```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 689 Introduced in House (IH)]

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. Velazquez, Mr. Wu, 
Mr. Becerra, Ms. Watson, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. 
Ross, Mr. Rothman, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez 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.

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;
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 Sanchez 
        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 Sanchez 
        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 Sanchez, 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;
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 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
    Resolved, That it is the Sense of the House of Representatives 
that, in the interest of full disclosure consistent with principles of 
openness in governmental operations, that--
            (1) the House of Representatives urges the President of the 
        United States to immediately call upon his current and former 
        associates and appointees, and the associates of those 
        individuals, who have asserted executive privilege to avoid 
        testifying in congressional investigations, to come forward and 
        testify fully and truthfully before the relevant committees of 
        Congress; and
            (2) that the President of the United States should use all 
        legal means at his disposal to compel people to cooperate with 
        the investigation.
                                 <all>
```