IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 689 

Calling upon George W. Bush, President of the United States, to urge 

full cooperation by his former political appointees, current Administration 

officials, and their friends and associates with congressional investigations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 

Ms. HOOLEY (for herself, Mr. MURTHA, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. HASTINGS of 

Florida, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. 

KUCINICH, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FILNER, Mr. HILL, Mr. ALLEN, Mrs. 

MCCARTHY of New York, Ms. CASTOR, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. MCGOVERN, 

Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. CLAY, 

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. NADLER, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mr. 

CARDOZA, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. FARR, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. 

OLVER, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. 

WU, Mr. BECERRA, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WEINER, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. 

PASCRELL, Mr. ROSS, Mr. ROTHMAN, Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. STUPAK, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. THOMPSON of 

Mississippi, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. RYAN of 

Ohio, Mr. HIGGINS, and Mr. TIERNEY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Calling upon George W. Bush, President of the United 

States, to urge full cooperation by his former political 

appointees, current Administration officials, and their 

friends and associates with congressional investigations. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 689 IH 

Whereas the current Administration’s Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has made broad assertions, 

unaccompanied by any authoritative judicial citations, as 

to the breadth and reach of presidential constitutional 

prerogatives that if applied to information and documents 

often sought by congressional committees, would stymie 

such inquiries; 

Whereas President Bush stated in a March 20, 2007 press 

conference, ‘‘I will oppose any attempts to subpoena 

White House officials.’’; 

Whereas the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary 

made repeated and extensive efforts to obtain needed information related to the dismissal and replacement of 

nine U.S. Attorneys from the White House on a voluntary or cooperative basis. Despite those efforts, the 

White House refused to engage in a constructive dialog 

with the Committees regarding finding a workable compromise. After conducting numerous interviews with Department of Justice officials and reviewing documents 

provided by the Department of Justice, the Committees’ 

were forced to result to compulsory process and issued 

subpoenas on June 13, 2007, to the White House custodian of records, Joshua Bolten, and to two former White 

House officials, Sara M. Taylor and Harriet Miers, for 

documents and testimony; 

Whereas on June 28, 2007, White House Counsel Fred F. 

Fielding, at the direction of President Bush, advised the 

Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees 

that the Committees’ subpoenas had been deemed by the 

President subject to executive privilege and that the subpoena recipients had been directed not to comply; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 689 IH 

Whereas the Committees responded to Mr. Fielding’s June 

28 letter with an additional request for negotiations and 

compromise by the White House, asking that the White 

House provide a log of the factual and legal basis for 

claims of executive privilege and a signed statement by 

the President asserting such privilege; 

Whereas on July 9, 2007, the White House again refused to 

provide the subpoenaed documents, a privilege log or a 

statement by the President asserting executive privilege; 

Whereas on July 9, 2007, Ms. Miers’s attorney informed 

Chairman Conyers that pursuant to the President’s direction, Ms. Miers would not testify or produce documents; 

Whereas on July 12, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law 

met and Subcommittee Chair Sa ́nchez issued a ruling rejecting Ms. Miers’s executive privilege claims with respect 

to failing to appear, to testify and to produce documents. 

The ruling was upheld by a 7–5 vote; 

Whereas on July 19, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law 

met and Subcommittee Chair Sa ́nchez ruled against Mr. 

Bolten’s executive privilege claims with respect to his failure to produce documents. The ruling was upheld by a 

7–3 vote; 

Whereas even after the rulings by Subcommittee Chair 

Sa ́nchez, the House Judiciary Committee again attempted to negotiate with the White House and with Ms. 

Miers, offering extended deadlines for compliance with 

the subpoenas. Ms. Miers and the White House again refused to comply; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
4 

•HRES 689 IH 

Whereas on July 25, 2007, the full Judiciary Committee 

voted, 22–17, to issue a report to the House recommending that a resolution of contempt of Congress 

against Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten be approved; 

Whereas the White House indicated that it would order the 

United States Attorney for the District of Columbia not 

to present the contempt of Congress citation for grand 

jury consideration, preventing Congress from fulfilling its 

constitutional role of oversight of the Executive Branch; 

Whereas the roots of Congress’ broad investigatory powers 

reach back to the establishment of the Constitution and 

which have been continually reaffirmed by the Supreme 

Court and, as George Mason recognized at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Members of Congress ‘‘are 

not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial power. 

They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the 

public offices.’’; 

Whereas Woodrow Wilson wrote in his 1885 book, Congressional Government, ‘‘Quite as important as legislation is 

vigilant oversight of administration . . . The argument is 

not only that a discussed and interrogated administration 

is the only pure and efficient administration, but, more 

than that, that the only really self-governing people is 

that people which discusses and interrogates its administration.’’; 

Whereas in Nixon v. Sirica (1973), a panel of the District of 

Columbia Circuit rejected President Nixon’s claim that 

he was absolutely immune from all compulsory process 

whenever he asserted a formal claim of executive privilege, holding that while presidential conversations are 

‘‘presumptively privileged’’, the presumption could be 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
5 

•HRES 689 IH 

overcome by an appropriate showing of public need by 

the branch seeking access to the conversations; 

Whereas in United States v. Nixon (1974), the Court ruled 

that a president’s communications with his close advisors 

were ‘‘presumptively privileged’’, not absolutely privileged; 

Whereas the Reagan Administration stated in 1984 in response to Congressional subpoenas of the Department of 

Justice investigative files, ‘‘These principles [of executive 

privilege] will not be employed to shield documents which 

contain evidence of criminal or unethical conduct by 

agency officials from proper review.’’; 

Whereas White House Counsel to the Clinton Administration, 

Lloyd Cutler, stated in a memo dated September 28, 

1994, ‘‘[i]n circumstances involving communications relating to investigations of personal wrongdoing by government officials, it is our practice not to assert executive 

privilege, either in judicial proceedings or in congressional investigations and hearing.’’; and 

Whereas executive privilege is rooted in the need for confidentiality to ensure that presidential decision making is of 

the highest caliber, informed by honest advice and knowledge, and is limited to apply in only those instances 

where the Constitution provides that the President alone 

must make a decision: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the Sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that, in the interest of full disclosure con3 sistent with principles of openness in governmental oper4 ations, that— 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
6 

•HRES 689 IH 

1 (1) the House of Representatives urges the 

2 President of the United States to immediately call 

3 upon his current and former associates and ap4 pointees, and the associates of those individuals, who 

5 have asserted executive privilege to avoid testifying 

6 in congressional investigations, to come forward and 

7 testify fully and truthfully before the relevant com8 mittees of Congress; and 

9 (2) that the President of the United States 

10 should use all legal means at his disposal to compel 

11 people to cooperate with the investigation. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS