HRES 1258 IH 
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
offense warranting removal from office. 
ARTICLE IX—FAILING TO PROVIDE TROOPS WITH 
BODY ARMOR AND VEHICLE ARMOR 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice Presi-
dent, has been responsible for the deaths of members of 
the U.S. military and serious injury and trauma to other 
soldiers, by failing to provide available body armor and 
vehicle armor. 
While engaging in an invasion and occupation of 
choice, not fought in self-defense, and not launched in ac-
cordance with any timetable other than the President’s 
choosing, President Bush sent U.S. troops into danger 
without providing them with armor. This shortcoming has 
been known for years, during which time, the President 
has chosen to allow soldiers and marines to continue to 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
face unnecessary risk to life and limb rather then pro-
viding them with armor. 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subver-
sive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the 
cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
offense warranting removal from office. 
ARTICLE X—FALSIFYING ACCOUNTS OF U.S. TROOP 
DEATHS AND INJURIES FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice Presi-
dent, promoted false propaganda stories about members 
of the United States military, including individuals both 
dead and injured. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
The White House and the Department of Defense 
(DOD) in 2004 promoted a false account of the death of 
Specialist Pat Tillman, reporting that he had died in a 
hostile exchange, delaying release of the information that 
he had died from friendly fire, shot in the forehead three 
times in a manner that led investigating doctors to believe 
he had been shot at close range. 
A 2005 report by Brig. Gen. Gary M. Jones reported 
that in the days immediately following Specialist Tillman’s 
death, U.S. Army investigators were aware that Specialist 
Tillman was killed by friendly fire, shot three times to the 
head, and that senior Army commanders, including Gen. 
John Abizaid, knew of this fact within days of the shooting 
but nevertheless approved the awarding of the Silver Star, 
Purple Heart, and a posthumous promotion. 
On April 24, 2007, Spc. Bryan O’Neal, the last sol-
dier to see Specialist Pat Tillman alive, testified before 
the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
that he was warned by superiors not to divulge informa-
tion that a fellow soldier killed Specialist Tillman, espe-
cially to the Tillman family. The White House refused to 
provide requested documents to the committee, citing ‘‘ex-
ecutive branch confidentiality interests.’’. 
The White House and DOD in 2003 promoted a false 
account of the injury of Jessica Dawn Lynch, reporting 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
that she had been captured in a hostile exchange and had 
been dramatically rescued. On April 2, 2003, the DOD 
released a video of the rescue and claimed that Lynch had 
stab and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped 
about on her hospital bed and interrogated. Iraqi doctors 
and nurses later interviewed, including Dr. Harith Al- 
Houssona, a doctor in the Nasirya hospital, described 
Lynch’s injuries as ‘‘a broken arm, a broken thigh, and 
a dislocated ankle.’’ According to Al-Houssona, there was 
no sign of gunshot or stab wounds, and Lynch’s injuries 
were consistent with those that would be suffered in a car 
accident. Al-Houssona’s claims were later confirmed in a 
U.S. Army report leaked on July 10, 2003. 
Lynch denied that she fought or was wounded fight-
ing, telling Diane Sawyer that the Pentagon ‘‘used me to 
symbolize all this stuff. It’s wrong. I don’t know why they 
filmed [my rescue] or why they say these things. . . . I 
did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down praying 
to my knees. And that’s the last I remember.’’ She re-
ported excellent treatment in Iraq, and that one person 
in the hospital even sang to her to help her feel at home. 
On April 24, 2007, Lynch testified before the House 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
‘‘[Right after my capture], tales of great heroism 
were being told. My parent’s home in Wirt County was 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
under siege of the media all repeating the story of the 
little girl Rambo from the hills who went down fighting. 
It was not true. . . . I am still confused as to why they 
chose to lie.’’. 
The White House had heavily promoted the false 
story of Lynch’s rescue, including in a speech by President 
Bush on April 28, 2003. After the fiction was exposed, 
the President awarded Lynch the Bronze Star. 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subver-
sive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the 
cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
offense warranting removal from office. 
ARTICLE XI—ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT U.S. 
MILITARY BASES IN IRAQ 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
fully executed’’, has violated an act of Congress that he 
himself signed into law by using public funds to construct 
permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. 
On January 28, 2008, President George W. Bush 
signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 4986). Noting that the Act 
‘‘authorizes funding for the defense of the United States 
and its interests abroad, for military construction, and for 
national security-related energy programs’’, the president 
added the following ‘‘signing statement’’: 
‘‘Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 
1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that 
could inhibit the President’s ability to carry out his con-
stitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed, to protect national security, to supervise 
the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Com-
mander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such 
provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional 
authority of the President.’’. 
Section 1222 clearly prohibits the expenditure of 
money for the purpose of establishing permanent U.S. 
military bases in Iraq. The construction of over $1 billion 
in U.S. military bases in Iraq, including runways for air-
craft, continues despite congressional intent, as the Ad-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
ministration intends to force upon the Iraqi Government 
such terms which will assure the bases remain in Iraq. 
Iraqi officials have informed Members of Congress in 
May 2008 of the strong opposition within the Iraqi par-
liament and throughout Iraq to the agreement that the 
administration is trying to negotiate with Iraqi Prime 
Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The agreement seeks to assure 
a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq of which military bases 
are the most obvious, sufficient and necessary construct, 
thus clearly defying Congressional intent as to the matter 
and meaning of ‘‘permanency’’. 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subver-
sive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the 
cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
offense warranting removal from office. 
ARTICLE XII—INITIATING A WAR AGAINST IRAQ FOR 
CONTROL OF THAT NATION’S NATURAL RESOURCES 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice Presi-
dent, invaded and occupied a foreign nation for the pur-
pose, among other purposes, of seizing control of that na-
tion’s oil. 
The White House and its representatives in Iraq 
have, since the occupation of Baghdad began, attempted 
to gain control of Iraqi oil. This effort has included pres-
suring the new Iraqi Government to pass a hydrocarbon 
law. Within weeks of the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, 
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAid) 
awarded a $240 million contract to Bearing Point, a pri-
vate U.S. company. A Bearing Point employee, based in 
the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, was hired to advise the 
Iraqi Ministry of Oil on drawing up the new hydrocarbon 
law. The draft law places executives of foreign oil compa-
nies on a council with the task of approving their own con-
tracts with Iraq; it denies the Iraqi National Oil Company 
exclusive rights for the exploration, development, produc-
tion, transportation, and marketing of Iraqi oil, and allows 
foreign companies to control Iraqi oil fields containing 80 
percent of Iraqi oil for up to 35 years through contracts 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
that can remain secret for up to 2 months. The draft law 
itself contains secret appendices. 
President Bush provided unrelated reasons for the in-
vasion of Iraq to the public and Congress, but those rea-
sons have been established to have been categorically 
fraudulent, as evidenced by the herein mentioned Articles 
of Impeachment I, II, III, IV, VI, and VII. 
Parallel to the development of plans for war against 
Iraq, the U.S. State Department’s Future of Iraq project, 
begun as early as April 2002, involved meetings in Wash-
ington and London of 17 working groups, each composed 
of 10 to 20 Iraqi exiles and international experts selected 
by the State Department. The Oil and Energy working 
group met four times between December 2002 and April 
2003. Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, later the Iraqi Oil Min-
ister, was a member of the group, which concluded that 
Iraq ‘‘should be opened to international oil companies as 
quickly as possible after the war,’’ and that, ‘‘the country 
should establish a conducive business environment to at-
tract investment of oil and gas resources.’’ The same 
group recommended production-sharing agreements with 
foreign oil companies, the same approach found in the 
draft hydrocarbon law, and control over Iraq’s oil re-
sources remains a prime objective of the Bush Administra-
tion. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
Prior to his election as Vice President, Dick Cheney, 
then-CEO of Halliburton, in a speech at the Institute of 
Petroleum in 1999 demonstrated a keen awareness of the 
sensitive economic and geopolitical role of Middle East oil 
resources saying: ‘‘By 2010, we will need on the order of 
an additional 50 million barrels a day. So where is the 
oil going to come from? Governments and national oil com-
panies are obviously controlling about 90 percent of the 
assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. 
While many regions of the world offer great oil opportuni-
ties, the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world’s oil 
and lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies. 
Even though companies are anxious for greater access 
there, progress continues to be slow.’’. 
The Vice President led the work of a secret energy 
task force, as described in article XXXII below, a task 
force that focused on, among other things, the acquisition 
of Iraqi oil through developing a controlling private cor-
porate interest in said oil. 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subver-
sive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the 
cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
offense warranting removal from office. 
ARTICLE XIII—CREATING A SECRET TASK FORCE TO 
DEVELOP ENERGY AND MILITARY POLICIES WITH 
RESPECT TO IRAQ AND OTHER COUNTRIES 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the 
laws be faithfully executed, has both personally and acting 
through his agents and subordinates, together with the 
Vice President, created a secret task force to guide our 
nation’s energy policy and military policy, and undermined 
Congress’s ability to legislate by thwarting attempts to in-
vestigate the nature of that policy. 
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report 
on the Cheney Energy Task Force, in August 2003, de-
scribed the creation of this task force as follows: 
‘‘In a January 29, 2001, memorandum, the President 
established NEPDG [the National Energy Policy Develop-
ment Group]—comprised of the Vice President, nine cabi-
net-level officials, and four other senior administration of-
ficials—to gather information, deliberate, and make rec-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
ommendations to the President by the end of fiscal year 
2001. The President called on the Vice President to chair 
the group, direct its work and, as necessary, establish sub-
ordinate working groups to assist NEPDG.’’. 
The four ‘‘other senior administration officials’’ were 
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the 
Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for 
Policy, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, 
and the Deputy Assistant to the President for Intergov-
ernmental Affairs. 
The GAO report found that: 
‘‘In developing the National Energy Policy report, the 
NEPDG Principals, Support Group, and participating 
agency officials and staff met with, solicited input from, 
or received information and advice from nonfederal energy 
stakeholders, principally petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural 
gas, and electricity industry representatives and lobbyists. 
The extent to which submissions from any of these stake-
holders were solicited, influenced policy deliberations, or 
were incorporated into the final report cannot be deter-
mined based on the limited information made available to 
GAO. NEPDG met and conducted its work in two distinct 
phases: the first phase culminated in a March 19, 2001, 
briefing to the President on challenges relating to energy 
supply and the resulting economic impact; the second 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
phase ended with the May 16, 2001, presentation of the 
final report to the President. The Office of the Vice Presi-
dent’s (OVP) unwillingness to provide the NEPDG 
records or other related information precluded GAO from 
fully achieving its objectives and substantially limited 
GAO’s ability to comprehensively analyze the NEPDG 
process associated with that process. 
‘‘None of the key federal entities involved in the 
NEPDG effort provided GAO with a complete accounting 
of the costs that they incurred during the development of 
the National Energy Policy report. The two federal enti-
ties responsible for funding the NEPDG effort—OVP and 
the Department of Energy (DOE)—did not provide the 
comprehensive cost information that GAO requested. OVP 
provided GAO with 77 pages of information, two-thirds 
of which contained no cost information while the remain-
ing one-third contained some miscellaneous information of 
little to no usefulness. OVP stated that it would not pro-
vide any additional information. DOE, the Department of 
the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) provided GAO with estimates of certain costs and 
salaries associated with the NEPDG effort, but these esti-
mates, all calculated in different ways, were not com-
prehensive.’’. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
In 2003, the Commerce Department disclosed a par-
tial collection of materials from the NEPDG, including 
documents, maps, and charts, dated March 2001, of 
Iraq’s, Saudi Arabia’s and the United Arab Emirates’ oil 
fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals, and develop-
ment projects. 
On November 16, 2005, the Washington Post re-
ported on a White House document showing that oil com-
pany executives had met with the NEPDG, something that 
some of those same executives had just that week denied 
in Congressional testimony. The Bush Administration had 
not corrected the inaccurate testimony. 
On July 18, 2007, the Washington Post reported the 
full list of names of those who had met with the NEPDG. 
In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chev-
ron, told a San Francisco audience, ‘‘Iraq possesses huge 
reserves of oil and gas, reserves I’d love Chevron to have 
access to.’’ According to the GAO report, Chevron pro-
vided detailed advice to the NEPDG. 
In March, 2001, the NEPDG recommended that the 
United States Government support initiatives by Middle 
Eastern countries ‘‘to open up areas of their energy sec-
tors to foreign investment.’’ Following the invasion of 
Iraq, the United States has pressured the new Iraqi par-
liament to pass a hydrocarbon law that would do exactly 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
that. The draft law, if passed, would take the majority 
of Iraq’s oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi Govern-
ment and open it to international oil companies for a gen-
eration or more. The Bush administration hired Bearing 
Point, a U.S. company, to help write the law in 2004. It 
was submitted to the Iraqi Council of Representatives in 
May 2007. 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subver-
sive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the 
cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
offense warranting removal from office. 
ARTICLE XIV—MISPRISION OF A FELONY, MISUSE AND 
EXPOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND OB-
STRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF VAL-
ERIE PLAME WILSON, CLANDESTINE AGENT
OF 
THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice Presi-
dent, 
(1) suppressed material information; 
(2) selectively declassified information for the 
improper purposes of retaliating against a whistle-
blower and presenting a misleading picture of the al-
leged threat from Iraq; 
(3) facilitated the exposure of the identity of 
Valerie Plame Wilson who had theretofore been em-
ployed as a covert CIA operative; 
(4) failed to investigate the improper leaks of 
classified information from within his administra-
tion; 
(5) failed to cooperate with an investigation 
into possible federal violations resulting from this 
activity; and 
(6) finally, entirely undermined the prosecution 
by commuting the sentence of Lewis Libby citing 
false and insubstantial grounds, all in an effort to 
prevent Congress and the citizens of the United 
States from discovering the deceitful nature of the 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
President’s claimed justifications for the invasion of 
Iraq. 
In facilitating this exposure of classified information 
and the subsequent cover-up, in all of these actions and 
decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a man-
ner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of 
constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people 
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. 
Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense 
warranting removal from office. 
ARTICLE XV—PROVIDING IMMUNITY FROM 
PROSECUTION FOR CRIMINAL CONTRACTORS IN IRAQ 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice Presi-
dent, established policies granting United States Govern-
ment contractors and their employees in Iraq immunity 
from Iraqi law, U.S. law, and international law. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
Lewis Paul Bremer III, then-Director of Reconstruc-
tion and Humanitarian Assistance for post-war Iraq, on 
June 27, 2004, issued Coalition Provisional Authority 
Order Number 17, which granted members of the U.S. 
military, U.S. mercenaries, and other U.S. contractor em-
ployees immunity from Iraqi law. 
The Bush Administration has chosen not to apply the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice or United States law 
to mercenaries and other contractors employed by the 
United States Government in Iraq. 
Operating free of Iraqi or U.S. law, mercenaries have 
killed many Iraqi civilians in a manner that observers have 
described as aggression and not as self-defense. Many 
U.S. contractors have also alleged that they have been the 
victims of aggression (in several cases of rape) by their 
fellow contract employees in Iraq. These charges have not 
been brought to trial, and in several cases the contracting 
companies and the U.S. State Department have worked 
together in attempting to cover them up. 
Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which the 
United States is party, and which under article VI of the 
U.S. Constitution is therefore the supreme law of the 
United States, it is the responsibility of an occupying force 
to ensure the protection and human rights of the civilian 
population. The efforts of President Bush and his subordi-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
nates to attempt to establish a lawless zone in Iraq are 
in violation of the law. 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President and subversive of constitutional govern-
ment, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and 
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, 
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal 
from office. 
ARTICLE XVI—RECKLESS MISSPENDING AND WASTE OF 
U.S. TAX DOLLARS
IN CONNECTION WITH IRAQ 
CONTRACTORS 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice Presi-
dent, recklessly wasted public funds on contracts awarded 
to close associates, including companies guilty of defraud-
ing the government in the past, contracts awarded without 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
competitive bidding, ‘‘cost-plus’’ contracts designed to en-
courage cost overruns, and contracts not requiring satis-
factory completion of the work. These failures have been 
the rule, not the exception, in the awarding of contracts 
for work in the United States and abroad over the past 
seven years. Repeated exposure of fraud and waste has 
not been met by the president with correction of systemic 
problems, but rather with retribution against whistle-
blowers. 
The House Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform reported on Iraq reconstruction contracting: 
‘‘From the beginning, the Administration adopted a 
flawed contracting approach in Iraq. Instead of maxi-
mizing competition, the Administration opted to award no- 
bid, cost-plus contracts to politically connected contrac-
tors. Halliburton’s secret $7 billion contract to restore 
Iraq’s oil infrastructure is the prime example. Under this 
no-bid, cost-plus contract, Halliburton was reimbursed for 
its costs and then received an additional fee, which was 
a percentage of its costs. This created an incentive for 
Halliburton to run up its costs in order to increase its 
potential profit. 
‘‘Even after the Administration claimed it was award-
ing Iraq contracts competitively in early 2004, real price 
competition was missing. Iraq was divided geographically 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
and by economic sector into a handful of fiefdoms. Indi-
vidual contractors were then awarded monopoly contracts 
for all of the work within given fiefdoms. Because these 
monopoly contracts were awarded before specific projects 
were identified, there was no actual price competition for 
more than 2,000 projects. 
‘‘In the absence of price competition, rigorous govern-
ment oversight becomes essential for accountability. Yet 
the Administration turned much of the contract oversight 
work over to private companies with blatant conflicts of 
interest. Oversight contractors oversaw their business 
partners and, in some cases, were placed in a position to 
assist their own construction work under separate monop-
oly construction contracts. . . . 
‘‘Under Halliburton’s two largest Iraq contracts, 
Pentagon auditors found $1 billion in ‘questioned’ costs 
and over $400 million in ‘unsupported’ costs. Former Hal-
liburton employees testified that the company charged $45 
for cases of soda, billed $100 to clean 15-pound bags of 
laundry, and insisted on housing its staff at the five-star 
Kempinski hotel in Kuwait. Halliburton truck drivers tes-
tified that the company ‘torched’ brand new $85,000 
trucks rather than perform relatively minor repairs and 
regular maintenance. Halliburton procurement officials 
described the company’s informal motto in Iraq as ‘Don’t 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
worry about price. It’s cost-plus.’ A Halliburton manager 
was indicted for ‘major fraud against the United States’ 
for allegedly billing more than $5.5 billion for work that 
should have cost only $685,000 in exchange for a $1 mil-
lion kickback from a Kuwaiti subcontractor. . . . 
‘‘The Air Force found that another U.S. Government 
contractor, Custer Battles, set up shell subcontractors to 
inflate prices. Those overcharges were passed along to the 
U.S. Government under the company’s cost-plus contract 
to provide security for Baghdad International Airport. In 
one case, the company allegedly took Iraqi-owned forklifts, 
re-painted them, and leased them to the U.S. Government. 
‘‘Despite the spending of billions of taxpayer dollars, 
U.S. reconstruction efforts in keys sectors of the Iraqi 
economy are failing. Over two years after the U.S.-led in-
vasion of Iraq, oil and electricity production has fallen 
below pre-war levels. The Administration has failed to 
even measure how many Iraqis lack access to drinkable 
water.’’. 
‘‘Constitution in Crisis’’, a book by Congressman 
John Conyers, details the Bush Administration’s response 
when contract abuse is made public: 
‘‘Bunnatine Greenhouse was the chief contracting of-
ficer at the Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that has 
managed much of the reconstruction work in Iraq. In Oc-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
tober 2004, Ms. Greenhouse came forward and revealed 
that top Pentagon officials showed improper favoritism to 
Halliburton when awarding military contracts to Halli-
burton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR). Green-
house stated that when the Pentagon awarded Halliburton 
a five-year $7 billion contract, it pressured her to with-
draw her objections, actions which she claimed were un-
precedented in her experience. 
‘‘On June 27, 2005, Ms. Greenhouse testified before 
Congress, detailing that the contract award process was 
compromised by improper influence by political ap-
pointees, participation by Halliburton officials in meetings 
where bidding requirements were discussed, and a lack of 
competition. She stated that the Halliburton contracts 
represented ‘the most blatant and improper contract abuse 
I have witnessed during the course of my professional ca-
reer.’ Days before the hearing, the acting general counsel 
of the Army Corps of Engineers paid Ms. Greenhouse a 
visit and reportedly let it be known that it would not be 
in her best interest to appear voluntarily. 
‘‘On August 27, 2005, the Army demoted Ms. Green-
house, removing her from the elite Senior Executive Serv-
ice and transferring her to a lesser job in the corps’ civil 
works division. As Frank Rich of The New York Times 
described the situation, ‘[H]er crime was not obstructing 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
justice but pursuing it by vehemently questioning irreg-
ularities in the awarding of some $7 billion worth of no- 
bid contracts in Iraq to the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg 
Brown Root.’ The demotion was in apparent retaliation 
for her speaking out against the abuses, even though she 
previously had stellar reviews and over 20 years of experi-
ence in military procurement.’’. 
The House Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform reports on domestic contracting: 
‘‘The Administration’s domestic contracting record is 
no better than its record on Iraq. Waste, fraud, and abuse 
appear to be the rule rather than the exception. . . . 
‘‘A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 
cost-plus contract with NCS Pearson, Inc., to hire Federal 
airport screeners was plagued by poor management and 
egregious waste. Pentagon auditors challenged $303 mil-
lion (over 40 percent) of the $741 million spent by Pear-
son under the contract. The auditors detailed numerous 
concerns with the charges of Pearson and its subcontrac-
tors, such as ‘$20-an-hour temporary workers billed to the 
government at $48 per hour, subcontractors who signed 
out $5,000 in cash at a time with no supporting docu-
ments, $377,273.75 in unsubstantiated long distance 
phone calls, $514,201 to rent tents that flooded in a rain-
storm, [and] $4.4 million in ‘‘no show’’ fees for job can-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
didates who did not appear for tests.’ A Pearson employee 
who supervised Pearson’s hiring efforts at 43 sites in the 
U.S. described the contract as ‘a waste of taxpayer’s 
money.’ The CEO of one Pearson subcontractor paid her-
self $5.4 million for nine months work and provided her-
self with a $270,000 pension. . . . 
‘‘The Administration is spending $239 million on the 
Integrated Surveillance and Intelligence System, a no-bid 
contract to provide thousands of cameras and sensors to 
monitor activity on the Mexican and Canadian borders. 
Auditors found that the contractor, International Micro-
wave Corp., billed for work it never did and charged for 
equipment it never provided, ‘creat[ing] a potential for 
overpayments of almost $13 million.’ Moreover, the border 
monitoring system reportedly does not work. . . . 
‘‘After spending more than $4.5 billion on screening 
equipment for the Nation’s entry points, the Department 
of Homeland Security is now ‘moving to replace or alter 
much of’ it because ‘it is ineffective, unreliable or too ex-
pensive to operate.’ For example, radiation monitors at 
ports and borders reportedly could not ‘differentiate be-
tween radiation emitted by a nuclear bomb and naturally 
occurring radiation from everyday material like cat litter 
or ceramic tile’. . . . 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
‘‘The TSA awarded Boeing a cost-plus contract to in-
stall over 1,000 explosive detection systems for airline pas-
senger luggage. After installation, the machines ‘began to 
register false alarms’ and ‘[s]creeners were forced to open 
and hand-check bags.’ To reduce the number of false 
alarms, the sensitivity of the machines was lowered, which 
reduced the effectiveness of the detectors. Despite these 
serious problems, Boeing received an $82 million profit 
that the Inspector General determined to be ‘exces-
sive’. . . . 
‘‘The FBI spent $170 million on a ‘Virtual Case File’ 
system that does not operate as required. After three years 
of work under a cost-plus contract failed to produce a 
functional system, the FBI scrapped the program and 
began work on the new ‘Sentinel’ Case File System. . . . 
‘‘The Department of Homeland Security Inspector 
General found that taxpayer dollars were being lavished 
on perks for agency officials. One IG report found that 
TSA spent over $400,000 on its first leader’s executive 
office suite. Another found that TSA spent $350,000 on 
a gold-plated gym. . . . 
‘‘According to news reports, Pentagon auditors . . . 
examined a contract between the Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA) and Unisys, a technology and con-
sulting company, for the upgrade of airport computer net-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
works. Among other irregularities, government auditors 
found that Unisys may have overbilled for as much as 
171,000 hours of labor and overtime by charging for em-
ployees at up to twice their actual rate of compensation. 
While the cost ceiling for the contract was set at $1 billion, 
Unisys has reportedly billed the Government $940 million 
with more than half of the seven-year contract remaining 
and more than half of the TSA-monitored airports still 
lacking upgraded networks.’’. 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subver-
sive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the 
cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
offense warranting removal from office. 
ARTICLE XVII—ILLEGAL DETENTION: DETAINING IN-
DEFINITELY
AND
WITHOUT
CHARGE
PERSONS 
BOTH U.S. CITIZENS AND FOREIGN CAPTIVES 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice Presi-
dent, violated United States and International Law and 
the U.S. Constitution by illegally detaining indefinitely 
and without charge persons both U.S. citizens and foreign 
captives. 
In a statement on February 7, 2002, President Bush 
declared that in the U.S. fight against al Qaeda, ‘‘none 
of the provisions of Geneva apply,’’ thus rejecting the Ge-
neva Conventions that protect captives in wars and other 
conflicts. By that time, the administration was already 
transporting captives from the war in Afghanistan, both 
alleged al Qaeda members and supporters, and also Af-
ghans accused of being fighters in the army of the Taliban 
government, to U.S.-run prisons in Afghanistan and to the 
detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The round- 
up and detention without charge of Muslim non-citizens 
inside the U.S. began almost immediately after the Sep-
tember 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and 
the Pentagon, with some being held as long as nine 
months. The U.S., on orders of the president, began cap-
turing and detaining without charge alleged terror sus-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
pects in other countries and detaining them abroad and 
at the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo. 
Many of these detainees have been subjected to sys-
tematic abuse, including beatings, which have been subse-
quently documented by news reports, photographic evi-
dence, testimony in Congress, lawsuits, and in the case 
of detainees in the U.S., by an investigation conducted by 
the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General. 
In violation of U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions, 
the Bush Administration instructed the Department of 
Justice and the U.S. Department of Defense to refuse to 
provide the identities or locations of these detainees, de-
spite requests from Congress and from attorneys for the 
detainees. The president even declared the right to detain 
U.S. citizens indefinitely, without charge and without pro-
viding them access to counsel or the courts, thus depriving 
them of their constitutional and basic human rights. Sev-
eral of those U.S. citizens were held in military brigs in 
solitary confinement for as long as three years before 
being either released or transferred to civilian detention. 
Detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq and Guantanamo 
have, in violation of the Geneva Conventions, been hidden 
from and denied visits by the International Red Cross or-
ganization, while thousands of others in Iraq, Guanta-
namo, Afghanistan, ships in foreign off-shore sites, and 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
an unknown number of so-called ‘‘black sites’’ around the 
world have been denied any opportunity to challenge their 
detentions. The president, acting on his own claimed au-
thority, has declared the hundreds of detainees at Guanta-
namo Bay to be ‘‘enemy combatants’’ not subject to U.S. 
law and not even subject to military law, but nonetheless 
potentially liable to the death penalty. 
The detention of individuals without due process vio-
lates the 5th Amendment. While the Bush administration 
has been rebuked in several court cases, most recently that 
of Ali al-Marri, it continues to attempt to exceed constitu-
tional limits. 
In all of these actions violating U.S. and Inter-
national law, President George W. Bush has acted in a 
manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander 
in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to 
the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the 
manifest injury of the people of the United States. Where-
fore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty 
of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
ARTICLE XVIII—TORTURE: SECRETLY AUTHORIZING, 
AND ENCOURAGING THE USE OF TORTURE AGAINST 
CAPTIVES
IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, AND OTHER 
PLACES, AS A MATTER OF OFFICIAL POLICY 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice Presi-
dent, violated United States and International Law and 
the U.S. Constitution by secretly authorizing and encour-
aging the use of torture against captives in Afghanistan, 
Iraq in connection with the so-called ‘‘war’’ on terror. 
In violation of the Constitution, U.S. law, the Geneva 
Conventions (to which the U.S. is a signatory), and in vio-
lation of basic human rights, torture has been authorized 
by the President and his administration as official policy. 
Water-boarding, beatings, faked executions, confinement 
in extreme cold or extreme heat, prolonged enforcement 
of painful stress positions, sleep deprivation, sexual humil-
iation, and the defiling of religious articles have been prac-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
ticed and exposed as routine at Guantanamo, at Abu 
Ghraib Prison and other U.S. detention sites in Iraq, and 
at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The president, be-
sides bearing responsibility for authorizing the use of tor-
ture, also as Commander in Chief, bears ultimate respon-
sibility for the failure to halt these practices and to punish 
those responsible once they were exposed. 
The administration has sought to claim the abuse of 
captives is not torture, by redefining torture. An August 
1, 2002, memorandum from the Administration’s Office 
of Legal Counsel Jay S. Bybee addressed to White House 
Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales concluded that to constitute 
torture, any pain inflicted must be akin to that accom-
panying ‘‘serious physical injury, such as organ failure, 
impairment of bodily function, or even death.’’ The memo-
randum went on to state that even should an act con-
stitute torture under that minimal definition, it might still 
be permissible if applied to ‘‘interrogations undertaken 
pursuant to the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers.’’ 
The memorandum further asserted that ‘‘necessity or self- 
defense could provide justifications that would eliminate 
any criminal liability.’’ 
This effort to redefine torture by calling certain prac-
tices simply ‘‘enhanced interrogation techniques’’ flies in 
the face of the Third Geneva Convention Relating to the 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
Treatment of Prisoners of War, which states that ‘‘No 
physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, 
may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them 
information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who 
refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or ex-
posed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of 
any kind.’’ 
Torture is further prohibited by the Universal Dec-
laration of Human Rights, the paramount international 
human rights statement adopted unanimously by the 
United Nations General Assembly, including the United 
States, in 1948. Torture and other cruel, inhuman or de-
grading treatment or punishment is also prohibited by 
international treaties ratified by the United States: the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
(ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture and Other 
Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 
(CAT). 
When the Congress, in the Defense Authorization Act 
of 2006, overwhelmingly passed a measure banning tor-
ture and sent it to the President’s desk for signature, the 
President, who together with his vice president, had 
fought hard to block passage of the amendment, signed 
it, but then quietly appended a signing statement in which 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
he pointedly asserted that as Commander in Chief, he was 
not bound to obey its strictures. 
The administration’s encouragement of and failure to 
prevent torture of American captives in the wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, and in the battle against terrorism, has 
undermined the rule of law in the U.S. and in the U.S. 
military, and has seriously damaged both the effort to 
combat global terrorism, and more broadly, America’s 
image abroad. In his effort to hide torture by U.S. military 
forces and the CIA, the president has defied Congress and 
has lied to the American people, repeatedly claiming that 
the U.S. ‘‘does not torture’’. 
In all of these actions and decisions in violation of 
U.S. and International law, President George W. Bush 
has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President 
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional 
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and jus-
tice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United 
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such 
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting 
removal from office. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
ARTICLE XIX—RENDITION: KIDNAPPING PEOPLE AND 
TAKING THEM AGAINST THEIR WILL TO ‘‘BLACK 
SITES’’ LOCATED IN OTHER NATIONS, INCLUDING 
NATIONS KNOWN TO PRACTICE TORTURE 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice Presi-
dent, violated United States and International Law and 
the U.S. Constitution by kidnapping people and 
renditioning them to ‘‘black sites’’ located in other na-
tions, including nations known to practice torture. 
The president has publicly admitted that since the 9/ 
11 attacks in 2001, the U.S. has been kidnapping and 
transporting against the will of the subject (renditioning) 
in its so-called ‘‘war’’ on terror—even people captured by 
U.S. personnel in friendly nations like Sweden, Germany, 
Macedonia and Italy—and ferrying them to places like 
Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan, and to prisons operated 
in Eastern European countries, African countries and 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
Middle Eastern countries where security forces are known 
to practice torture. 
These people are captured and held indefinitely, with-
out any charges being filed, and are held without being 
identified to the Red Cross, or to their families. Many are 
clearly innocent, and several cases, including one in Can-
ada and one in Germany, have demonstrably been shown 
subsequently to have been in error, because of a similarity 
of names or because of misinformation provided to U.S. 
authorities. 
Such a policy is in clear violation of U.S. and Inter-
national Law, and has placed the United States in the 
position of a pariah state. The CIA has no law enforce-
ment authority, and cannot legally arrest or detain any-
one. The program of ‘‘extraordinary rendition’’ authorized 
by the president is the substantial equivalent of the poli-
cies of ‘‘disappearing’’ people, practices widely practiced 
and universally condemned in the military dictatorships of 
Latin America during the late 20th Century. 
The administration has claimed that prior adminis-
trations have practiced extraordinary rendition, but, while 
this is technically true, earlier renditions were used only 
to capture people with outstanding arrest warrants or con-
victions who were outside in order to deliver them to stand 
trial or serve their sentences in the U.S. The president 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
has refused to divulge how many people have been subject 
to extraordinary rendition since September, 2001. It is 
possible that some have died in captivity. As one U.S. offi-
cial has stated off the record, regarding the program, some 
of those who were renditioned were later delivered to 
Guantanamo, while others were sent there directly. An ex-
ample of this is the case of six Algerian Bosnians who, 
immediately after being cleared by the Supreme Court of 
Bosnia Herzegovina in January 2002 of allegedly plotting 
to attack the U.S. and U.K. embassies, were captured, 
bound and gagged by U.S. special forces and renditioned 
to Guantanamo. 
In perhaps the most egregious proven case of ren-
dition, Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, was 
picked up in September 2002 while transiting through 
New York’s JFK airport on his way home to Canada. Im-
migration and FBI officials detained and interrogated him 
for nearly two weeks, illegally denying him his rights to 
access counsel, the Canadian consulate, and the courts. 
Executive branch officials asked him if he would volunteer 
to go to Syria, where he hadn’t been in 15 years, and 
Maher refused. 
Maher was put on a private jet plane operated by the 
CIA and sent to Jordan, where he was beaten for 8 hours, 
and then delivered to Syria, where he was beaten and in-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
terrogated for 18 hours a day for a couple of weeks. He 
was whipped on his back and hands with a 2 inch thick 
electric cable and asked questions similar to those he had 
been asked in the United States. For over ten months 
Maher was held in an underground grave-like cell—3 × 
6 × 7 feet—which was damp and cold, and in which the 
only light came in through a hole in the ceiling. After a 
year of this, Maher was released without any charges. He 
is now back home in Canada with his family. Upon his 
release, the Syrian Government announced he had no links 
to al Qaeda, and the Canadian Government has also said 
they’ve found no links to al Qaeda. The Canadian Govern-
ment launched a Commission of Inquiry into the Actions 
of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, to inves-
tigate the role of Canadian officials, but the Bush Admin-
istration has refused to cooperate with the Inquiry. 
Hundreds of flights of CIA-chartered planes have 
been documented as having passed through European 
countries on extraordinary rendition missions like that in-
volving Maher Arar, but the administration refuses to 
state how many people have been subjects of this illegal 
program. 
The same U.S. laws prohibiting aiding and abetting 
torture also prohibit sending someone to a country where 
there is a substantial likelihood they may be tortured. Ar-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
ticle 3 of CAT prohibits forced return where there is a 
‘‘substantial likelihood’’ that an individual ‘‘may be in 
danger of’’ torture, and has been implemented by Federal 
statute. Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits return to coun-
try of origin where individuals may be ‘‘at risk’’ of either 
torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 
Under international Human Rights law, transferring 
a POW to any nation where he or she is likely to be tor-
tured or inhumanely treated violates article 12 of the 
Third Geneva Convention, and transferring any civilian 
who is a protected person under the Fourth Geneva Con-
vention is a grave breach and a criminal act. 
In situations of armed conflict, both international 
human rights law and humanitarian law apply. A person 
captured in the zone of military hostilities ‘‘must have 
some status under international law; he is either a pris-
oner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Conven-
tion, [or] a civilian covered by the Fourth Conven-
tion. . . . There is no intermediate status; nobody in 
enemy hands can be outside the law.’’ Although the state 
is obligated to repatriate prisoners of war as soon as hos-
tilities cease, the ICRC’s commentary on the 1949 Con-
ventions states that prisoners should not be repatriated 
where there are serious reasons for fearing that repa-
triating the individual would be contrary to general prin-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
ciples of established international law for the protection 
of human beings. Thus, all of the Guantanamo detainees 
as well as renditioned captives are protected by inter-
national human rights protections and humanitarian law. 
By his actions as outlined above, the President has 
abused his power, broken the law, deceived the American 
people, and placed American military personnel, and in-
deed all Americans—especially those who may travel or 
live abroad—at risk of similar treatment. Furthermore, in 
the eyes of the rest of the world, the President has made 
the U.S., once a model of respect for human rights and 
respect for the rule of law, into a state where international 
law is neither respected nor upheld. 
In all of these actions and decisions in violation of 
United States and International law, President George W. 
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Presi-
dent and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitu-
tional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law 
and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of 
the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, 
by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense war-
ranting removal from office. 
ARTICLE XX—IMPRISONING CHILDREN 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, authorized or permitted the 
arrest and detention of at least 2,500 children under the 
age of 18 as ‘‘enemy combatants’’ in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
and at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in violation of the 
Fourth Geneva Convention relating to the treatment of 
‘‘protected persons’’ and the Optional Protocol to the Ge-
neva Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involve-
ment of Children in Armed Conflict, signed by the U.S. 
in 2002. To wit: 
In May 2008, the U.S. Government reported to the 
United Nations that it has been holding upwards of 2,500 
children under the age of 18 as ‘‘enemy combatants’’ at 
detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guanta-
namo Bay (where there was a special center, Camp Igua-
na, established just for holding children). The length of 
these detentions has frequently exceeded a year, and in 
some cases has stretched to five years. Some of these de-
tainees have reached adulthood in detention and are now 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
not being reported as child detainees because they are no 
longer children. 
In addition to detaining children as ‘‘enemy combat-
ants’’, it has been widely reported in media reports that 
the U.S. military in Iraq has, based upon Pentagon rules 
of engagement, been treating boys as young as 14 years 
of age as ‘‘potential combatants’’, subject to arrest and 
even to being killed. In Fallujah, in the days ahead of the 
November 2004 all-out assault, Marines ringing the city 
were reported to be turning back into the city men and 
boys ‘‘of combat age’’ who were trying to flee the impend-
ing scene of battle—an act which in itself is a violation 
of the Geneva Conventions, which require combatants to 
permit anyone, combatants as well as civilians, to sur-
render, and to leave the scene of battle. 
Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which the 
United States has been a signatory since 1949, children 
under the age of 15 captured in conflicts, even if they have 
been fighting, are to be considered victims, not prisoners. 
In 2002, the United States signed the Optional Protocol 
to the Geneva Convention on the Rights of the Child on 
the Involvement of children in Armed Conflict, which 
raised this age for this category of ‘‘protected person’’ to 
under 18. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
The continued detention of such children, some as 
young as 10, by the U.S. military is a violation of both 
convention and protocol, and as such constitutes a war 
crime for which the President, as Commander in Chief, 
bears full responsibility. 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subver-
sive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the 
cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
offense warranting removal from office. 
ARTICLE XXI—MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMER-
ICAN PEOPLE ABOUT THREATS FROM IRAN, AND 
SUPPORTING TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN 
IRAN, WITH THE GOAL OF OVERTHROWING THE 
IRANIAN GOVERNMENT 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the 
laws be faithfully executed, has both personally and acting 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
through his agents and subordinates misled the Congress 
and the citizens of the United States about a threat of 
nuclear attack from the nation of Iran. 
The National Intelligence Estimate released to Con-
gress and the public on December 4, 2007, which con-
firmed that the government of the nation of Iran had 
ceased any efforts to develop nuclear weapons, was com-
pleted in 2006. Yet, the president and his aides continued 
to suggest during 2007 that such a nuclear threat was 
developing and might already exist. National Security Ad-
viser Stephen Hadley stated at the time the National In-
telligence Estimate regarding Iran was released that the 
president had been briefed on its findings ‘‘in the last few 
months’’. Hadley’s statement establishes a timeline that 
shows the president knowingly sought to deceive Congress 
and the American people about a nuclear threat that did 
not exist. 
Hadley has stated that the president ‘‘was basically 
told: stand down’’ and, yet, the president and his aides 
continued to make false claims about the prospect that 
Iran was trying to ‘‘build a nuclear weapon’’ that could 
lead to ‘‘World War III’’. 
This evidence establishes that the president actively 
engaged in and had full knowledge of a campaign by his 
administration to make a false ‘‘case’’ for an attack on 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
Iran, thus warping the national security debate at a crit-
ical juncture and creating the prospect of an illegal and 
unnecessary attack on a sovereign nation. 
Even after the National Intelligence Estimate was re-
leased to Congress and the American people, the president 
stated that he did not believe anything had changed and 
suggested that he and members of his administration 
would continue to argue that Iran should be seen as posing 
a threat to the United States. He did this despite the fact 
that United States intelligence agencies had clearly and 
officially stated that this was not the case. 
Evidence suggests that the Bush Administration’s at-
tempts to portray Iran as a threat are part of a broader 
U.S. policy toward Iran. On September 30, 2001, then- 
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld established an offi-
cial military objective of overturning the regime in Iran, 
as well as those in Iraq, Syria, and four other countries 
in the Middle East, according to a document quoted in 
then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith’s 
book, ‘‘War and Decision’’. 
General Wesley Clark, reports in his book ‘‘Winning 
Modern Wars’’ being told by a friend in the Pentagon in 
November 2001 that the list of governments that Rums-
feld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz 
planned to overthrow included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
Sudan, and Somalia. Clark writes that the list also in-
cluded Lebanon. 
Journalist Gareth Porter reported in May 2008 ask-
ing Feith at a public event which of the six regimes on 
the Clark list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, to 
which Feith replied ‘‘All of them’’. 
Rumsfeld’s aides also drafted a second version of the 
paper, as instructions to all military commanders in the 
development of ‘‘campaign plans against terrorism’’. The 
paper called for military commanders to assist other gov-
ernment agencies ‘‘as directed’’ to ‘‘encourage populations 
dominated by terrorist organizations or their supporters 
to overthrow that domination’’. 
In January 2005, Seymour Hersh reported in the 
New Yorker Magazine that the Bush Administration had 
been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside 
Iran at least since the summer of 2004. 
In June 2005 former United Nations weapons inspec-
tor Scott Ritter reported that United States security 
forces had been sending members of the Mujahedeen-e 
Khalq (MEK) into Iranian territory. The MEK has been 
designated a terrorist organization by the United States, 
the European Union, Canada, Iraq, and Iran. Ritter re-
ported that the United States Central Intelligence Agency 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
(CIA) had used the MEK to carry out remote bombings 
in Iran. 
In April 2006, Hersh reported in the New Yorker 
Magazine that U.S. combat troops had entered and were 
operating in Iran, where they were working with minority 
groups including the Azeris, Baluchis, and Kurds. 
Also in April 2006, Larisa Alexandrovna reported on 
Raw Story that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) 
was working with and training the MEK, or former mem-
bers of the MEK, sending them to commit acts of violence 
in southern Iran in areas where recent attacks had left 
many dead. Raw Story reported that the Pentagon had 
adopted the policy of supporting MEK shortly after the 
2003 invasion of Iraq, and in response to the influence 
of Vice President Richard B. Cheney’s office. Raw Story 
subsequently reported that no Presidential finding, and no 
Congressional oversight, existed on MEK operations. 
In March 2007, Hersh reported in the New Yorker 
Magazine that the Bush administration was attempting to 
stem the growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East 
(specifically the Iranian Government and Hezbollah in 
Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni organizations, without 
any Congressional authorization or oversight. Hersh said 
funds had been given to ‘‘three Sunni jihadist groups . . . 
connected to al Qaeda’’ that ‘‘want to take on Hezbollah’’. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
In April 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported that 
conflicts with insurgent groups along Iran’s borders were 
understood by the Iranian Government as a proxy war 
with the United States and were leading Iran to support 
its allies against the United States occupation force in 
Iraq. Among the groups the U.S. DOD is supporting, ac-
cording to this report, is the Party for Free Life in 
Kurdistan, known by its Kurdish acronym, PEJAK. The 
United States has provided ‘‘foodstuffs, economic assist-
ance, medical supplies, and Russian military equipment, 
some of it funneled through nonprofit groups’’. 
In May 2008, Andrew Cockburn reported on Counter 
Punch that President Bush, six weeks earlier had signed 
a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the 
Iranian regime. President Bush’s secret directive covers 
actions across an area stretching from Lebanon to Af-
ghanistan, and purports to sanction actions up to and in-
cluding the funding of organizations like the MEK and 
the assassination of public officials. 
All of these actions by the President and his agents 
and subordinates exhibit a disregard for the truth and a 
recklessness with regard to national security, nuclear pro-
liferation and the global role of the United States military 
that is not merely unacceptable but dangerous in a com-
mander in chief. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subver-
sive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the 
cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
offense warranting removal from office. 
ARTICLE XXII—CREATING SECRET LAWS 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice Presi-
dent, established a body of secret laws through the 
issuance of legal opinions by the Department of Justice’s 
Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). 
The OLC’s March 14, 2003, interrogation memo-
randum (‘‘Yoo Memorandum’’) was declassified years 
after it served as law for the executive branch. On April 
29, 2008, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
Conyers and Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 
Rights and Civil Liberties Chairman Jerrold Nadler wrote 
in a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey: 
‘‘It appears to us that there was never any legitimate 
basis for the purely legal analysis contained in this docu-
ment to be classified in the first place. The Yoo Memo-
randum does not describe sources and methods of intel-
ligence gathering, or any specific facts regarding any in-
terrogation activities. Instead, it consists almost entirely 
of the Department’s legal views, which are not properly 
kept secret from Congress and the American people. J. 
William Leonard, the Director of the National Archive’s 
Office of Information Security Oversight Office, and a top 
expert in this field concurs, commenting that ‘[t]he docu-
ment in question is purely a legal analysis’ that contains 
‘nothing which would justify classification’. In addition, 
the Yoo Memorandum suggests an extraordinary breadth 
and aggressiveness of OLC’s secret legal opinion-making. 
Much attention has rightly been given to the statement 
in footnote 10 in the March 14, 2003, memorandum that, 
in an October 23, 2001, opinion, OLC concluded ‘that the 
Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic mili-
tary operations’. As you know, we have requested a copy 
of that memorandum on no less than four prior occasions 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HRES 1258 IH 
and we continue to demand access to this important docu-
ment. 
‘‘In addition to this opinion, however, the Yoo Memo-
randum references at least 10 other OLC opinions on 
weighty matters of great interest to the American people 
that also do not appear to have been released. These ap-
pear to cover matters such as the power of Congress to 
regulate the conduct of military commissions, legal con-
straints on the ‘military detention of United States citi-
zens’, legal rules applicable to the boarding and searching 
foreign ships, the President’s authority to render U.S. de-
tainees to the custody of foreign governments, and the 
President’s authority to breach or suspend U.S. treaty ob-
ligations. Furthermore, it has been more than five years 
since the Yoo Memorandum was authored, raising the 
question how many other such memoranda and letters 
have been secretly authored and utilized by the Adminis-
tration. 
‘‘Indeed, a recent court filing by the Department in 
FOIA litigation involving the Central Intelligence Agency 
identifies 8 additional secret OLC opinions, dating from 
August 6, 2004, to February 18, 2007. Given that these 
reflect only OLC memoranda identified in the files of the 
CIA, and based on the sampling procedures under which 
that listing was generated, it appears that these represent 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
100 
HRES 1258 IH 
only a small portion of the secret OLC memoranda gen-
erated during this time, with the true number almost cer-
tainly much higher.’’. 
Senator Russ Feingold, in a statement during an 
April 30, 2008, Senate hearing stated: 
‘‘It is a basic tenet of democracy that the people have 
a right to know the law. In keeping with this principle, 
the laws passed by Congress and the case law of our courts 
have historically been matters of public record. And when 
it became apparent in the middle of the 20th century that 
federal agencies were increasingly creating a body of non- 
public administrative law, Congress passed several stat-
utes requiring this law to be made public, for the express 
purpose of preventing a regime of ‘secret law’. That pur-
pose today is being thwarted. Congressional enactments 
and agency regulations are for the most part still public. 
But the law that applies in this country is determined not 
only by statutes and regulations, but also by the control-
ling interpretations of courts and, in some cases, the exec-
utive branch. More and more, this body of executive and 
judicial law is being kept secret from the public, and too 
often from Congress as well. . . . 
‘‘A legal interpretation by the Justice Department’s 
Office of Legal Counsel . . . binds the entire executive 
branch, just like a regulation or the ruling of a court. In 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
101 
HRES 1258 IH 
the words of former OLC head Jack Goldsmith, ‘These 
executive branch precedents are ‘‘law’’ for the executive 
branch’. The Yoo memorandum was, for a nine-month pe-
riod in 2003 until it was withdrawn by Mr. Goldsmith, 
the law that this Administration followed when it came 
to matters of torture. And of course, that law was essen-
tially a declaration that few if any laws applied. . . . 
‘‘Another body of secret law is the controlling inter-
pretations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
that are issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Court. FISA, of course, is the law that governs the Gov-
ernment’s ability in intelligence investigations to conduct 
wiretaps and search the homes of people in the United 
States. Under that statute, the FISA Court is directed 
to evaluate wiretap and search warrant applications and 
decide whether the standard for issuing a warrant has 
been met—a largely factual evaluation that is properly 
done behind closed doors. But with the evolution of tech-
nology and with this Administration’s efforts to get the 
Court’s blessing for its illegal wiretapping activities, we 
now know that the Court’s role is broader, and that it 
is very much engaged in substantive interpretations of the 
governing statute. These interpretations are as much a 
part of this country’s surveillance law as the statute itself. 
Without access to them, it is impossible for Congress or 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
102 
HRES 1258 IH 
the public to have an informed debate on matters that 
deeply affect the privacy and civil liberties of all 
Americans . . . 
‘‘The Administration’s shroud of secrecy extends to 
agency rules and executive pronouncements, such as Exec-
utive Orders, that carry the force of law. Through the dili-
gent efforts of my colleague Senator Whitehouse, we have 
learned that OLC has taken the position that a President 
can ‘waive’ or ‘modify’ a published Executive Order with-
out any notice to the public or Congress—simply by not 
following it.’’. 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subver-
sive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the 
cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
offense warranting removal from office. 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President, and subversive of constitutional gov-
ernment, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice 
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United 
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
103 
HRES 1258 IH 
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting 
removal from office. 
ARTICLE XXIII—VIOLATION OF THE POSSE COMITATUS 
ACT 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, repeatedly and illegally estab-
lished programs to appropriate the power of the military 
for use in law enforcement. Specifically, he has con-
travened U.S.C. title 18, section 1385, originally enacted 
in 1878, subsequently amended as ‘‘Use of Army and Air 
Force as Posse Comitatus’’ and commonly known as the 
Posse Comitatus Act. 
The Act states: 
‘‘Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances 
expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Con-
gress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force 
as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
104 
HRES 1258 IH 
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two 
years, or both.’’. 
The Posse Comitatus Act is designed to prevent the 
military from becoming a national police force. 
The Declaration of Independence states as a specific 
grievance against the British that the King had ‘‘kept 
among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the 
consent of our legislatures,’’ had ‘‘affected to render the 
Military independent of and superior to the civil power,’’ 
and had ‘‘quarter[ed] large bodies of armed troops among 
us . . . protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment 
for any murders which they should commit on the inhab-
itants of these States’’. 
Despite the Posse Comitatus Act’s intent, and in con-
travention of the law, President Bush— 
(1) has used military forces for law enforcement 
purposes on U.S. border patrol; 
(2) has established a program to use military 
personnel for surveillance and information on crimi-
nal activities; 
(3) is using military espionage equipment to 
collect intelligence information for law enforcement 
use on civilians within the United States; and 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
105 
HRES 1258 IH 
(4) employs active duty military personnel in 
surveillance agencies, including the Central Intel-
ligence Agency (CIA). 
In June 2006, President Bush ordered National 
Guard troops deployed to the border shared by Mexico 
with Arizona, Texas, and California. This deployment, 
which by 2007 reached a maximum of 6,000 troops, had 
orders to ‘‘conduct surveillance and operate detection 
equipment, work with border entry identification teams, 
analyze information, assist with communications and give 
administrative support to the Border Patrol’’ and con-
cerned ‘‘. . . providing intelligence . . . inspecting cargo, 
and conducting surveillance’’. 
The Air Force’s ‘‘Eagle Eyes’’ program encourages 
Air Force military staff to gather evidence on American 
citizens. Eagle Eyes instructs Air Force personnel to en-
gage in surveillance and then advises them to ‘‘alert local 
authorities’’, asking military staff to surveil and gather 
evidence on public citizens. This contravenes DoD Direc-
tive 5525.5 ‘‘SUBJECT: DoD Cooperation with Civilian 
Law Enforcement’’ which limits such activities. 
President Bush has implemented a program to use 
imagery from military satellites for domestic law enforce-
ment through the National Applications Office. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
106 
HRES 1258 IH 
President Bush has assigned numerous active duty 
military personnel to civilian institutions such as the CIA 
and the Department of Homeland Security, both of which 
have responsibilities for law enforcement and intelligence. 
In addition, on May 9, 2007, President Bush released 
‘‘National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51’’, 
which effectively gives the president unchecked power to 
control the entire government and to define that govern-
ment in time of an emergency, as well as the power to 
determine whether there is an emergency. The document 
also contains ‘‘classified Continuity Annexes’’. In July 
2007, and again in August 2007, Rep. Peter DeFazio, a 
senior member of the House Homeland Security Com-
mittee, sought access to the classified annexes. DeFazio 
and other leaders of the Homeland Security Committee, 
including Chairman Bennie Thompson, have been denied 
a review of the Continuity of Government classified an-
nexes. 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subver-
sive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the 
cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
107 
HRES 1258 IH 
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
offense warranting removal from office. 
ARTICLE
XXIV—SPYING
ON
AMERICAN
CITIZENS, 
WITHOUT A COURT-ORDERED WARRANT, IN VIOLA-
TION OF THE LAW AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, knowingly violated the 
Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and the Foreign 
Intelligence Service Act of 1978 (FISA) by authorizing 
warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens to 
wit: 
(1) The President was aware of the FISA Law 
requiring a court order for any wiretap as evidenced 
by the following: 
(A) ‘‘Now, by the way, any time you hear 
the United States Government talking about 
wiretap, it requires—a wiretap requires a court 
order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
108 
HRES 1258 IH 
we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, 
we’re talking about getting a court order before 
we do so.’’ White House Press conference on 
April 20, 2004. [White House Transcript] 
(B) ‘‘Law enforcement officers need a Fed-
eral judge’s permission to wiretap a foreign ter-
rorist’s phone, or to track his calls, or to search 
his property. Officers must meet strict stand-
ards to use any of the tools we’re talking 
about.’’ President Bush’s speech in Baltimore, 
Maryland, on July 20th, 2005. [White House 
Transcript] 
(2) The President repeatedly ordered the NSA 
to place wiretaps on American citizens without re-
questing a warrant from FISA as evidenced by the 
following: 
(A) ‘‘Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, 
President Bush secretly authorized the National 
Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and 
others inside the United States to search for 
evidence of terrorist activity without the court- 
approved warrants ordinarily required for do-
mestic spying, according to government offi-
cials.’’ New York Times article by James Risen 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
109 
HRES 1258 IH 
and Eric Lichtblau on December 12, 2005. 
[NYTimes] 
(B) The President admits to authorizing 
the program by stating ‘‘I have reauthorized 
this program more than 30 times since the Sep-
tember the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so 
for as long as our nation faces a continuing 
threat from al Qaeda and related groups. The 
NSA’s activities under this authorization are 
thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department 
and NSA’s top legal officials, including NSA’s 
general counsel and inspector general. Leaders 
in Congress have been briefed more than a 
dozen times on this authorization and the ac-
tivities conducted under it.’’ Radio Address 
from the White House on December 17, 2005. 
[White House Transcript] 
(C) In a December 19th, 2005 press con-
ference the President publicly admitted to using 
a combination of surveillance techniques includ-
ing some with permission from the FISA courts 
and some without permission from FISA. 
Reporter: It was, why did you skip the basic safe-
guards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts? 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
110 
HRES 1258 IH 
THE PRESIDENT: . . . We use FISA still—you’re 
referring to the FISA court in your question—of course, 
we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. 
What is needed in order to protect the American people 
is the ability to move quickly to detect. Now, having sug-
gested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, 
is it legal to do so? I am—I swore to uphold the laws. 
Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer 
is, absolutely. As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal 
authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the 
authorization of force by the United States Congress. 
[White House Transcript] 
(D) Mike McConnell, the Director of Na-
tional Intelligence, in a letter to Senator Arlen 
Specter, acknowledged that Bush’s Executive 
Order in 2001 authorized a series of secret sur-
veillance activities and included undisclosed ac-
tivities beyond the warrantless surveillance of e- 
mails and phone calls that Bush confirmed in 
December 2005. ‘‘NSA Spying Part of Broader 
Effort’’ by Dan Eggen, Washington Post, 8/1/ 
07. 
(3) The President ordered the surveillance to be 
conducted in a way that would spy upon private 
communications between American citizens located 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
111 
HRES 1258 IH 
within the United States borders as evidenced by the 
following: 
(A) Mark Klein, a retired AT&T commu-
nications technician, submitted an affidavit in 
support of the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s 
FF’s lawsuit against AT&T. He testified that 
in 2003 he connected a ‘‘splitter’’ that sent a 
copy of Internet traffic and phone calls to a se-
cure room that was operated by the NSA in the 
San Francisco office of AT&T. He heard from 
a co-worker that similar rooms were being con-
structed in other cities, including Seattle, San 
Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego. From 
‘‘Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room’’, Wired 
News, 4/7/06. [Wired] [EFF Case] 
(4) The President asserted an inherent author-
ity to conduct electronic surveillance based on the 
Constitution and the ‘‘Authorization to use Military 
Force in Iraq’’ (AUMF) that was not legally valid 
as evidenced by the following: 
(A) In a December 19th, 2005 Press 
Briefing General Alberto Gonzales admitted 
that the surveillance authorized by the Presi-
dent was not only done without FISA warrants, 
but that the nature of the surveillance was so 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
112 
HRES 1258 IH 
far removed from what FISA can approve that 
FISA could not even be amended to allow it. 
Gonzales stated ‘‘We have had discussions with 
Congress in the past—certain members of Con-
gress—as to whether or not FISA could be 
amended to allow us to adequately deal with 
this kind of threat, and we were advised that 
that would be difficult, if not impossible.’’. 
(B) The fourth amendment to the United 
States Constitution states ‘‘The right of the 
people to be secure in their persons, houses, pa-
pers, and effects, against unreasonable searches 
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no War-
rants shall issue, but upon probable cause, sup-
ported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly 
describing the place to be searched, and the 
persons or things to be seized.’’. 
(C) ‘‘The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act of 1978 unambiguously limits warrantless 
domestic electronic surveillance, even in a con-
gressionally declared war, to the first 15 days 
of that war; criminalizes any such electronic 
surveillance not authorized by statute; and ex-
pressly establishes FISA and two chapters of 
the federal criminal code, governing wiretaps 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
113 
HRES 1258 IH 
for intelligence purposes and for criminal inves-
tigation, respectively, as the ‘exclusive means by 
which electronic surveillance . . . and the inter-
ception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic 
communications may be conducted.’. 50 U.S.C. 
1811, 1809, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f).’’ Letter 
from Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe 
to John Conyers on 1/6/06. 
(D) In a December 19th, 2005 Press 
Briefing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales 
stated ‘‘Our position is, is that the authoriza-
tion to use force, which was passed by the Con-
gress in the days following September 11th, 
constitutes that other authorization, that other 
statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of 
signals intelligence.’’. 
(E) The ‘‘Authorization to use Military 
Force in Iraq’’ does not give any explicit au-
thorization related to electronic surveillance. 
[H.J. Res. 114] 
(F) ‘‘From the foregoing analysis, it ap-
pears unlikely that a court would hold that 
Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized 
the NSA electronic surveillance operations here 
under discussion, and it would likewise appear 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
114 
HRES 1258 IH 
that, to the extent that those surveillances fall 
within the definition of ‘electronic surveillance’ 
within the meaning of FISA or any activity reg-
ulated under title III, Congress intended to 
cover the entire field with these statutes.’’. 
From the ‘‘Presidential Authority to Conduct 
Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather 
Foreign Intelligence Information’’ by the Con-
gressional Research Service on January 5, 
2006. 
(G) ‘‘The inescapable conclusion is that the 
AUMF did not implicitly authorize what the 
FISA expressly prohibited. It follows that the 
presidential program of surveillance at issue 
here is a violation of the separation of powers— 
as grave an abuse of executive authority as I 
can recall ever having studied.’’ Letter from 
Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe to 
John Conyers on 1/6/06. 
(H) On August 17, 2006, Judge Anna 
Diggs Taylor of the United States District 
Court in Detroit, in ACLU v. NSA, ruled that 
the ‘‘NSA program to wiretap the international 
communications of some Americans without a 
court warrant violated the Constitution. . . . 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
115 
HRES 1258 IH 
Judge Taylor ruled that the program violated 
both the Fourth Amendment and a 1978 law 
that requires warrants from a secret court for 
intelligence wiretaps involving people in the 
United States. She rejected the administration’s 
repeated assertions that a 2001 Congressional 
authorization and the president’s constitutional 
authority allowed the program.’’ From a New 
York Times article ‘‘Judge Finds Wiretap Ac-
tions Violate the Law’’ 8/18/06 and the Memo-
randum Opinion. 
(I) In July 2007, the Sixth Circuit Court 
of Appeals dismissed the case, ruling the plain-
tiffs had no standing to sue because, given the 
secretive nature of the surveillance, they could 
not state with certainty that they have been 
wiretapped by the NSA. This ruling did not ad-
dress the legality of the surveillance so Judge 
Taylor’s decision is the only ruling on that 
issue. [ACLU Legal Documents] 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subver-
sive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the 
cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
116 
HRES 1258 IH 
people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
offense warranting removal from office. 
ARTICLE
XXV—DIRECTING
TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
COMPANIES TO CREATE AN ILLEGAL AND UNCON-
STITUTIONAL DATABASE OF THE PRIVATE TELE-
PHONE NUMBERS AND EMAILS OF AMERICAN CITI-
ZENS 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, violated the Stored Commu-
nications Act of 1986 and the Telecommunications Act of 
1996 by creating of a very large database containing infor-
mation related to the private telephone calls and emails 
of American citizens, to wit: 
The President requested that telecommunication 
companies release customer phone records to the Govern-
ment illegally as evidenced by the following: 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
117 
HRES 1258 IH 
‘‘The Stored Communications Act of 1986 (SCA) 
prohibits the knowing disclosure of customer telephone 
records to the government unless pursuant to subpoena, 
warrant or a National Security Letter (or other Adminis-
trative subpoena); with the customers lawful consent; or 
there is a business necessity; or an emergency involving 
the danger of death or serious physical injury. None of 
these exceptions apply to the circumstance described in the 
USA Today story.’’ From page 169, ‘‘George W Bush 
versus the U.S. Constitution.’’. Compiled at the direction 
of Representative John Conyers. 
According to a May 11, 2006, article in USA Today 
by Lesley Cauley, ‘‘The National Security Agency has 
been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of 
millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, 
Verizon, and BellSouth.’’ An unidentified source said 
‘‘The agency’s goal is to ‘create a database of every call 
ever made’ within the nation’s borders.’’. 
In early 2001, Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio rejected 
a request from the NSA to turn over customers records 
of phone calls, emails and other Internet activity. Nacchio 
believed that complying with the request would violate the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996. From National Journal, 
November 2, 2007. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
118 
HRES 1258 IH 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subver-
sive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the 
cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
offense warranting removal from office. 
ARTICLE XXVI—ANNOUNCING
THE INTENT TO VIO-
LATE LAWS WITH SIGNING STATEMENTS, AND VIO-
LATING THOSE LAWS 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has used signing statements to claim the 
right to violate acts of Congress even as he signs them 
into law. 
In June 2007, the Government Accountability Office 
reported that in a sample of Bush signing statements the 
office had studied, for 30 percent of them the Bush ad-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
119 
HRES 1258 IH 
ministration had already proceeded to violate the laws the 
statements claimed the right to violate. 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subver-
sive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the 
cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
offense warranting removal from office. 
ARTICLE XXVII—FAILING TO COMPLY WITH CONGRES-
SIONAL SUBPOENAS
AND INSTRUCTING FORMER 
EMPLOYEES NOT TO COMPLY 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, refused to comply with Con-
gressional subpoenas, and instructed former employees not 
to comply with subpoenas. 
Subpoenas not complied with include: 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
120 
HRES 1258 IH 
A House Judiciary Committee subpoena for 
Justice Department papers and Emails, issued April 
10, 2007; 
A House Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee subpoena for the testimony of the Sec-
retary of State, issued April 25, 2007; 
A House Judiciary Committee subpoena for the 
testimony of former White House Counsel Harriet 
Miers and documents, issued June 13, 2007; 
A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for 
documents and testimony of White House Chief of 
Staff Joshua Bolten, issued June 13, 2007; 
A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for 
documents and testimony of White House Political 
Director Sara Taylor, issued June 13, 2007 (Taylor 
appeared but refused to answer questions); 
A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for 
documents and testimony of White House Deputy 
Chief of Staff Karl Rove, issued June 26, 2007; 
A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for 
documents and testimony of White House Deputy 
Political Director J. Scott Jennings, issued June 26, 
2007 (Jennings appeared but refused to answer 
questions); 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
121 
HRES 1258 IH 
A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for 
legal analysis and other documents concerning the 
NSA warrantless wiretapping program from the 
White House, Vice President Richard Cheney, The 
Department of Justice, and the National Security 
Council. If the documents are not produced, the sub-
poena requires the testimony of White House chief 
of staff Josh Bolten, Attorney General Alberto 
Gonzales, Cheney chief of staff David Addington, 
National Security Council executive director V. Phil-
ip Lago, issued June 27, 2007; and 
A House Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee subpoena for Lt. General Kensinger. 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subver-
sive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the 
cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
offense warranting removal from office. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
122 
HRES 1258 IH 
ARTICLE XXVIII—TAMPERING WITH FREE AND FAIR 
ELECTIONS, CORRUPTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION 
OF JUSTICE 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, conspired to undermine and 
tamper with the conduct of free and fair elections, and 
to corrupt the administration of justice by United States 
Attorneys and other employees of the Department of Jus-
tice, through abuse of the appointment power. 
Toward this end, the President and Vice President, 
both personally and through their agents, did: 
Engage in a program of manufacturing false al-
legations of voting fraud in targeted jurisdictions 
where the Democratic Party enjoyed an advantage 
in electoral performance or otherwise was problem-
atic for the President’s Republican Party, in order 
that public confidence in election results favorable to 
the Democratic Party be undermined; 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
123 
HRES 1258 IH 
Direct United States Attorneys to launch and 
announce investigations of certain leaders, can-
didates and elected officials affiliated with the 
Democratic Party at times calculated to cause the 
most political damage and confusion, most often in 
the weeks immediately preceding an election, in 
order that public confidence in the suitability for of-
fice of Democratic Party leaders, candidates and 
elected officials be undermined; 
Direct United States Attorneys to terminate or 
scale back existing investigations of certain Repub-
lican Party leaders, candidates and elected officials 
allied with the George W. Bush administration, and 
to refuse to pursue new or proposed investigations of 
certain Republican Party leaders, candidates and 
elected officials allied with the George W. Bush ad-
ministration, in order that public confidence in the 
suitability of such Republican Party leaders, can-
didates and elected officials be bolstered or restored; 
and 
Threaten to terminate the employment of the 
following United States Attorneys who refused to 
comply with such directives and purposes; 
David C. Iglesias as U.S. Attorney for the 
District of New Mexico; 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
124 
HRES 1258 IH 
Kevin V. Ryan as U.S. Attorney for the 
Northern District of California; 
John L. McKay as U.S. Attorney for the 
Western District of Washington; 
Paul K. Charlton as U.S. Attorney for the 
District of Arizona; 
Carol C. Lam as U.S. Attorney for the 
Southern District of California; 
Daniel G. Bogden as U.S. Attorney for the 
District of Nevada; 
Margaret M. Chiara as U.S. Attorney for 
the Western District of Michigan; 
Todd Graves as U.S. Attorney for the 
Western District of Missouri; 
Harry E. ‘‘Bud’’ Cummins, III as U.S. At-
torney for the Eastern District of Arkansas; 
Thomas M. DiBiagio as U.S. Attorney for 
the District of Maryland; and 
Kasey Warner as U.S. Attorney for the 
Southern District of West Virginia. 
Further, George W. Bush has both personally and 
acting through his agents and subordinates, together with 
the Vice President conspired to obstruct the lawful Con-
gressional investigation of these dismissals of United 
States Attorneys and the related scheme to undermine and 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
125 
HRES 1258 IH 
tamper with the conduct of free and fair elections, and 
to corrupt the administration of justice. 
Contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office 
of President of the United States and, to the best of his 
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of 
the United States, and in violation of his constitutional 
duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, 
George W. Bush has without lawful cause or excuse di-
rected not to appear before the Committee on the Judici-
ary of the House of Representatives certain witnesses 
summoned by duly authorized subpoenas issued by that 
Committee on June 13, 2007. 
In refusing to permit the testimony of these witnesses 
George W. Bush, substituting his judgment as to what tes-
timony was necessary for the inquiry, interposed the pow-
ers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the 
House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself 
functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the 
checking and balancing power of oversight vested in the 
House of Representatives. 
Further, the President has both personally and acting 
through his agents and subordinates, together with the 
Vice President directed the United States Attorney for the 
District of Columbia to decline to prosecute for contempt 
of Congress the aforementioned witnesses, Joshua B. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
126 
HRES 1258 IH 
Bolten and Harriet E. Miers, despite the obligation to do 
so as established by statute (2 U.S.C. 194) and pursuant 
to the direction of the United States House of Representa-
tives as embodied in its resolution (H. Res. 982) of Feb-
ruary 14, 2008. 
In all of these actions and decisions, President 
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his 
trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subver-
sive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the 
cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
offense warranting removal from office. 
ARTICLE XXIX—CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE VOTING 
RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 
In his conduct while President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to 
faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 
3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed’’, has both personally and acting through 
his agents and subordinates, has willfully corrupted and 
manipulated the electoral process of the United States for 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
127 
HRES 1258 IH 
his personal gain and the personal gain of his co-conspira-
tors and allies; has violated the United States Constitution 
and law by failing to protect the civil rights of African- 
American voters and others in the 2004 Election, and has 
impeded the right of the people to vote and have their vote 
properly and accurately counted, in that— 
(1) on November 5, 2002, and prior thereto, 
James Tobin, while serving as the regional director 
of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign 
Committee and as the New England Chairman of 
Bush-Cheney ’04 Inc., did, at the direction of the 
White House under the administration of George W. 
Bush, along with other agents both known and un-
known, commit unlawful acts by aiding and abetting 
a scheme to use computerized hang-up calls to jam 
phone lines set up by the New Hampshire Demo-
cratic Party and the Manchester firefighters’ union 
on Election Day; 
(2) an investigation by the Democratic staff of 
the House Judiciary Committee into the voting pro-
cedures in Ohio during the 2004 election found 
‘‘widespread instances of intimidation and misin-
formation in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the 
Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal Protection, Due 
Process and the Ohio right to vote’’; 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
128 
HRES 1258 IH 
(3) the 14th Amendment Equal Protection 
Clause guarantees that no minority group will suffer 
disparate treatment in a Federal, State, or local 
election in stating that: ‘‘No State shall make or en-
force any law which shall abridge the privileges or 
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall 
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or prop-
erty, without due process of law; nor deny to any 
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of 
the laws.’’. However, during and at various times of 
the year 2004, John Kenneth Blackwell, then serv-
ing as the Secretary of State for the State of Ohio 
and also serving simultaneously as Co-Chairman of 
the Committee to Re-Elect George W. Bush in the 
State of Ohio, did, at the direction of the White 
House under the administration of George W. Bush, 
along with other agents both known and unknown, 
commit unlawful acts in violation of the Equal Pro-
tection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United 
States Constitution by failing to protect the voting 
rights of African-American citizens in Ohio and fur-
ther, John Kenneth Blackwell did disenfranchise Af-
rican-American voters under color of law, by— 
(A) willfully denying certain neighborhoods 
in the cities of Cleveland, Ohio, and Columbus, 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
129 
HRES 1258 IH 
Ohio, along with other urban areas in the State 
of Ohio, an adequate number of electronic vot-
ing machines and provisional paper ballots, 
thereby unlawfully impeding duly registered vot-
ers from the act of voting and thus violating 
the civil rights of an unknown number of 
United States citizens; 
(i) in Franklin County, George W. 
Bush and his agent, Ohio Secretary of 
State John Kenneth Blackwell, Co-Chair of 
the Bush-Cheney Re-election Campaign, 
failed to protect the rights of African- 
American voters by not properly inves-
tigating the withholding of 125 electronic 
voting machines assigned to the city of Co-
lumbus; 
(ii) forty-two African-American pre-
cincts in Columbus were each missing one 
voting machine that had been present in 
the 2004 primary; and 
(iii) African-American voters in the 
city of Columbus were forced to wait three 
to seven hours to vote in the 2004 presi-
dential election; 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
130 
HRES 1258 IH 
(B) willfully issuing unclear and conflicting 
rules regarding the methods and manner of be-
coming a legally registered voter in the State of 
Ohio, and willfully issuing unclear and unneces-
sary edicts regarding the weight of paper reg-
istration forms legally acceptable to the State of 
Ohio, thereby creating confusion for both voters 
and voting officials and thus impeding the right 
of an unknown number of United States citi-
zens to register and vote; 
(i) Ohio Secretary of State John Ken-
neth Blackwell directed through Advisory 
2004–31 that voter registration forms, 
which were greatest in urban minority 
areas, should not be accepted and should 
be returned unless submitted on 80 bond 
paper weight. Blackwell’s own office was 
found to be using 60 bond paper weight; 
(C) willfully permitted and encouraged 
election officials in Cleveland, Cincinnati, and 
Toledo to conduct a massive partisan purge of 
registered voter rolls, eventually expunging 
more than 300,000 voters, many of whom were 
duly registered voters, and who were thus de-
prived of their constitutional right to vote; 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
131 
HRES 1258 IH 
(i) between the 2000 and 2004 Ohio 
presidential elections, 24.93 percent of the 
voters in the city of Cleveland, a city with 
a majority of African-American citizens, 
were purged from the voting rolls; 
(ii) in that same period, the Ohio 
county of Miami, with census data indi-
cating a 98 percent Caucasian population, 
refused to purge any voters from its rolls. 
Miami County ‘‘merged’’ voters from other 
surrounding counties into its voting rolls 
and even allowed voters from other states 
to vote; and 
(iii) in Toledo, Ohio, an urban city 
with a high African-American concentra-
tion, 28,000 voters were purged from the 
voting rolls in August of 2004, just prior 
to the presidential election. This purge was 
conducted under the control and direction 
of George W. Bush’s agent, Ohio Secretary 
of State John Kenneth Blackwell outside 
of the regularly established cycle of purg-
ing voters in odd-numbered years; 
(D) willfully allowing Ohio Secretary of 
State John Kenneth Blackwell, acting under 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
132 
HRES 1258 IH 
color of law and as an agent of George W. 
Bush, to issue a directive that no votes would 
be counted unless cast in the right precinct, re-
versing Ohio’s long-standing practice of count-
ing votes for president if cast in the right coun-
ty; 
(E) willfully allowing his agent, Ohio Sec-
retary of State John Kenneth Blackwell, the 
Co-Chair of the Bush-Cheney Re-election Cam-
paign, to do nothing to assure the voting rights 
of 10,000 people in the city of Cleveland when 
a computer error by the private vendor Diebold 
Election Systems, Inc. incorrectly disenfran-
chised 10,000 voters; 
(F) willfully allowing his agent, Ohio Sec-
retary of State John Kenneth Blackwell, the 
Co-Chair of the Bush-Cheney Re-election Cam-
paign, to ensure that uncounted and provisional 
ballots in Ohio’s 2004 presidential election 
would be disproportionately concentrated in 
urban African-American districts; 
(i) in Ohio’s Lucas County, which in-
cludes Toledo, 3,122 or 41.13 percent of 
the provisional ballots went uncounted 
under the direction of George W. Bush’s 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
133 
HRES 1258 IH 
agent, the Secretary of State of Ohio, John 
Kenneth Blackwell, Co-Chair of the Com-
mittee to Re-Elect Bush/Cheney in Ohio; 
(ii) in Ohio’s Cuyahoga County, which 
includes Cleveland, 8,559 or 32.82 percent 
of the provisional ballots went uncounted; 
(iii) in Ohio’s Hamilton County, which 
includes Cincinnati, 3,529 or 24.23 percent 
of the provisional ballots went uncounted; 
and 
(iv) Statewide, the provisional ballot 
rejection rate was 9 percent as compared 
to the greater figures in the urban areas; 
(4) the Department of Justice, charged with en-
forcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the 14th 
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and other 
voting rights laws in the United States of America, 
under the direction and Administration of George 
W. Bush did willfully and purposely obstruct and 
stonewall legitimate criminal investigations into myr-
iad cases of reported electoral fraud and suppression 
in the State of Ohio. Such activities, carried out by 
the department on behalf of George W. Bush in 
counties such as Franklin and Knox by persons such 
as John K. Tanner and others, were meant to con-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
134 
HRES 1258 IH 
found and whitewash legitimate legal criminal inves-
tigations into the suppression of massive numbers of 
legally registered voters and the removal of their 
right to cast a ballot fairly and freely in the State 
of Ohio, which was crucial to the certified electoral 
victory of George W. Bush in 2004; 
(5) on or about November 1, 2006, members of 
the United States Department of Justice, under the 
control and direction of the Administration of 
George W. Bush, brought indictments for voter reg-
istration fraud within days of an election, in order 
to directly effect the outcome of that election for 
partisan purposes, and in doing so, thereby violated 
the Justice Department’s own rules against filing 
election-related indictments close to an election; 
(6) emails have been obtained showing that the 
Republican National Committee and members of 
Bush-Cheney ’04 Inc., did, at the direction of the 
White House under the Administration of George W. 
Bush, engage in voter suppression in five states by 
a method know as ‘‘vote caging’’, an illegal voter 
suppression technique; 
(7) agents of George W. Bush, including Mark 
F. ‘‘Thor’’ Hearne, the national general counsel of 
Bush/Cheney ’04, Inc., did, at the behest of George 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:06 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1258.IH
HR1258
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS