bauer 
dated Mar. 10, 2010. Letters referred to in these Dissenting Views are 
available at the websites of either the House Oversight and Government 
Reform Committee Republicans (http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/) 
or the House Judiciary Committee Republicans (http://
republicans.judiciary.house.gov/), or both.
    \6\See Lucas, F. ``Democratic Senate Nominee Sestak Repeats Claim: 
White House Offered Him Job to Drop Out of Race Against Specter.'' CNS 
News (internet), May 21, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Having received no response to his March 10 letter, Ranking 
Member Issa sent a letter on March 22 to Mr. Bauer requesting a 
response to his prior inquiry and posing additional questions 
to the White House in light of Secretary Gibbs's statement.\7\ 
When the time for responding to the March 22 letter passed with 
no response from Mr. Bauer, Ranking Member Issa sent a letter 
to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that he ``name a 
special prosecutor to conduct a formal investigation into 
whether a crime was committed when White house officials 
attempted to secure Rep. Joe Sestak's withdrawal from 
Pennsylvania's Democratic Primary for the United States 
Senate.''\8\ Ranking Member Issa suggested that an independent 
special prosecutor was necessary because the White House's 
evaluation of its behavior would almost certainly be biased in 
favor of finding no wrongdoing. The Department of Justice 
responded on May 21 with a letter denying Ranking Member Issa's 
special prosecutor request.\9\ On May 26, Senate Republicans 
also wrote Attorney General Holder to request the appointment 
of a special counsel to investigate the matter.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Letter from Rep. D. Issa to White House Counsel Robert Bauer 
dated Mar. 22, 2010.
    \8\Letter from Rep. D. Issa to Attorney General Eric Holder dated 
Apr. 21, 2010.
    \9\See Bresnahan, J. & Jake Sherman. ``DoJ Nixes Special Counsel 
Request.'' Politico (internet), May 24, 2010.
    \10\Letter from Sen. C. Grassley et al to Attorney General Eric 
Holder dated May 26, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 27, President Obama stated in response to a 
reporter's question about the Sestak offer at a press 
conference that ``[t]here will be an official response shortly 
on the Sestak matter. . . . I mean shortly--I don't mean weeks 
or months. . . . I can assure the public that nothing improper 
took place.''\11\ A reasonable interpretation of this statement 
is that the President knew additional facts about the Sestak 
offer at that time and easily could have answered the 
reporter's questions but chose not to. The very next day--after 
over three months of silence from the White House on the Sestak 
matter--White House Counsel Bauer published a one-and-one-
quarter page memorandum setting forth its version of the facts 
about the offer to Sestak.\12\ Citing a ``legitimate interest 
in avoiding a divisive primary fight,'' the memorandum revealed 
that former President Bill Clinton, at the request of White 
House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, discussed with Rep. Sestak 
his interest in service with the Administration in exchange for 
his withdrawal from the Pennsylvania Senate primary race. Not 
surprisingly, the White House memorandum concluded that any 
offers made by the White House were ``fully consistent with the 
relevant law and ethical requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\See Itkowitz, C. ``Obama Insists No Impropriety in Sestak 
Controversy.'' L.A. Times (internet), May 27, 2010.
    \12\Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/
memorandum-white-house-counsel-regarding-review-discussions-relating-
congressman-se.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not only was the White House's exoneration of its own 
conduct neither surprising nor satisfactory, but the White 
House Counsel's memo actually raised more questions about the 
Administration's interference in the Pennsylvania primary than 
it answered. For example, it stated that ``efforts''--plural--
were made in June and July 2009 to determine whether Rep. 
Sestak would be interested in a Federal appointment if he were 
to drop out of the Senate primary race. Yet the memo details 
only one conversation between Rep. Sestak and former President 
Bill Clinton, whom the Administration asked to make the offer. 
What other efforts were made in the summer of 2009? 
Additionally, President Clinton's involvement in the offer is 
quite strange and raises the obvious question of why a private 
individual who is not part of the Administration would be 
engaged in discussions about a potential Presidential 
appointment. Why wouldn't Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel or 
President Obama himself discuss the offer with Rep. Sestak? One 
possible answer may be that Administration officials tried to 
insulate themselves from potential criminal liability by using 
a remote conduit for the offer. The memo also stated that the 
Administration's offer was to appoint Rep. Sestak to a position 
on a Presidential Advisory Board so that he could ``retain his 
seat in the House.'' Rep. Sestak has stated he believe the 
position was on the Presidential Intelligence Advisory 
Board.\13\ This story is simply not credible since according to 
the White House's own rules for service the Board (as published 
on the White House website), Rep. Sestak is ineligible to serve 
on such a Board because as a member of the House he is a 
``Federal employee.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\See Silverlieb, A. ``White House Admits Effort to Keep Sestak 
Out of Senate Race.'' CNN (internet), May 28, 2010 (``One of the unpaid 
positions that the White House suggested offering Sestak was an 
appointment to the president's Intelligence Advisory Board, which gives 
the president independent oversight and advice.'')
    \14\See Board's eligibility rules, available at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/piab/about (``The Board consists 
of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among 
individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The implausibility of the White House Counsel's 
memorandum's version of the facts casts doubts on the 
conclusions of Mr. Bauer, who reports to the same officials he 
purported to investigate, and raises concerns that they were 
tainted by politics. At a minimum it puts the credibility of 
the memorandum's conclusions in serious doubt. These 
inconsistencies, deficiencies, and self-contradictions in the 
White House's explanations and the memorandum led Ranking 
Members Smith and Issa to write the FBI and request that it 
open an investigation into the Sestak matter.\15\ This request, 
however, met the same fate as Ranking Member Issa's request for 
a special counsel. On June 15, the FBI responded with a letter 
that essentially dismissed the congressmen's concerns but 
assured them that the FBI takes political corruption 
seriously.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Letter from Ranking Member L. Smith and Rep. D. Issa to FBI 
Director Robert Mueller dated May 28, 2010.
    \16\Letter from Steven D. Kelly, Assistant Director of FBI's Office 
of Congressional Affairs, to Ranking Member L. Smith dated June 15, 
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Then on June 2, 2010, Colorado's former House Speaker 
Andrew Romanoff disclosed that he, too, discussed with the 
White House the possibility of accepting a Federal appointment 
in exchange for dropping out of the Democratic primary.\17\ 
Specifically, Mr. Romanoff explained that White House Deputy 
Chief of Staff Jim Messina raised at least three Federal 
positions for which Romanoff might be considered if he were to 
withdraw from the Democratic primary in which incumbent Senator 
Michael Bennet was also a candidate. The next day, the White 
House confirmed this discussion took place.\18\ The Sestak 
matter was obviously not an isolated incident: the Romanoff 
revelation revealed that the Obama Administration engaged in a 
pattern of behavior to influence and interfere in State primary 
elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\``Romanoff Admits White House Job Discussions.'' CBS 4 Denver 
(internet), June 2, 2010.
    \18\Burns, A. ``W.H. Admits Effort to Avoid Primary.'' Politico 44 
(internet), June 3, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The White House now having two backroom deals to explain, 
Ranking Members Smith and Issa and Mr. Sensenbrenner sent a 
letter on June 2, 2010, to White House Counsel Bauer asking for 
production of all documents relating to the Sestak and Romanoff 
matters.\19\ Additionally, on June 4, 2010, Ranking Member 
Smith sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John 
Conyers requesting that the full Judiciary Committee hold a 
hearing to investigate the Sestak and Romanoff matters.\20\ And 
on June 8, 2010, Ranking Member Smith and Mr. Sensenbrenner 
sent a letter to the Department of Justice asking what role it 
may have played in advising the White House regarding the 
Sestak and Romanoff episodes and asking for documents relating 
to the same.\21\ When all of these requests were rejected, 
Ranking Member Smith and Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced the 
instant Resolution of Inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Letter from Ranking Member L. Smith et al to White House 
Counsel Robert Bauer dated June 2, 2010.
    \20\Letter from Ranking Member L. Smith to Chairman J. Conyers 
dated June 4, 2010.
    \21\Letter from Ranking Member L. Smith and Mr. Sensenbrenner to 
Attorney General Eric Holder dated June 8, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            III. WHY THE RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY IS NECESSARY

    The Administration's failure to provide the details 
sufficient to address concerns raised about these conversations 
has only fed lawmakers' and the public's concerns that some 
impropriety has occurred in this matter. The Administration's 
handling of the Sestak and Romanoff matters is ironic in light 
of President Obama's 2008 presidential campaign promise to 
administer the most open government in American history. In 
fact, the day after he was inaugurated, he issued a memorandum 
to the heads of executive agencies ordering them to implement 
policies to make government more transparent and user-friendly. 
However, in the four months since the Sestak matter became 
public, the White House has issued only its one-and-one-quarter 
page memorandum on the subject, which actually raises more 
questions than it answers.
    The ROI will help Congress fulfill its constitutional 
responsibility to conduct oversight. This Committee has 
considered several resolutions of inquiry directed at DOJ this 
Congress, including resolutions seeking information about DOJ's 
sudden decision to halt a voter intimidation case against the 
New Black Panther Party, DOJ's treatment of terrorists held at 
Guant namo Bay, and DOJ's policy on giving Miranda warnings to 
enemies captured on the battlefield. Such resolutions were 
necessary because the Administration refuses to provide any 
documents voluntarily. Similarly, this ROI is an essential tool 
for Congress to have the power to perform its constitutional 
duty to check and balance the power of the Executive. As the 
Ranking Member stated in his June 4, 2010, letter to Chairman 
Conyers, ``Admissions that the White House intentionally sought 
to manipulate the outcome of Democratic Senate primaries strike 
at the heart of our democracy. The Committee has a duty to the 
American people to investigation allegations of criminal 
conduct at the White House.''\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\See note 20, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even if the Administration's conduct regarding the Sestak 
and Romanoff offers was not criminal or unethical, Americans 
demand a higher standard of conduct from elected officials. A 
June 11 Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll shows that a majority of 
Americans think the Administration engaged in criminal or 
unethical conduct. Americans are entitled to believe their 
elected officials will hold themselves to a higher standard of 
conduct. H. Res. 1455 is necessary to uncover what conduct 
actually occurred so that Americans can form their own 
judgments about their elected leaders.
    Americans also want to know why the White House held secret 
talks with former President Clinton and Rep. Sestak's brother 
in the days before it released the May 28 memorandum. Days 
before the White House Counsel's memorandum was released, 
President Obama met with former President Clinton (whom the 
Administration asked to make the offer to Rep. Sestak) and Rep. 
Sestak's brother (who is also his campaign lawyer). The 
Administration has not explained why, and many Americans wonder 
whether the Administration tried to ensure all parties with 
knowledge of the offer would tell the same story that the White 
House was about to release in its memorandum. Americans are 
also curious whether the Department of Justice advised the 
White House with respect to these conversations, and, if so, 
what that advice was.

                             IV. CONCLUSION

    We strongly support adoption of H. Res. 1455 for a variety 
of reasons that fall broadly into two main categories. First, 
because all meaningful attempts to conduct oversight heretofore 
have been unsuccessful, the documents that the Department of 
Justice would produce pursuant to H. Res. 1455, if they exist, 
are critical to determine the facts surrounding the job offers 
to Rep. Sestak and Colorado House Speaker Romanoff and whether 
Administration officials violated Federal criminal law or 
ethical standards. If the DOJ was not consulted regarding the 
legality of these offers, Americans are left to conclude that 
Administration officials had a callous disregard of the 
possible legal and ethical consequences of their pursuit of 
political gain. Second, the disclosure required by H. Res. 1455 
is entirely consistent with President Obama's campaign pledge 
of making government more transparent. Transparency is 
particularly necessary when individuals in positions of power 
attempt to interfere in or influence the very basis of our 
democratic system--Federal elections. H. Res. 1455 reaffirms 
Congress's unique role in conducting oversight of the Executive 
Branch and preserving Americans' ability to hold the President 
accountable for his decisions.

                                   Lamar Smith.
                                   F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
                                   Howard Coble.
                                   Elton Gallegly.
                                   Bob Goodlatte.
                                   Daniel E. Lungren.
                                   Darrell E. Issa.
                                   J. Randy Forbes.
                                   Steve King.
                                   Trent Franks.
                                   Louie Gohmert.
                                   Jim Jordan.
                                   Ted Poe.
                                   Jason Chaffetz.
                                   Tom Rooney.
                                   Gregg Harper.

                                  

```