[House Report 104-598]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                 House Calendar No. 231
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-598
_______________________________________________________________________


 
  PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JOHN M. QUINN, DAVID WATKINS, AND MATTHEW MOORE 
    (PURSUANT TO TITLE 2, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTIONS 192 AND 194)
                                _______


May 29, 1996.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

         CITING JOHN M. QUINN, DAVID WATKINS, AND MATTHEW MOORE

                             together with

                    ADDITIONAL and DISSENTING VIEWS

                                H. Res.

    Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
Speaker of the House certify the report of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, detailing the refusal of John 
M. Quinn to produce papers to the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, to the United States Attorney for the 
District of Columbia, for him to be proceeded against in the 
manner and form provided by law; and be it further
    Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
Speaker of the House certify the report of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, detailing the refusal of David 
Watkins to produce papers to the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight, to the United States Attorney for the District 
of Columbia, for him to be proceeded against in the manner and 
form provided by law; and be it further
    Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
Speaker of the House certify the report of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, detailing the refusal of 
Matthew Moore to produce papers to the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, to the United States Attorney for the 
District of Columbia, for him to be proceeded against in the 
manner and form provided by law.

                           executive summary

A. Introduction

    Weeks after the firings of seven longtime White House 
Travel Office employees, President William J. Clinton staved 
off a congressional inquiry into this growing controversy by 
committing to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks on 
July 13, 1993:

          . . . you can be assured that the Attorney General 
        will have the Administration's full cooperation in 
        investigating those matters which the Department wishes 
        to review.

No mention then of executive privilege from the President on 
withholding documents from investigators. The President 
repeated his promise of cooperation in January 1996 when he 
stated:

          We've told everybody we're in the cooperation 
        business . . . That's what we want to do. We want to 
        get this over with.

    In just over a year after the President's initial 
assurances of cooperation, the President's own appointee as 
chief of the Justice Department's Office of Public Integrity, 
Lee Radek, complained in a September 8, 1994 memo to Acting 
Criminal Division chief Jack Keeney:

          At this point we are not confident that the White 
        House has produced to us all documents in its 
        possession relating to the Thomason allegations . . . 
        the White House's incomplete production greatly 
        concerns us because the integrity of our review is 
        entirely dependent upon securing all relevant 
        documents.

    At this juncture, the Committee is also gravely concerned 
by the White House's ``incomplete production.'' 1 Like the 
Justice Department's Public Integrity Section before us, the 
``integrity of our review'' is at stake as the White House 
continues to withhold relevant documents. The credibility gap 
of the White House has also grown as we have progressed in this 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Committee wishes to acknowledge the efforts of those who 
have helped prepare this report: Kevin Sabo, General Counsel, Barbara 
Olson, Chief Investigative Counsel, Barbara Comstock, Investigative 
Counsel, and David Jones, Joe Loughran, Kristi Remington, and Laurie 
Taylor of the investigative staff. The Committee also appreciates the 
valuable assistance provided by Morton Rosenberg, Esq. of the 
Congressional Research Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is never appropriate for the subject of an inquiry to 
determine what documents shall or shall not be turned over or 
identified in a privilege log. Particularly in this matter 
where the individuals in the Counsel's office who are 
withholding documents may also be the authors of some of the 
documents withheld, the Committee has a compelling interest to 
seek a complete compliance with its bipartisan subpoenas. Those 
who are the subject of an investigation are hardly objective in 
determining what is relevant to a congressional oversight 
investigation. Yet past Travelgate investigations have been 
thwarted by a White House Counsel's office intent on doing just 
that while delaying and denying the production of documents. As 
these facts are brought to light, White House operatives change 
the subject, attacking the Committee because it continues to 
shine a light on White House actions long after other 
investigators gave up trying.
    The Administration's resistance to oversight in this matter 
began almost immediately after the firings and demonstrates the 
culture of secrecy that has become its hallmark. In notes dated 
May 27, 1993, White House Management Review author Todd Stern 
wrote,

          Problem is that if we do any kind of report and fail 
        to address those questions, the press jumps on you 
        wanting to know answers; while if you give answers that 
        aren't fully honest (e.g., nothing re: HRC), you risk 
        hugely compounding the problem by getting caught in 
        half-truths. You run the risk of turning this into a 
        cover-up. (emphasis added)
    This White House embarked on an unmistakable course which 
frustrated, delayed, and derailed investigators from the White 
House itself, the GAO, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and 
the administration's own Justice Department Office of 
Professional Responsibility and Public Integrity Sections. That 
is what has brought the Committee to this unfortunate impasse.
    This White House simply refuses to provide this Committee 
with the subpoenaed documents that will help us bring this 
Travel Office investigation to a close, something that I have 
sought to do for nearly three years. Documents inexplicably 
have been misplaced in ``stacks,'' or ``book rooms'' or storage 
boxes, where they languished for months if not years, despite 
subpoenas and document requests from numerous official 
investigative bodies.
    If President Clinton responds to investigations of 
supposedly minor internal problems this way, how does he handle 
far more serious national and international matters? This 
administration's culture of secrecy could have disastrous 
consequences where critical national policy matters involving 
foreign affairs are concerned. Let there be no 
misunderstanding. What we have before the Committee should not 
be the issue of a constitutional confrontation. This Committee 
seeks no records pertaining to the national security. This is 
not Bosnia. This is not Iran. International relations are not 
at stake.
    When the White House, as in the case here, fails to comply 
fully with investigations mandated by Congress or senior 
Justice Department officials, the oversight role critical to 
our system of checks and balances is compromised and it is 
incumbent upon this Committee to assert and to uphold its 
jurisdiction and congressional prerogatives.
    In the course of the Committee's investigation, such 
documents as the Watkins ``soul cleansing'' memo and a Watkins 
letter to the First Lady ``appeared'' for the first time even 
though both documents were created, requested and subpoenaed 
years ago. Testimony by a former White House attorney and a 
present White House official demonstrated that while this 
document was discussed between and among at least three White 
House officials, it never was produced in any prior document 
productions. A Travel Office notebook kept by the late Deputy 
Counsel Vince Foster was withheld from relevant investigators, 
including the Independent Counsel, for two years. The 
Committee's attempt to question one witness about a belatedly 
discovered document was met with an assertion of executive 
privilege when Committee Counsel questioned the witness about 
conversations she had with the White House Counsel's office. 
2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See Deposition of Carolyn Huber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These documents, and many others, never were provided to 
previous investigations. They were provided to this Committee 
only months after the Committee began seeking responsive 
documents and long after the White House Counsel assured the 
Committee that it had received almost all substantive 
documents. This raised concerns with the Committee that the 
same White House stonewalling that had compromised previous 
investigations once again was occurring with the Committee's 
investigation. The Committee issued bipartisan subpoenas in 
January 1996, after it determined that it was essential to 
obtain all documents, including those regarding the White House 
responses to previous investigations as well as the Committee's 
own investigation, due to the consistent pattern of 
stonewalling over the past three years. In addition, throughout 
the course of the Committee's investigation, White House 
Counsel was in regular contact with counsel for former and 
present White House employees and in one case even contacted a 
witness who had agreed to a Committee interview. The interview 
was canceled following the White House contact.
    White House Counsel John M. Quinn, the primary subject of 
this Committee's contempt proceeding, informed the Chairman in 
a meeting on May 8, 1996, that he had not even begun gathering 
the documents at issue. The gathering of these documents, and 
the invocation of the procedures outlined in the Reagan 
memorandum, should have begun long before the May 9, 1996, 
business meeting at which the Committee voted Mr. Quinn in 
contempt of Congress. In fact, Mr. Quinn's statements are at 
odds with a February 1, 1996, memo that Mr. Quinn himself sent 
to all staff of the White House regarding the subpoena from 
this Committee. In the memo, Mr. Quinn detailed all of the 
items on the Committee's subpoena and directed staff to produce 
all ``responsive records that fall within the above 
categories'' by February 7, 1996, to Elena Kagan, an Associate 
Counsel in Mr. Quinn's office. Mr. Quinn also had sent a memo 
on December 19, 1995 to gather documents.
    In an August 23, 1995, letter to the Committee, the White 
House said that document production timetables suggested by the 
Committee--documents produced within 15 days and privilege logs 
within five days--were ``reasonable goals.'' The Committee sent 
its first document request on June 14, 1995, after a long 
correspondence with the White House concerning the Travel 
Office matter. Our second request was sent on September 18, 
1995. Bipartisan subpoenas were issued on January 11, 1996. We 
have gone far beyond what the White House itself acknowledges 
was ``reasonable.'' Yet, now, the White House, in my view, is 
trying to further delay producing these documents or avoid 
doing so altogether.
    The compliance date for the subpoenas was more than three 
months ago. The time for the White House Counsel to seek to 
avoid contempt has come and gone. The White House neither has 
complied with this Committee's subpoenas nor has it offered a 
legally rational basis for its refusal to comply.
    It is troubling that the President of the United States 
persists in his efforts to cover-up a scandal having no 
connection with any national security or vital domestic policy 
issue. In the final analysis, the Travel Office matter reflects 
the character of the President and his presidency.

B. Background

    Since the controversial firings of the longtime White House 
Travel Office employees, the history of the investigations into 
what has become known as ``Travelgate'' has been one of a White 
House intent on keeping investigators at bay and relevant 
documents under wraps. While this Committee has succeeded in 
obtaining far more information and records than has any 
previous investigation into the Travel Office firings, the 
record is still incomplete because of the insistence of the 
President to withhold documents from the American public by 
taking the extraordinary step of invoking an undefined, vague, 
and ultimately ineffective protective assertion of executive 
privilege. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ As will be discussed in this report, the President has not 
submitted a formal assertion of executive privilege to this Committee. 
Instead, on the morning of the Committee's vote, the Counsel to the 
President informed the Committee that he had been instructed by the 
President to assert executive privilege as a protective measure until 
such time as his advisors could collect and review the documents in 
dispute. The Committee has obtained a February 1, 1996, memo addressed 
to all White House staff from White House Counsel Jack Quinn requesting 
receipt of all subpoenaed documents by February 7, 1996. Mr. Quinn's 
current statement that he needs more time to gather the requested 
documents appears to be at odds with the documentary record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This Committee has a compelling need for the disputed 
documents to obtain a complete record of events related to the 
Travel Office matter in order to resolve the issues as to how 
and why previous investigations did not meet with White House 
cooperation. The subpoenaed records are necessary for the 
Committee to resolve by direct factual evidence, fundamental 
factual questions relating to the actions, direction, 
knowledge, recommendations, or approval of actions by 
individuals in the White House, in responding to the 
allegations about the Travel Office employees as well as the 
subsequent investigations into the White House Travel Office 
matter. This report will outline in great detail a pattern of 
activity by this Administration to deny and delay access to 
relevant records to several investigative bodies, including 
this Committee.
    It has been White House policy since the Kennedy 
Administration not to invoke executive privilege when there are 
allegations of criminal wrongdoing at issue. Certainly that is 
the case here. Already there has been a criminal referral 
concerning statements made by David Watkins, a former White 
House senior official. Further, the Independent Counsel has had 
his jurisdiction expanded to encompass the Travelgate matter. 
In light of that expansion, the actions of the White House are 
particularly troubling.
    President Reagan, for example, waived all claims of 
executive privilege during the Iran-Contra investigation. 
Attorney General William French Smith, who generally proposed a 
very broad theory of executive privilege during his tenure, 
even admitted that he would not try ``to shield documents [from 
Congress] which contain evidence of criminal or unethical 
conduct by agency officials from proper review.'' 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Letter of November 30, 1982, to Congressman John Dingell, 
reprinted in H. Rep. 968, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 41 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More than a century ago, even President Andrew Jackson, ``a 
jealous defender of executive prerogatives, told Congress that 
if it could point to any case where there is the slightest 
reason to suspect corruption or abuse of trust, no obstacle 
which I can remove shall be interposed to prevent the fullest 
scrutiny by all legal means.'' 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Fisher, Louis, Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and 
the President, p. 205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The lengthy record established by the Committee, and 
detailed in this report, demonstrates concerted efforts over a 
sustained period of time to delay and deny records to 
investigative bodies. In refusing to produce the outstanding 
records to this Committee, the President, substituting his 
judgment as to what materials are necessary for the inquiry, 
has placed the full executive powers of the Presidency against 
the lawful subpoenas of the U.S. House of Representatives.
    On June 1, 1993, Congressman William F. Clinger, Jr., then 
the ranking minority member on the House Committee on 
Government Operations, called on the Committee to investigate 
the chain of events which resulted in the termination of seven 
hard-working White House Travel Office workers.6 These 
Travel Office employees, many of whom had worked for numerous 
Presidents over the course of three decades, summarily were 
fired and driven from the White House. One employee learned of 
his termination by watching CNN in a hotel while he was on 
government travel. Another worker learned that he was fired 
from his son, who had watched a network news program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ After nearly three years of seeking cooperation in this 
investigation, Chairman Clinger has afforded White House Counsel John 
M. Quinn, David Watkins, and Matthew Moore every opportunity to produce 
the records which were subpoenaed in January 1996. At the Chairman's 
request, the Congressional Research Services' American Law Division has 
submitted an analysis to the Committee reviewing the legal steps 
required to hold an individual in contempt of Congress under 2 U.S.C. 
Sections 192 and 194. This analysis is provided in Appendix 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not only did the White House fire these workers, it claimed 
to the national media that the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI) was conducting a criminal review. Shortly thereafter, the 
airline company providing charter service to the Travel Office 
was served a summons by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and 
subjected to a two-and-one-half-year audit. Coincidentally, a 
senior White House aide had warned the FBI just days earlier 
that if the FBI did not assist the White House in this matter, 
the IRS would be called.
    Over the next several weeks, Congressman Clinger's call for 
an investigation was repeated throughout the U.S. Senate and 
House.
    Unfortunately, the ``full cooperation'' promised by the 
President never was forthcoming. Numerous records of what 
occurred at the Travel Office never were provided appropriately 
to the Justice Department or any other investigative 
organization. Five separate investigations were conducted into 
one aspect or another of the Travel Office firings. The only 
consistency between each of these five previous investigations 
was that the White House was successful in its attempts to 
delay and deny production of many relevant documents. The 
Justice Department's Public Integrity Section complained in an 
internal memorandum that material records were withheld during 
the course of its review. The General Accounting Office (GAO), 
conducting an investigation requested by a statute signed by 
President Bill Clinton, was denied vital records after months 
and months of requests. Recently, the GAO referred a former 
senior White House aide to the Justice Department for 
prosecution for providing false information.
    By January, 1995, Congressman Clinger was the chairman of 
the new House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. He 
announced that a thorough investigation into the growing Travel 
Office scandal would be forthcoming. Beginning on June 14, 
1995, the Committee submitted document requests to the White 
House. The White House took months to respond to a subsequent 
September 18, 1995 document request, acknowledged in 
correspondence in August 1995 that a two week response time to 
document requests was a reasonable goal. The Committee was 
assured in October 1995 that almost all of the substantive 
records had been provided.
    Three hearings were held and bipartisan subpoenas were 
issued when documents repeatedly were delayed and denied to the 
Committee. Specifically, on January 11, 1996, Chairman Clinger 
authorized and issued subpoenas under authority granted to him 
by House Rule XI, clause 2(m) and Committee Rule 18(d). These 
subpoenas were issued, inter alia, to the Custodian of Records 
at the White House,7 and David Watkins,8 and Matthew 
Moore,9 personally. Negotiations over access to records 
began. The White House continued to ``locate'' previously 
requested documents and to produce groupings of documents 
without articulating any credible reason why they had been 
withheld until that point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ The subpoena issued to the Custodian of Records at the White 
House was received by Jane Sherburne, Special Counsel. The documents in 
question are in the custody and control of John M. Quinn, White House 
Counsel. A copy of the subpoena issued to the Custodian of Records is 
provided in Appendix 2.
    \8\ A copy of the subpoena issued to David Watkins is provided in 
Appendix 3.
    \9\ A copy of the subpoena issued to Matthew Moore is provided in 
Appendix 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, on March 15, 1996, the White House made a small 
production of documents pursuant to the Committee's subpoena 
that included yet another previously unproduced Watkins 
handwritten letter to Mrs. Clinton dated May 3, 1994. An 
explanation for the White House's failure to produce this 
document for nearly two years during the course of numerous 
other document requests and subpoenas finally was proffered by 
the White House on April 5, 1996. Assistant to the President 
and White House Counsel John M. Quinn responded only that it 
was located in a stack of unsorted, miscellaneous papers and 
memorabilia in the Office of Personal Correspondence after 
having been forwarded to Presidential Assistant Carolyn Huber 
by the First Lady.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ During a Committee deposition with Carolyn Huber on April 23, 
1996, the Committee was notified that the White House had instructed 
Ms. Huber to assert executive privilege over any communications with 
the White House Counsel's office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 2, 1996, Chairman Clinger formally notified Counsel 
to the President John M. Quinn, Attorney General Janet Reno, 
and former White House aides David Watkins and Matthew Moore 
that they were not in compliance with subpoenas issued by the 
Committee in early 1996 and were subject to be held in contempt 
of Congress. The Attorney General resolved issues of 
outstanding records with the Committee prior to the May 9, 1996 
compliance date. In a letter to Mr. Quinn, Chairman Clinger 
stated:

          I have reviewed all of our numerous communications 
        and correspondence regarding compliance with our 
        subpoenas and am frankly amazed that we are still 
        seeking full production more than three months after 
        the stated due date * * * I am advised that the White 
        House has also intervened with individuals who were 
        subpoenaed by this Committee by requesting that such 
        individuals send their documents to the White House 
        rather than directly to the Committee.
          The White House's continued foot dragging and 
        obfuscation as the Committee attempts to bring closure 
        to this investigation must come to an end. Accordingly, 
        I am calling in all documents responsive to our 
        subpoenas of January 11, 1996, to be delivered by close 
        of business on May 8, 1996 * * * I have scheduled a 
        meeting of the Committee on Government Reform and 
        Oversight for the morning of May 9, 1996 to resolve 
        these and other outstanding document issues. At that 
        time, I will request a Committee vote to compel the 
        production of outstanding records under penalty of 
        contempt.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ A copy of the Committee's business meeting notice and draft 
copy of the House Resolution citing the respective individuals for 
contempt were included with the letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, the White House response was typical of the 
dealings the Committee has experienced with the Clinton 
Administration since 1993. In a May 2, 1996, letter addressed 
to Chairman Clinger, Mr. Quinn hid behind the presidential 
election season in an attempt to blunt the Committee's 
legitimate investigation. No explanation was provided as to why 
the White House had yet to provide the Committee with a 
privilege log or why documents still were being produced three 
months after the due date of the subpoena. Significantly, Mr. 
Quinn cited no legal basis or any case law in support of 
withholding subpoenaed documents.
    On the morning of May 3, 1996, Mr. Quinn spoke to Chairman 
Clinger by telephone in an attempt to reach a consensus on the 
documents or at least delay the Committee's actions. Chairman 
Clinger informed Mr. Quinn that it would be helpful to have a 
better understanding of the nature of the documents in dispute, 
which is why the Committee requested a privilege log. Mr. Quinn 
stated that he would try to produce such a document.
    On the evening of May 3, 1996, Mr. Quinn telecopied a 
letter to Chairman Clinger which cryptically described the 
contents of the disputed records. No privilege log was 
provided. Mr. Quinn described the disputed documents as 
follows:

          1. Documents relating to ongoing grand jury 
        investigations by the Independent Counsel;
          2. Documents created in connection with Congressional 
        hearings concerning the Travel Office matter; 12 
        and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ This Administration has followed a long history of providing 
congressional committees with documents created in connection with 
congressional hearings. See, Morton Rosenberg, ``Legal and Historical 
Substantiality of Former Attorney General Civiletti's Views as to the 
Scope and Reach of Congress' Authority to Conduct Oversight of the 
Department of Justice,'' CRS, October 15, 1993, in ``Damaging Disarray: 
Organizational Breakdown and Reform in the Justice Department's 
Environmental Crimes Program,'' Staff Report of the Subcom. on 
Oversight and Investigations, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
103rd Congress, 2d Session, 321-350, Comm. Print No. 103-T, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          3. Certain specific confidential internal White House 
        Counsel office documents including ``vetting'' notes, 
        staff meeting notes, certain other counsel notes, 
        memoranda which contain pure legal analysis, and 
        personnel records which are of the type that are 
        protected by the Privacy Act.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ This vague, broad and non-descriptive category of withheld 
documents, if accepted by the Committee, would be tantamount to 
accepting a type of broad, undifferentiated claim of executive 
privilege which was rejected by the court in U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 
683 (1973).

    Chairman Clinger responded to Mr. Quinn on the morning of 
May 6, 1996, to remind him that the Committee was seeking 
internal deliberative documents due to the pattern of conduct 
established by the Counsel's office in previous investigations. 
The documents identified in the three categories by Mr. Quinn 
are needed by this Committee to resolve the questions 
surrounding the White House Counsel Office's involvement in 
prior investigations. It would be irresponsible for this 
Committee to allow the subject of an inquiry to determine what 
documents shall or shall not be shared with Congress.
    In his letter to Mr. Quinn, Chairman Clinger stated:

          When I met with you on February 15, 1996, you 
        presented an offer to resolve our ongoing document 
        dispute by providing the Committee with limited access 
        to some of the disputed materials as long as we 
        surrender our right to demand the remaining categories 
        of documents. If we refused your offer, I understood, 
        the entire ``basket'' of disputed documents would be 
        withheld and our disagreement would continue. This was 
        presented as your final offer. . . . The effective 
        result of my letter of May 2, 1996, was to formerly 
        reject your offer and notify you that a determination 
        was reached concerning the withheld documents.

    Chairman Clinger offered Mr. Quinn the opportunity, in 
another letter dated May 7, 1996, to draft a statement to the 
Committee addressing any valid executive privilege assertions 
in order to explain to the Committee why he should not be held 
in contempt of Congress for his failure to produce subpoenaed 
documents.
    The Committee is determined to ensure that the Clinton 
Administration does not succeed in its attempt to limit 
Congress' Travel Office investigation as it has done with every 
preceding investigation. The issuance of subpoenas was not 
sufficient to ensure the production of all relevant records. 
Unfortunately, it is necessary to take the serious step of 
holding parties who fail to produce requested documents in 
contempt.

C. Importance of oversight of the White House

    From the earliest days of our government, courts have 
recognized ``the danger to effective and honest conduct of the 
Government if the legislature's power to probe corruption in 
the executive branch were unduly hampered.'' 14 In McGrain 
v. Daugherty, 15 the Court described the power of inquiry, 
with the accompanying process to enforce it, as ``an essential 
and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.'' As 
Senator Sam Ervin noted 25 years ago:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957).
    \15\ 273 U.S. 135, 174-175 (1927).

          When the people do not know what their government is 
        doing, those who govern are not accountable for their 
        actions--and accountability is basic to the democratic 
        system. In effect, those who govern are insulated from 
        the effects of their actions, and the populace is 
        precluded from obtaining the knowledge that is 
        necessary to control the actions of the government in 
        the manner envisioned by the Founding Fathers.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ ``Executive Privilege: The Withholding of Information by the 
Executive.'' Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Separation of 
Powers, Senate Judiciary Committee, 92nd Congress, 1st Session (1971), 
p.4.

    Congressional oversight is an essential tool in holding the 
Executive Branch accountable for its actions. When oversight is 
conducted into possible inappropriate activity at the White 
House, this concept of accountability is particularly 
important. Unlike all other federal agencies, the White House 
has no Inspector General. The highest office in the land cannot 
be held to a lower standard of accountability. Vigorous 
oversight of the Executive Branch must not be thwarted if we 
are to preserve our trust in the highest office of the land.
    Finally, lest there be any misunderstanding of the 
appropriateness of public disclosure of certain materials under 
the proper circumstances, it must be remembered that the 
informing function is one of the manifold responsibilities of 
Congress in conducting oversight. As Woodrow Wilson wrote:

          It is the proper duty of a representative body to 
        look diligently into every affair of government and to 
        talk much about what it sees . . . Unless Congress has 
        and uses every means of acquainting itself with the 
        acts and the disposition of the administrative agents 
        of the Government, the country must be helpless to 
        learn how it is being served . . . The informing 
        function of Congress should be preferred even to its 
        legislative function. The argument is not only that a 
        discussed and interrogated administration is the only 
        pure and efficient administration, but, more than that, 
        that the only really self-governing people is           
        that people which discusses and interrogates its 
        administration . . . 17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ 354 U.S. at 200, Footnote 33.

D. Committee action

    The subpoenas issued in early January 1996, were not 
complied with on the return date of January 22, 1996, or any 
subsequent date thereafter. On Thursday, May 9, 1996, the 
Committee met in open session at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2154 
Rayburn Office Building for the purpose of determining what 
action should be taken in view of the failure of White House 
Counsel John M. Quinn, former White House aide David Watkins, 
and former White House aide Matthew Moore, to comply with the 
subpoena. The Committee, a quorum being present, on a record 
vote of 27-19, recommended the adoption of a resolution as 
follows:

          Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
        Speaker of the House certify the report of the 
        Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, detailing 
        the refusal of John M. Quinn to produce papers to the 
        Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, to the 
        United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, 
        for him to be proceeded against in the manner and form 
        provided by law; and be it further
          Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
        Speaker of the House certify the report of the 
        Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, detailing 
        the refusal of David Watkins to produce papers to the 
        Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, to the 
        United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, 
        for him to be proceeded against in the manner and form 
        provided by law; and be it further
          Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
        Speaker of the House certify the report of the 
        Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, detailing 
        the refusal of Matthew Moore to produce papers to the 
        Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, to the 
        United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, 
        for him to be proceeded against in the manner and form 
        provided by law.

    If the House of Representatives failed to pursue all legal 
steps to vindicate its right to this information, it would 
undermine severely this investigation into the facts 
surrounding the termination of the seven innocent Travel Office 
employees. Accordingly, the Committee voted to report to the 
House a contempt resolution for John M. Quinn, David Watkins, 
and Matthew Moore. Upon adoption by the House, the resolution 
would direct the Speaker to turn the matter over to the U.S. 
Attorney for prosecution in accordance with 2 U.S.C. sections 
192 and 194. That offense carries a maximum sentence of 1 year 
in prison, plus fines.
    This report will summarize the events which occurred before 
and after the seven Travel Office workers were fired on May 19, 
1993, including the history of official investigations and the 
current dispute over records. Also provided is a chronology of 
what this Committee considers to be stonewalling on the part of 
White House officials as part of their efforts to deny and 
delay official investigative bodies access to pertinent 
records. The Committee report also discusses in detail the 
various claims made by the condemners to justify their denial 
of the requested information and a chronology of the 
correspondence that has transpired between the Committee and 
White House officials during the past three years. Appendices 
include a Congressional Research Service legal opinion and 
copies of the relevant subpoenas.

                                FINDINGS

    1. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has the 
jurisdiction and authority, pursuant to House rule X, 1(g) and 
XI, 2(m)(2) to conduct an investigation into the White House 
Travel Office matter and the subsequent investigations of this 
matter and to require the production of documents by the White 
House, the Department of Justice and individuals who have 
withheld documents.
    2. White House Counsel John M. Quinn's letter invoking an 
undifferentiated protective executive privilege assertion over 
a vaguely defined group of documents of unknown quantity and 
substance at the direction of the President is an ineffective 
invocation of the privilege under the guidelines established by 
President Ronald Reagan and adopted by President Bill Clinton.
    3. White House Counsel John M. Quinn's refusal to turn over 
subpoenaed records, issued with bipartisan agreement, or to 
properly invoke a valid claim of executive privilege has 
needlessly provoked a constitutional confrontation. The White 
House has unnecessarily strained our system of government and 
interfered materially with the ability of Congress as well as 
prior investigative bodies to fulfill oversight 
responsibilities in a timely fashion.
    4. The Attorney General has provided no legal opinion to 
support the President's blanket undifferentiated protective 
invocation of privilege. In fact, during her tenure, the 
Attorney General has turned over documents similar to some of 
those sought in the present matter when dealing with prior 
Congressional investigations.
    5. A disclosure of arguably privileged documents to a 
congressional committee pursuant to a subpoena and the threat 
of citation of contempt would not waive the claim of privilege 
in any other forum.
    6. The assertion of attorney-client and work product 
privileges by David Watkins and Matthew Moore with respect to 
withheld drafts of the Watkins'' ``soul cleansing'' memo are 
without legal foundation. There is no credible evidence that 
Watkins established an attorney-client relation with Moore; and 
even if established, it was waived by its disclosure to Patsy 
Thomasson, other White House personnel, and to the media upon 
its discovery in Thomasson's files. The failure to maintain 
confidentiality also waives any claim under the work produce 
doctrine.
    7. The ongoing criminal investigation by the Independent 
Counsel into the White House Travel Office matter and the 
criminal referral of a high ranking White House official who 
was centrally involved in this matter makes the withholding of 
documents particularly troubling. President Bill Clinton has 
altered a policy in effect since the Kennedy Administration. 
The operative policy has always been to refuse to claim 
executive privilege when allegations of wrongdoing are at 
issue.
    8. Despite White House claims to the contrary, the unknown 
quantity and substance of undefined documents withheld are 
directly relevant and necessary to the Committee's inquiry into 
the response by the White House to the various investigations 
over the past three years as well as the dilatory responses to 
this Committee.
    9. The White House's statements about the large quantity of 
documents produced and its self-serving pronouncements 
regarding compliance do not amount to responsiveness to either 
the Committee's needs or the bipartisan subpoenas. Congress 
makes the determination of what documents are necessary for an 
investigation; the President does not make that determination.
    10. The examples of extensive delays by the White House to 
this and all previous investigations detailed extensively in 
the record contradict White House statements that it 
accommodated and cooperated with this or previous 
investigations into the Travel Office matter. Numerous 
government officials as well as this Committee concluded the 
White House has behaved in a dilatory manner when responding to 
matters related to the White House Travel Office investigation.
    11. The White House has made misleading statements in 
describing some of the withheld documents suggesting 
alternatively that the number of documents withheld was 
``small'' at first. The Attorney General claims there is a 
``large'' group of documents to review for executive privilege 
assertion.
    12. Despite extensive efforts by the Committee to engage in 
voluntary document production, the White House engaged in a 
long-drawn-out and selective documents production only as this 
Committee applied increasing pressure or as outside sources 
came forward with similar information.

                    FACTS, BACKGROUND, AND FINDINGS

A. President Terminates Employment of Seven Career Travel Office 
        Workers

    At approximately 10:00 a.m., on May 19, 1993, all seven 
members of the White House Travel Office staff summarily were 
fired. The five Travel Office employees present in the White 
House that day were ordered to vacate the White House compound 
within two hours. Returning to their Travel Office by 10:30 
a.m., the fired Travel Office employees found their desks 
already occupied by employees of World Wide Travel, the 
Arkansas travel agency which arranged for press charters during 
the Clinton presidential campaign.
    Two White House Travel Office employees were absent from 
the White House Travel Office on May 19, 1993, one on a White 
House advance trip to South Korea, the other on vacation. They 
learned of their firings, respectively, via CNN telecast and 
from a son who saw Tom Brokaw announce the firings on network 
news that night. The seven White House Travel Office employees 
had served from 9 to 32 years in the White House Travel Office.
    The five Travel Office employees who were present in the 
White House for their firings ultimately were given additional 
time to complete their White House out-processing. By early 
afternoon, they heard then-White House Press Secretary Dee Dee 
Myers announce at a press briefing that they were the subject 
of an FBI criminal investigation. They had been given no such 
indication at the time of their dismissals. After completing 
the out-processing, the five Travel Office employees present on 
May 19, 1993, were driven out of the White House compound in a 
panel van with no passenger seats, seated only on their boxes 
of personal belongings.
    It subsequently was revealed that the events precipitating 
the Travel Office firings had intensified almost a week before, 
on May 13, 1993, when Associate White House Counsel Bill 
Kennedy summoned the FBI to the White House. He informed the 
FBI that those at ``the highest level'' in the White House 
wanted prompt action on a matter allegedly involving financial 
wrongdoing. The FBI dispatched two sets of agents to consider 
jurisdictional issues. The first pair tried to tell their 
superiors they weren't the ``right guys for the job,'' 
recommending that a field agent be sent per standard procedure. 
Mr. Kennedy was ``adamant'' that headquarters personnel with a 
``national perspective'' be involved. Senior FBI officials 
complied, sending the acting chief of the Violent Crimes and 
Major Offenders section to the White House Travel Office.
    The second set of FBI agents met with Catherine Cornelius, 
the President's cousin, on May 13, 1993. David Watkins had 
dispatched Ms. Cornelius to the Travel Office, where she copied 
and removed documents. In the wake of Ms. Cornelius' own 
meetings with Mr. Harry Thomason, a Hollywood producer and 
longtime friend of the President and the First Lady, 
allegations of kickbacks and expensive lifestyles were raised 
against the Travel Office employees. The FBI accepted Ms. 
Cornelius' recitation of these otherwise unsubstantiated 
allegations as sufficient predication to launch a criminal 
investigation.
    Even as the FBI informed the White House it had sufficient 
predication to launch an investigation on May 13, 1993, the 
White House Counsel's office shifted gears, informing the FBI 
agents that the White House first would conduct an outside 
audit, and later allow the FBI to proceed with an investigation 
if one were warranted. The FBI insisted it should be present at 
the Travel Office during the audit but Deputy White House 
Counsel Vince Foster and Mr. Kennedy overruled it. The FBI 
acquiesced.
    On May 14, 1993, the White House brought in an 
``independent auditor'' who was in fact neither independent nor 
an auditor. The management consulting (not the public 
accounting) arm of KPMG Peat Marwick was engaged to conduct a 
management review. KPMG Peat Marwick's engagement letter, draft 
and final reports all stated that it was not asked to and 
indeed did not conduct the procedures necessary for an ``audit, 
examination or review in accordance with'' established 
accounting standards.
    On Monday, May 17, 1993, Mr. Watkins wrote a memo to Chief 
of Staff Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty regarding the planned Travel 
Office firings. Mr. Watkins copied this memo to the First Lady. 
The memo was telecopied to Director of Media Affairs Jeff 
Eller, who was traveling with the President in California. Mr. 
Eller discussed the memo with presidential advisor and 
confidant Bruce Lindsey. White House Management Review notes 
indicate that Mr. Lindsey discussed the memo with the President 
in California.
    Well before the final KPMG Peat Marwick report was written, 
the White House decided to fire the Travel Office employees on 
Wednesday, May 19, 1993, and so advised the FBI. The FBI warned 
that the firings would harm the investigation it initiated on 
May 14, 1993, but the White House ignored its concerns and, 
once again, the FBI and Justice Department acquiesced.
    After the Travel Office firings were announced at a May 19, 
1993, press briefing, KPMG Peat Marwick partner Larry Herman 
was ushered into a meeting with George Stephanopoulos, Dee Dee 
Myers, Vince Foster, Bill Kennedy, Ricki Seidman and Harry 
Thomason and greeted with the question, ``Where the hell is the 
report?'' The White House had only a few pages of draft 
material when it announced the firings it said were based on 
the KPMG Peat Marwick report. The press repeatedly asked for 
the report in the May 19, 1993 press briefing.
    Both the President and First Lady were informed of the 
Travel Office matter prior to the May 19, 1993 firings. Harry 
Thomason, Vince Foster and David Watkins appear to have advised 
the First Lady regularly about Travel Office particulars. Harry 
Thomason worked at the White House late into the night on May 
13, 1993, and Mr. Foster's Travel Office file indicates the 
First Lady received updates from both Mr. Foster and Mr. 
Watkins that evening. Other White House notes reveal that Mr. 
Thomason also had conversations with the First Lady about the 
firing of the Travel Office employees. Talking points had been 
prepared for May 13th stating that Travel Office employees had 
been fired that day and that the FBI was performing an audit of 
the Travel office.
    Mr. Thomason was back in the White House on May 14, 1993, 
and throughout the following week. During the course of a World 
Wide Travel employee's White House Management Review interview, 
Fan Dozier told John Podesta she had talked with Mr. Thomason 
on May 16, 1993, and Mr. Thomason said, ``you mean you're not 
up there working [in the Travel Office]?'' and added that he 
would call the First Lady and she would be very upset to hear 
that World Wide Travel was not already in place.
    Mr. Thomason told White House staff that he learned the 
Travel Office employees were accepting ``kickbacks'' from 
friends in the air charter industry. He told Mr. Watkins he 
spoke to the First Lady about the matter and that she was 
anxious to get ``our people'' into the office because ``we need 
the slots.'' Mr. Thomason told Mr. Watkins, Mr. Foster and 
others that firing the employees would be a ``good story.'' 
When White House staffer Jennifer O'Connor asked him if he had 
any evidence, Mr. Thomason said he did.
    In fact, although the President later claimed in a press 
conference that he had heard rumors everywhere, it appears that 
Mr. Thomason and Ms. Cornelius were the primary, if not the 
sole sources of allegations against the Travel Office employees 
reaching the White House. Meanwhile, Mr. Thomason was involved 
in a number of other activities at the White House.
    ``Put me in front of the right person at the White House 
and I will prove the value of both the project and Thomason's 
capabilities,'' Darnell Martens wrote Harry Thomason, his 
business partner in Thomason, Richland and Martens, 
Incorporated (``TRM''). Subsequent memos referred to ``a memo 
to Harry Thomason which was presented to and discussed with the 
President in mid-February'' and a request indicating the 
President needed to ``issue an executive order'' and ``enter 
into a consulting agreement with TRM'' to get projects for TRM, 
Incorporated going.
    Mr. Thomason spoke both with President Clinton and 
presidential confidant Bruce Lindsey about obtaining their 
assistance in his efforts to win a sole source government 
contract at GSA to audit the entire federal civilian aircraft 
fleet and ``revitalize'' the aircraft industry. Mr. Martens, 
who like Mr. Thomason had received his own White House pass, 
secured OMB and GSA assistance for his proposals. The White 
House claims it pulled the plug on this scheme sometime in the 
summer of 1993, during the course of the Travel Office 
investigations. When the scope of his White House influence 
became controversial, Mr. Thomason said, ``I do find it 
surprising that a person who was as instrumental as I was in 
the Clinton campaign cannot pick up a phone in the White House 
and ask for information from people.''
    Ms. Cornelius was ``selected'' to replace seven veteran 
Travel Office employees. She followed directions given by David 
Watkins and brought in World Wide Travel without a competitive 
bid. World Wide, the Clinton/Gore campaign's travel agency, 
withdrew from the White House within two days of their arrival 
in the wake of intensive press scrutiny.
    Within days of the Travel Office firings, the media 
reported that Mr. Thomason had telecopied an undated memo by 
Mr. Martens to the White House on May 10, 1993, which 
contradicted their claims of having no interest in Travel 
Office business. The memo in fact discussed efforts by Mr. 
Martens to seek the business. It was reported that Ms. 
Cornelius had proposed in a February 15, 1993, memorandum that 
she be placed in charge of the Travel Office, assuming a role 
she had in the Clinton campaign. White House documents indicate 
that when the Travel Office story broke, Mr. Watkins and Patsy 
Thomasson asked Ms. Cornelius and a second employee to lie 
about the February 15, 1993, memo by saying that Mr. Watkins 
never read it.
    Mr. Martens summoned air charter broker Penny Sample to the 
White House without a competitive bid. Ms. Sample also had 
worked on Clinton/Gore campaign travel charters with TRM, 
Incorporated. The White House claimed that Ms. Sample came on a 
voluntary basis but after she received what was touted as 
``erroneous commissions,'' she was asked to leave the White 
House.
    On May 21, 1993, after World Wide Travel decided to leave 
the White House, Patsy Thomasson held a closed-door meeting 
with American Express while Secret Service agents guarded the 
door, according to White House Management Review notes. Later 
that day, George Stephanopoulos announced that American Express 
would be brought into the White House, but the White House 
subsequently claimed it was putting the contract out to bid. 
American Express won and entered the Travel Office the 
following Monday.
    Also on May 21, 1993, the Internal Revenue Service raided 
the Smyrna, Tennessee, offices of UltrAir, a small company 
which provided most of the Travel Office's domestic press 
charters and which stood accused by Harry Thomason of 
participating in kickbacks. Two years after an expensive and 
distracting investigation, UltrAir was cleared of any 
wrongdoing. A former UltrAir executive who also was audited 
actually received a $5,000 tax refund.
    While the Travel Office employees served at the pleasure of 
the President, their precipitous firings and replacement by the 
Clinton campaign's primary travel agency immediately raised a 
storm of criticism. Administration claims that it had acted in 
order to save the press and taxpayers money were met with 
skepticism by a White House press corps which responded with a 
litany of complaints of over billing and undocumented charges 
by World Wide Travel itself throughout the 1992 campaign. In 
addition, the Clinton Administration's announcement that an FBI 
criminal investigation had been launched was highly improper 
and, in fact, questionable when it was announced. Furthermore, 
Attorney General Janet Reno considered White House contacts 
with the FBI in the days leading up to and immediately 
following the Travel Office firings also were considered 
improperly handled, who publicly admonished the Administration 
for them.

B. Members of Congress Call for Investigation

    Members of the House and the Senate immediately raised 
concerns about the manner in which the Travel Office firings 
took place. In the face of press, public and Congressional 
outcry, the White House placed five of the seven Travel Office 
employees on administrative leave with pay on May 25, 1993, and 
announced that it would conduct a White House Management Review 
of the Travel Office and the Administration's role in the 
Travel Office firings. The fired Travel Office director and 
deputy director retired.
    On June 1, 1993, William F. Clinger, Jr., the then-ranking 
minority member of the House Government Operations Committee, 
requested that then-Chairman John Conyers, Jr., hold hearings 
on the White House Travel Office firings.
    Then-White House Chief of Staff Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty 
and then-Office of Management and Budget Director Leon Panetta 
released the White House Travel Office Management Review on 
July 2, 1993, and announced the reprimands of four White House 
staffers. Reprimanded were: Associate Counsel to the President, 
William H. Kennedy, III; Assistant to the President for 
Management and Administration, David Watkins; former Special 
Assistant to the President for Management and Administration, 
Catherine A. Cornelius; and Deputy Assistant to the President 
and Director of Media Affairs, Jeff Eller. At least three of 
the four first learned of the ``reprimands'' during their 
televised announcement. None of the reprimands were documented 
in the personnel files of any of the four.
    Also on July 2, 1993, the Supplemental Appropriations Act 
of 1993 (P.L. 103-50) was signed into law requiring the United 
States General Accounting Office (GAO) to ``conduct a review of 
the action taken with respect to the White House Travel 
Office.''
    In addition to the White House Management Review and the 
GAO Report entitled ``White House Travel Office Operations'' 
(Released on May 2, 1994), at least three other reports were 
prepared concerning various aspects of the White House Travel 
Office firings. These reports were prepared by: the Office of 
Professional Responsibility (OPR) of the United States 
Department of Justice (dated March 18, 1994 and released by the 
Committee on October 24, 1995); a Federal Bureau of 
Investigation Internal Review of FBI Contacts with the White 
House (dated June 1, 1993), and the Department of Treasury 
Inspector General Report ``Allegation of Misuse of IRS RE: 
ULTRAIR'' (dated June 11, 1993).
    The OPR report was initiated on July 15, 1993, by then-
Deputy Attorney General Phillip Heymann in an e-mail message to 
Justice Department aide David Margolis. This report was in 
response to Congressional pressure for more answers as well as 
the President's commitment in a July 13, 1993, letter to then-
Chairman Brooks of the House Judiciary Committee pledging that 
he would cooperate fully with any inquiry.
    On September 23, 1993, after consultations with majority 
staff of the Government Operations Committee, Mr. Clinger 
withdrew his request for Committee hearings on the White House 
Travel Office firings, ``contingent upon the adequacy of the 
GAO effort'' which had been mandated by Congress through P.L. 
103-50.
    Individually and collectively, the five reports prepared 
concerning the White House Travel Office left many questions 
unanswered and, in fact, raised many more. Several Members of 
Congress, including Mr. Clinger, sought to have these questions 
answered through further investigation and Congressional 
hearings. In a letter dated October 7, 1994, Mr. Clinger and 16 
other House Members again requested Congressional hearings on 
the White House Travel Office in order to ``address serious 
questions arising from, or unanswered by, the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) Report to Congress, White House Travel 
Office Operations (GAO/GGD-94-132).''
    Mr. Clinger's request was accompanied by a 71-page minority 
analysis of issues unaddressed by any of the previous five 
reports. This analysis reviewed contradictions concerning: 
memoranda drafted by Catherine Cornelius outlining its new 
organizational structure and placing her in charge; activities 
of Harry Thomason and Darnell Martens; mismanagement by David 
Watkins; White House reasons justifying the Travel Office 
firings; contacts between Dee Dee Myers and Darnell Martens; 
public disclosure of the FBI investigation; possible influence 
on the FBI; the integrity of Travel Office records; the role of 
the President; the reprimands, and inaccuracies and 
insufficiencies in the GAO report on the White House Travel 
Office. In response to this report, then-Chairman Conyers of 
the House Government Operations Committee wrote then-Ranking 
Member Clinger, ``You have raised serious questions about GAO's 
report to Congress'' and asked that GAO provide a ``detailed 
response'' to Mr. Clinger's concerns. No such response was 
provided.

C. Committee's Investigation

    Soon after the November, 1994, Congressional elections, Mr. 
Clinger, Chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee of the 104th Congress, announced that he would hold 
hearings on the White House Travel Office firings. In December, 
1994, the Public Integrity Division of the United States 
Department of Justice indicted former White House Travel Office 
Director Billy R. Dale on one charge of embezzlement and one 
charge of conversion.
    The Committee conducted interviews and gathered documents 
from various participants in the Travel Office matter on a 
voluntary basis throughout the spring and summer of 1995. White 
House document production, however, proved problematic and led 
to numerous meetings, correspondence and phone conversations 
with Clinton administration representatives in the White House 
Counsel's Office, the Department of Justice, the Department of 
the Treasury, and the General Accounting Office.
    In the fall of 1995, Chairman Clinger scheduled the 
Committee's first hearing on the White House Travel Office for 
October 24, 1995. The hearing focused on the accuracy and 
completeness of the five White House Travel Office reports and 
to consider whether further hearings were required to address 
unanswered issues. The panel at the October 24, 1995, hearing 
included authors of each of the five reports, respectively. 
This hearing purposely avoided all areas that might have 
impacted upon the trial of former Travel Office Director Billy 
R. Dale which was to commence on October 26, 1995.
    The Committee reviewed which of seven key Travel Office 
issues each report addressed. These issues were: the 
completeness of the review of references to ``Highest Levels'' 
involvement at the White House in the Travel Office firings; 
whether any assessment of White House Standards of Conduct was 
performed and whether Administration staffers had violated 
those standards; whether inquiries were made into the role of 
Hollywood producer Harry Thomason in the firings; the role of 
Mr. Thomason and his firm, TRM, Incorporated in seeking 
contracts involving the Interagency Committee on Aviation 
Policy (``ICAP''); whether the issue of competitive bidding by 
the White House Travel Office and by the White House itself in 
dealing with the Travel Office was reviewed; and whether 
thorough investigations into FBI and IRS actions and reactions 
to the White House inquiries had been undertaken.
    The hearing made clear that, given limitations on their 
scopes and limited access to documents and witnesses, none of 
the reports fully addressed the issues raised by the Travel 
Office firings. The redactions to the Treasury Inspector 
General IRS report made it impossible to determine whether the 
IRS addressed any of the seven issues. The OPR and FBI reports 
only partially addressed two issues--``FBI actions'' and 
references to ``Highest Levels of the White House''--and never 
addressed the other five. Despite its far greater understanding 
of the participants and circumstances leading to the Travel 
Office firings--or arguably because of it--the White House 
Travel Office Management Review only briefly and superficially 
addressed Harry Thomason's role, FBI actions and references to 
``Highest Levels'' of the White House while ignoring 
competitive bidding, IRS action, standards of conduct and ICAP 
contracts. Similarly, the GAO relied on the White House 
Management Review in its report on Mr. Thomason's role and only 
partially addressed FBI actions and ``Highest Levels'' while 
leaving ICAP, competitive bidding and standards of conduct 
unaddressed. IRS disclosure laws prevented the GAO from 
publicly addressing IRS actions.
    The October 24, 1995, hearing also made clear that the GAO 
and OPR reports were hobbled by what their respective authors 
referred to as an unprecedented lack of cooperation by the 
White House in their investigations. It was determined in the 
hearing that the White House had denied both GAO and OPR 
documents which were critical to their investigations. Both GAO 
and OPR never received many of the documents subsequently 
produced by the White House to this Committee.
    The criminal trial of former Travel Office Director Billy 
R. Dale began on October 26, 1995, and concluded on November 
17, 1995, with Mr. Dale's acquittal of one charge each of 
embezzlement and conversion after just two hours of jury 
deliberations. After the acquittal was announced, Chairman 
Clinger requested that the Public Integrity Section of the 
Department of Justice turn over all documents related to the 
criminal prosecution for review by the Committee.
    At year-end 1995, the Committee planned hearings on: the 
role of Mr. David Watkins in the Travel Office firings; the 
experiences of the seven fired Travel Office employees; the 
role of Mr. Harry Thomason; and the role of the FBI and IRS. In 
January 1996, the Committee subpoenaed all of Mr. Thomason's 
documents related to the Travel Office and filed a ``6103 
Waiver'' with the IRS in which representatives of UltrAir 
authorized the IRS, Department of Treasury and others to 
release all relevant documents concerning the IRS audit of 
UltrAir in the wake of the Travel Office firings. The 
Department of the Treasury promised prompt delivery of all 
documents pending receipt of the expanded 6103 waiver.
    At 8:30 p.m. on January 3, 1996, the White House delivered 
a document production to Committee offices. Included in that 
production was a 9-page, undated draft memorandum written by 
David Watkins, a copy of which was simultaneously released to 
the media. Mr. Watkins wrote in this memorandum, which he 
characterized as a ``soul cleansing'' memorandum, that he had 
made his ``first attempt to be sure the record is straight, 
something I have not done in previous conversations with 
investigators--where I have been as vague and protective as 
possible.'' The Watkins draft memo ascribed a far greater 
Travel Office role to First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton than 
the White House or Mrs. Clinton ever had admitted:

    On Monday morning you [then-White House Chief of Staff 
McLarty] came to my office and met with me and Patsy Thomasson. 
At that meeting you explained that this was on the First Lady's 
``radar screen.'' I explained to you that I had decided to 
terminate the Travel Office employees and you expressed relief 
that we were finally going to take action (to resolve the 
situation in conformity with the First Lady's wishes). We both 
knew there would be hell to pay if, after our failure in the 
Secret Service situation earlier, we failed to take swift and 
decisive action in conformity with the First Lady's wishes.

    Mr. Watkins concluded that his memo:

    [Made] clear that the Travel Office incident was driven by 
pressures for action originating outside my Office. If I 
thought I could have resisted those pressures, undertaken more 
considered action, and remained in the White House, I certainly 
would have done so. But after the Secret Service incident, it 
was made clear that I must more forcefully and immediately 
follow the direction of the First Family. I was convinced that 
failure to take immediate action in this case would have been 
directly contrary to the wishes of the First Lady, something 
that would not have been tolerated in light of the Secret 
Service incident earlier in the year.

    The Watkins draft memorandum was responsive to the 
September, 1995, document request by the Committee. Moreover, 
back in October, 1995, the White House Counsel's Office had 
informed the Committee that it had produced most of the 
substantive documents pursuant to that request.
    The White House explained weeks afterwards that it first 
discovered the Watkins draft memorandum on December 29, 1995. 
The memorandum was reviewed by the White House Counsel's office 
and copied to several Administration officials as well as the 
personal attorneys for Mack McLarty, Patsy Thomasson, Harry 
Thomason, and the President and First Lady by January 2, 1996. 
The White House released the Watkins draft memorandum to the 
media on the evening of January 3, 1996, at the same time it 
released the documents to the Committee.
    On January 5, 1996, Chairman Clinger issued subpoenas to 
both David Watkins and Harry Thomason for all records 
concerning the White House Travel Office and related matters. 
On January 11, 1996, Chairman Clinger issued interrogatories 
concerning the origin and chain-of-custody of the original and 
all copies of the Watkins draft memorandum to be answered in 
writing and under oath by:
          Jane C. Sherburne, Special Counsel to the President.
          Jon Yarowsky, Associate Counsel to the President.
          Natalie Williams, Associate Counsel to the President.
          Miriam R. Nimetz, Associate Counsel to the President.
          Christopher D. Cerf, Associate Counsel to the 
        President.
          Nelson Cunningham, General Counsel, Office of 
        Administration.
          Patsy Thomasson, Deputy Director of White House 
        Personnel.
    Also on January 11, 1996, the Committee issued bipartisan 
subpoenas for all relevant records to the White House Executive 
Office of the President and the White House Office of 
Administration as well as bipartisan personal subpoenas to Mack 
McLarty, Bruce Lindsey, Todd Stern, Patsy Thomasson, Catherine 
Cornelius and Margaret Williams. The documents subpoenaed were 
due on January 22, 1996.
    In the wake of the White House's release of the Watkins 
draft memorandum, Clinton officials, attorneys and surrogates 
launched attacks on the character and managerial skills of 
former Travel Office Director Billy Dale. First Lady Hillary 
Rodham Clinton also assailed Mr. Dale's management in various 
interviews. As a result, Chairman Clinger wrote President 
Clinton on January 16, 1996, requesting that the White House 
cease its continued attack on Mr. Dale.
    On January 17, 1996, the Committee held its second hearing 
on the Travel Office matter. David Watkins was the sole witness 
at this hearing, at which he requested that no still or video 
cameras be allowed to record his testimony, invoking a House 
rule. In the hearing, he testified under oath regarding his 
draft memorandum and other records he had turned over to the 
Committee pursuant to a personal subpoena. Watkins testified, 
``Was there pressure? Did I feel pressure of the desires and 
wishes of others? Yes, I did.'' Watkins testified he had felt, 
``a lot of internal pressure,'' and was asked by whom. He 
answered: ``The President and First Lady.'' He also testified: 
``The pressure that I felt was coming from the First Lady was 
conveyed primarily through Harry Thomason and Vince Foster.'' 
Mr. Watkins' May 12, 1993, notes, first received by the 
Committee under personal subpoena, stated that Harry Thomason 
told him on that day that the First Lady wanted the Travel 
Office staff fired that day. In a May 14, 1993, telephone call 
to the First Lady, Watkins testified, he was told, ``We should 
get our people in and get those people out.''
    In the wake of the discovery of the Watkins' memorandum 
where inconsistencies between Mr. Watkins' statements to the 
GAO and his undated memorandum and contemporaneous notes became 
clear, Chairman Clinger asked GAO to advise the Committee 
concerning what sanctions exist for intentionally providing 
false information to GAO. GAO responded in a letter dated 
January 17, 1996, which addressed the relevant statutes and 
legal precedents. In a January 23, 1996, response to GAO, 
Chairman Clinger asked that GAO compare and contrast the notes 
of its interviews with Mr. Watkins with copies of interviews 
conducted with Mr. Watkins by various investigative agencies, 
Mr. Watkins' draft memorandum and contemporaneous notes and 
other materials. Chairman Clinger asked that GAO identify all 
of the material inconsistencies between the documents provided 
and GAO's own interview notes and to determine whether they met 
the materiality test required by any applicable statute.
    The seven fired Travel Office employees testified on 
January 24, 1996, when the Committee held its third hearing on 
the White House Travel Office firings. The seven fired Travel 
Office employees testified about their work in the White House 
Travel Office and the management of press charters, the events 
leading to their firings on May 19, 1993, and their 
investigation at the hands of the FBI and IRS. Individually, 
they testified of the costs of their respective legal defenses 
which, all told, amounted to some $700,000.
    While all seven acknowledged that they served at the 
pleasure of the President, they questioned the manner in which 
the firings were undertaken. Mr. Dale testified:

    If the President or the First Lady or anyone else wanted us 
out in order to give the business to their friends and 
supporters, that was their privilege. But why can't they just 
admit that is what they wanted to do rather than continue to 
make up accusations to hide that fact?

    Mr. Billy Dale testified in the hearing that records 
disappeared from the Travel Office in the period immediately 
preceding the firings and disputed allegations of Travel Office 
mismanagement as a ``convenient excuse'' intended to justify 
the firings. Five of the Travel Office employees testified 
about being placed on administrative leave within a week of the 
firings and subsequently finding employment elsewhere in the 
federal government. Mr. Dale and former White House Travel 
Office Deputy Director Gary Wright had retired from federal 
service in the aftermath of the firings in 1993.
    In a letter to the Committee dated January 23, 1996, Mr. 
David L. Clark, Director of Audit Oversight and Liaison for the 
General Accounting Office, evaluated current White House Travel 
Office management using the 29 criteria identified in its May 
1994, report on the Travel Office. The evaluation was based on 
work performed by GAO in the Travel Office in the fall of 1995. 
GAO stated:

    We found that the Travel Office had developed policies and 
implemented procedures during the period January 1995 through 
August 1995 to address all but 3 of the 29 criteria. For those 
three, we found that the Travel Office had not (1) billed 
customers within its stated 15-day requirement, (2) paid 
vendors within its stated 45-day requirement, and (3) performed 
bank reconciliations regularly.

    GAO also reported:
    [T]he Travel Office had a policy requiring monthly 
reconciliations of its checkbook with the cash balance reported 
by its bank. As of April 1994, we found that staff were 
performing the reconciliations as required. However, from 
January 1995 through August 1995, Travel Office staff performed 
no bank reconciliations because other tasks were given a higher 
priority. Immediately prior to our review, the Travel Office 
reconciled all outstanding bank statements and found deposits 
totaling $200,000 that had not been entered into its checkbook. 
These funds were all owed to vendors who had previously 
furnished goods and services for press trips. White House 
officials informed us that future monthly reconciliations will 
be performed as required.

    GAO's discovery of a $200,000 discrepancy in White House 
Travel Office deposits for calendar year 1995 is a matter of 
some concern given that the White House alleged in May, 1993, 
that it had fired the entire Travel Office staff and launched 
an FBI criminal investigation on the basis of a $18,200 
discrepancy in Travel Office petty cash funds.
    On January 30, 1996, General Counsel Robert P. Murphy of 
the General Accounting Office wrote Chairman Clinger addressing 
inconsistencies between statements made by David Watkins to GAO 
and Watkins' undated draft memorandum and notes taken by 
Watkins which were dated May 31, 1993, and Watkins' GAO 
interview and other relevant documents.
    On February 1, 1996, Chairman Clinger and Senate Judiciary 
Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced a bill to 
reimburse the legal expenses of the seven fired White House 
Travel Office employees. The bill would reimburse nearly 
$500,000 spent by Mr. Billy Dale on his defense as well as the 
Travel Office expenses still due by his six colleagues. In a 
1994 appropriation, Congress previously reimbursed $150,000 in 
their legal expenses.
    On February 7, 1996, the Committee issued additional 
bipartisan personal subpoenas to a number of current and former 
White House employees, volunteers, friends and others involved 
in the Travel Office matter, including Matt Moore.
    On February 13, 1996, following consultation with Chairman 
Clinger, the GAO asked Federal prosecutors to investigate 
possible false statements made to GAO by David Watkins, having 
concluded that statements made or attributed to Mr. Watkins 
were inconsistent with statements he made in his GAO interview. 
Justice Department officials submitted the referral to the 
Independent Counsel and asked the court to approve an expansion 
of the scope of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to include 
this referral.
    The Government Reform and Oversight Committee submitted a 
list of 26 interrogatories to First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton 
on February 15, 1996. These interrogatories were to be answered 
in writing and under oath by the First Lady by February 29, 
1996. The White House subsequently asked for an extension and 
the Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight agreed to a three-week extension. The White House 
provided the First Lady's sworn responses to the Committee on 
the second due date, March 21, 1996. Her responses were 
released to the media at the same time. In the responses, the 
First Lady insisted she had no decision-making role in the 
Travel Office firings and that her statements to GAO were 
accurate. As to conversations with Harry Thomason, Vince Foster 
and David Watkins, the First Lady had very few specific 
recollections.
    Chairman Clinger submitted H. Res. 369, which was referred 
to the Committee on Rules, on February 29, 1996. H. Res. 369 
provided special authority to the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight to obtain testimony for purposes of 
investigation and study of the White House Travel Office 
matter. The bill was limited, deliberately, to provide 
deposition authority to the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight only for its investigation of the Travel Office 
matter. Deposition authority allowed the Committee to obtain 
sworn testimony from witnesses while minimizing the number of 
hearings needed in order to complete the investigation.18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Precedents for such deposition authority have included: 1) 
President Nixon Impeachment Proceedings (93rd Congress, 1974, H.Res. 
803); 2) Assassinations Investigation (95th Congress, 1977, H.Res. 
222); 3) Koreagate (95th Congress, 1977, H.Res. 252 and H.Res. 752); 4) 
Abscam (97th Congress, 1981, H.Res. 67); 5) Iran-Contra (100th 
Congress, 1987, H.Res. 12); 6) Judge Hastings Impeachment Proceedings 
(100th Congress, 1987, H.Res. 320); 7) Judge Nixon Impeachment 
Proceedings (100th Congress, 1988, H.Res. 562); and 8) October Surprise 
(102nd Congress, 1991, H.Res. 258).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The House approved H.Res. 369 on March 7, 1996. Thereupon, 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight notified 
witnesses it wished to testify under oath before the Committee. 
Depositions commenced in late March, 1996, and are expected to 
be completed by June, 1996.
    The White House made a March 15, 1996, production of 
documents pursuant to the Committee's January 11, 1996, 
subpoena. That production contained yet another unproduced May 
3, 1994, handwritten letter from David Watkins to Mrs. Clinton. 
No explanation for the White House's failure to produce this 
document for nearly two years during the course of numerous 
other document requests and subpoenas was proffered until two 
requests for a chain- of-custody were made. Mr. Quinn finally 
responded on April 5, 1996, stating only that the letter was 
located in a stack of unsorted, miscellaneous papers and 
memorabilia in the Office of Personal Correspondence having 
been forwarded to Carolyn Huber from the First Lady. Ms. Huber 
forwarded the original letter to the First Lady on March 4, 
1996. Mr. Quinn stated that Mrs. Clinton did not look at the 
letter until March 12, 1996, at which time she immediately sent 
the only copy of the White House document to her personal 
lawyer, David Kendall. Mr. Kendall reviewed the original and 
returned a copy, and later the original, to Special White House 
Counsel Jane Sherburne.
    On March 22, 1996, the three-judge federal appeals panel 
which appointed Kenneth W. Starr Whitewater Independent Counsel 
approved an expansion of Independent Counsel Starr's mandate to 
include the issue of whether Mr. David Watkins lied about First 
Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's role in the Travel Office firings 
and related matters. Attorney General Janet Reno referred the 
Watkins matter to the three-judge panel after the Justice 
Department had concluded that Watkins could be investigated by 
an independent counsel.
    By a vote of 350 to 43 on March 19, 1993, the House of 
Representatives passed H.R. 2937, a bill to reimburse the legal 
expenses and related fees incurred by former employees of the 
White House Travel Office with respect to the termination of 
their employment in that office on May 19, 1993.
    In document productions from individuals subpoenaed, the 
Committee was provided with a copy of a February 15, 1996, 
White House Memorandum from John M. Quinn, Counsel to the 
President and Jane C. Sherburne, Special Counsel to the 
President, to a witness who had been subpoenaed by the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to provide all 
records related to the White House Travel Office matter in the 
witness' possession to the Committee. The memorandum from Mr. 
Quinn and Ms. Sherburne stated, in part:

    Last week, the Committee [on Government Reform and 
Oversight] issued personal subpoenas to you and other current 
and former White House employees. These personal subpoenas call 
for personal as well as White House records. The Counsel's 
Office will handle production of your responsive White House 
records, i.e., records created or obtained during the course of 
your official duties. Accordingly, you should forward any White 
House records you believe may be responsive to the Counsel's 
Office and we will determine whether they should be produced to 
the Committee. You should provide any responsive personal 
records directly to the Committee. [Emphasis in original.]

    The existence of the February 15, 1996, memorandum from Mr. 
Quinn and Ms. Sherburne greatly concerns the Committee because 
the February 7, 1996, subpoenas served were personal subpoenas. 
Those subpoenaed to provide all relevant White House Travel 
Office records in their possession remain personally 
responsible for making a complete production, whether or not 
the White House chooses to withhold any or all of their 
documents from production to the Committee. Given the White 
House's continuing unwillingness to make a complete production 
of records it has been subpoenaed to provide the Committee, its 
instructions in the February 15, 1996, memo by Mr. Quinn and 
Ms. Sherburne to witnesses served personal subpoenas, suggests 
that the White House intends to play an intermediary role in 
the case of current and former White House staffers, volunteers 
and others in a manner which may lead to their being held 
personally liable for a failure to produce all relevant 
records.
    In the wake of its discovery of the February 15, 1996, 
memorandum by Mr. Quinn and Ms. Sherburne, the Committee wrote 
letters to each individual who had been issued a personal 
subpoena informing them that all records responsive to the 
Committee's January and February 1996, subpoenas must be 
produced by May 8, 1996. Chairman Clinger sent similar letters 
to White House Counsel Quinn and Attorney General Reno 
informing them that all records responsive to White House and 
Justice Department subpoenas were to be produced by May 8, 
1996.
    Chairman Clinger also announced on May 2, 1996, that he had 
scheduled a Committee business meeting for Thursday, May 9, 
1996, at 9 a.m. to consider a privileged resolution to compel 
production of any subpoenaed records relating to the White 
House Travel Office which were not provided to the Committee by 
May 8, 1996.

                  WHITE HOUSE HISTORY OF STONEWALLING

    The White House response to the several investigations into 
the White House Travel Office matter has been a history of 
three years of stonewalling. Despite a GAO investigation which 
was mandated by law--a law which President Clinton himself 
signed, an OPR investigation conducted by the President's own 
political appointee, and criminal investigations conducted by 
the Justice Department; the White House has continued to 
withhold documents relating to Travelgate. An abbreviated 
history of the stonewalling follows.

A. GAO Investigation

    On July 2, 1993, a law was signed by the President which 
included a provision mandating the GAO review of the Travel 
Office. The report originally was to be completed by September 
30, 1993, but due in part to numerous White House delays, 
interviews were not completed until March 1994 and the report 
finished in May 1994. Last fall, a GAO representative testified 
before this Committee that the measure of cooperation received 
from the White House was less than optimal. She further 
testified that not all documents were provided to GAO by the 
White House. 19 Indeed, the White House denied GAO 
responsive documents that only came to light after this 
Committee began its investigation. The following is an overview 
of White House delays in document production with GAO:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ GAO official Nancy Kingsbury testified before the Committee on 
October 24, 1995, ``As a practical matter, we depend on and usually 
receive the candor and cooperation of agency officials and other 
involved parties and access to all their records. In candor, I can't 
say that there has been quite as generous an outpouring of cooperation 
in this case as might have been desirable.'' See, White House Travel 
Office--Day One, Hearings before the House Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, 104th Cong., 2d Sess., January 24, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the Justice Department did not object to the White 
House interviewing Catherine Cornelius, David Watkins, and a 
number of other employees in the course of the White House 
Management Review despite the fact that there was an ongoing 
criminal investigation, the Justice Department did delay and/or 
prevent GAO from completing some of its interviews.
    GAO experienced months of delays while seeking documents 
regarding the Travel Office matter and ultimately did not 
receive all relevant documents pursuant to its document 
requests. The White House Counsel's Office worked to narrow the 
scope of GAO document requests throughout that period.
    As a result of the narrowed document requests, the White 
House failed to provide the Vince Foster Travel Office file 
(which White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum kept in his office 
following Mr. Foster's death), and the White House failed to 
provide the White House Management Review interview notes.
    Even the narrowed request however, does not explain why the 
White House failed to provide the Watkins ``soul cleansing 
memo.'' David Watkins, Matt Moore and Patsy Thomasson all had 
copies of the memo and all were made aware of the various 
document requests and subpoenas. Matt Moore himself was 
involved in the process of producing documents.
    White House failed to provide any documents related to the 
efforts by Harry Thomason and Darnell Martens to obtain GSA 
contracts for their company, TRM.
    GAO noted that the level of cooperation that it received 
from the White House was not conducive to properly conducting 
its work.

B. OPR Investigation

    On July 15, 1993, Deputy Attorney General Phillip Heymann 
called on the Justice Department's Office of Professional 
Responsibility (OPR) to conduct a review of the FBI's role in 
the Travel Office firings. Later, after Vincent Foster's death 
and the discovery of his ``suicide note,'' Mr. Heymann added to 
the investigation a review of the comments in Vincent Foster's 
note which mentioned that the ``FBI lied.''
    This OPR investigation was ordered after President Clinton 
himself wrote to the then Chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
that his Administration would cooperate with any Justice 
Department investigation. As discussed supra, OPR Counsel 
Michael Shaheen later wrote that he was ``stunned'' by the 
documents withheld from his inquiry and did not believe the 
White House officials he dealt with were cooperative.
    The following is an overview of the White House delays and 
denials in responding to the Office of Professional 
Responsibility investigation:
    White House failed to provide the Vince Foster Travel 
Office file. OPR Counsel Michael Shaheen wrote a scathing memo 
in July 1995 about not receiving this document for OPR's 
investigation. Mr. Shaheen wrote: ``we were stunned to learn of 
the existence of this document since it so obviously bears 
directly upon the inquiry we were directed to undertake in late 
July and August 1993 . . .''
    The White House only provided the White House Management 
Review notes from the interview with Vincent Foster to OPR. OPR 
had asked for all of the interview notes. Mr. Shaheen wrote: 
``The White House declined to provide the notes and failed to 
mention the existence of any handwritten notes by Mr. Foster on 
the subject.''
    Mr. Shaheen also stated in his memo: ``we believe that our 
repeated requests to White House personnel and counsel for any 
information that could shed light on Mr. Foster's statement 
regarding the FBI clearly covered the notebook [the Vince 
Foster Travel Office notebook] and that even a minimum level of 
cooperation by the White House should have resulted in its 
disclosure to us at the outset of our investigation.''
    Shaheen noted that the Vince Foster Travel Office notebook 
also had been withheld from the Independent Counsel.
    Mr. Shaheen and members of his staff informed Committee 
Counsel in an interview that by December, 1993, OPR was 
considering going to the Attorney General to request a full 
investigation into the Travel Office matter because of the 
``very dangerous signals'' sent to the investigators which 
indicated possible obstruction of its investigation. Shaheen 
and his investigators noted that the memories of White House 
witnesses were very vague and this was only several months 
after the events in question. Mr. Shaheen's investigation was 
cut short by the appointment of the Independent Counsel.

C. Justice Department, Public Integrity Section

    In May, 1993, the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. 
Department of Justice began a criminal investigation into the 
Travel Office matter and shortly thereafter began an 
investigation into the roles of Harry Thomason and Darnell 
Martens at the White House.
    In the course of the Public Integrity Section's 
investigation, the White House engaged in the extraordinary 
step of withholding documents from its own Justice Department 
which was, at the time, conducting a criminal investigation 
into the actions of presidential friend Harry Thomason as well 
as a criminal investigation of Billy Dale. The Clinton White 
House foot-dragging with Justice Department prosecutors caused 
Clinton appointee and head of the Public Integrity Section, Lee 
Radek, to write in an internal memo:

    At this point we are not confident that the White House has 
produced to us all documents in its possession relating to the 
Thomason allegations . . .  [T]he White House's incomplete 
production greatly concerns us because the integrity of our 
review is entirely dependent upon securing all relevant 
documents.

    The following is an overview of White House delays and 
denials in dealing with the investigation of the Justice 
Department's Public Integrity Section.
          July of 1993.--The Department of Justice began trying 
        to get an interview with Harry Thomason while 
        Thomason's lawyer began trying to get access to the 
        White House Management Review interview notes of Harry 
        Thomason.
          Summer of 1993.--Public Integrity began seeking 
        documents from the White House in the summer of 1993 
        but received little information. As of September 30, 
        1993, Prosecutor Goldberg wrote to the White House ``to 
        confirm that the White House had only located two 
        documents related to Harry Thomason.''
          October 12, 1993.--White House Counsel sent an 
        agreement which would allow Public Integrity prosecutor 
        Goldberg to ``view'' two Harry Thomason memos.
          November 12, 1993.--Goldberg signed an agreement to 
        view two Harry Thomason ``White House project'' memos 
        but not take any notes or make copies. At this point, 
        almost six months after the firings and six months 
        after the initiation of an investigation into Travel 
        Office related matters, no one at the White House 
        appears to have mentioned the GSA/ICAP contracts Harry 
        Thomason and Darnell Martens generated while seeking 
        business for their company, TRM.
          January 1994--Spring of 1994.--Public Integrity 
        continued to seek documents about Harry Thomason's 
        activities at the White House and received its first 
        ICAP/GSA contract documents regarding efforts by Harry 
        Thomason and Darnell Martens to seek government 
        contracts.
          March 14, 1994.--Public Integrity wrote to White 
        House Counsel Eggleston asking for confirmation in 
        writing that the White House had searched for all Harry 
        Thomason files.
          April 5, 1994.--Neil Eggleston distributed a memo to 
        gather all Harry Thomason and Darnell Martens documents 
        by April 7, 1994. It requires a signed certification 
        stating: ``I have searched my files and I have no 
        documents responsive to the requests set forth in this 
        memorandum.''
          April 5, 1994.--An FBI e-mail on this date titled: 
        ``WHTO Update'' states: ``there has been some problem 
        in obtaining records from the White House regarding 
        Thomason's duties and responsibilities. Goldberg is 
        considering issuing a subpoena * * * ''
          Spring 1994.--Production of Harry Thomason documents 
        to Public Integrity continues. Matt Moore and Neil 
        Eggleston were involved in document production. (Matt 
        Moore possessed copies of the Watkins memos that never 
        were turned over.)
          May 11, 1994.--Neil Eggleston, Joel Klein and Marvin 
        Krislov (all in the White House Counsel's office) wrote 
        a letter to the Independent Counsel addressing how the 
        White House would comply with the Independent Counsel's 
        grand jury subpoena. (Their letter narrowed the scope 
        of the Independent Counsel's initial request.)
          Sometime in May 1994.--Eggleston reviews the Foster 
        Travel Office file to determine if it is responsive to 
        the Special Counsel Robert Fiske subpoena. He decides 
        that it is not. Eggleston apparently ignores the fact 
        that the Foster Travel Office file, which mentions 
        Harry Thomason and Darnell Martens throughout, IS 
        responsive to the Public Integrity document requests.
          June 24, 1993.--Neil Eggleston writes a letter to 
        Stuart Goldberg informing him that Public Integrity has 
        all of the Harry Thomason documents as of this date. 
        (Vince Foster Travel Office file is not included.)
          July 10, 1994.--Neil Eggleston writes a memo to Lloyd 
        Cutler about the Vince Foster Travel Office file and 
        why it wasn't produced to any investigation to date. 
        Eggleston recommends producing only portions of the 
        Foster notebook to Public Integrity by that Tuesday 
        (July 12, 1994). Those portions are not provided until 
        one month later.
          August 19, 1994.--Neil Eggleston provides the 
        additional documents from Foster's Travel Office 
        notebook to Public Integrity (approximately 20 pages of 
        the 100-plus page document are provided).
          August 30, 1994.--Public Integrity prosecutor 
        Goldberg writes the White House to ask why Harry 
        Thomason documents were withheld and asks for an 
        explanation by September 8, 1994.
          September 8, 1994.--Neil Eggleston writes Goldberg 
        explaining why he failed to turn over all of the Harry 
        Thomason documents saying ``I sincerely apologize for 
        the oversight and hope that the delay in production of 
        these documents has not caused you any inconvenience * 
        * * please be advised that I have resigned effective 
        September 8, 1994.''
          September 8, 1994.--Public Integrity Chief Lee Radek 
        writes a memo to Jack Keeney stating: ``At this point 
        we are not confident that the White House has produced 
        to us all documents in its possession relating to the 
        Thomason allegations * * * the White House's incomplete 
        production greatly concerns us because the integrity of 
        our review is entirely dependent upon securing all 
        relevant documents.''
          September 13, 1994.--A Grand Jury subpoena for 
        documents from the White House relating to Harry 
        Thomason and Darnell Martens is served on the White 
        House with a September 30, 1994, due date.
          September 30, 1994.--All Harry Thomason and Darnell 
        Martens records pursuant to the September 13, 1994, 
        subpoena are due to the Grand Jury. The White House 
        produced a ``PRIVILEGE LOG'' which identifies more than 
        120 documents that the White House refuses to turn over 
        to its own Justice Department in the course of a 
        criminal investigation involving activities at the 
        White House.
          July 6, 1995.--White House provides complete Vince 
        Foster Travel Office file to the press.
          July 28, 1995.--White House, in responding to Public 
        Integrity prosecutor Goldberg, sends more pages of 
        Vince Foster Travel Office notebook.
          August 17, 1995.--Public Integrity prosecutor 
        Goldberg reviews more Vince Foster documents at the 
        White House with White House Associate Counsel Natalie 
        Williams.
          November 4, 1995.--In the midst of the Billy Dale 
        trial, a White House Associate Counsel faxes a memo on 
        the Travel Office files that is dated 5/21/93. The memo 
        was from a member of the White House Records Management 
        staff who expressed concerns about the handling of the 
        documents in the Travel Office after the firings. The 
        memo had not been provided previously to Public 
        Integrity or to defendant Billy Dale, whose criminal 
        trial was under way.
          November 6, 1995.--The White House sends additional 
        unknown documents to Public Integrity prosecutor 
        Goldberg.
    In summary, it took the White House nearly six months to 
allow Public Integrity prosecutors to see any documents related 
to Harry Thomason and nearly a year to provide most of the 
ICAP/GSA documents. The White House failed to provide the Vince 
Foster Travel Office file in its entirety until July, 1995, 
after it released the file to the press. Portions of the file 
had been provided to Public Integrity in August, 1994. A 
September, 1994, subpoena failed to produce this document in 
its entirety.
    The White House also failed to provide the Watkins ``soul 
cleansing memo'' which was in Patsy Thomasson's files despite 
numerous document requests and the September, 1994, subpoena. 
At the very least, David Watkins, Matt Moore and Patsy 
Thomasson were aware of the existence of this document 
throughout the course of document requests.
    Even after the September, 1994, subpoena from Public 
Integrity, the White House produced a privilege log of 120-plus 
documents it refused to provide to its own Justice Department 
in the course of a criminal investigation. White House 
production of documents to Public Integrity continued 
throughout the course of the Billy Dale trial in October-
November, 1995. Since these documents belatedly were provided 
to Public Integrity, they also belatedly were provided to the 
defendant during his trial instead of before the trial began. 
Public Integrity does not appear to have sought documents 
directly from Harry Thomason until after the Billy Dale trial 
ended and after both the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight and the Independent Counsel had sought documents from 
Mr. Thomason and Mr. Martens. New--never before known of--
documents regarding efforts by Mr. Thomason and Mr. Martens to 
seek business for TRM were included in these productions to the 
Justice Department after Billy Dale's trial.
    Public Integrity's tolerance of White House foot-dragging 
was in stark contrast to the aggressive pursuit of Billy Dale 
and his family throughout the course of the criminal 
investigation of Mr. Dale.

D. Committee Investigation

            1. Ranking Member Clinger's efforts in the Minority, 1993-
                    94:
    On June 16, 1993, Ranking Minority Member Bill Clinger 
joined House Republican leadership in requesting documents and 
answers to questions regarding the Travel Office. No 
substantive response ever was provided.
          August 6, 1993.--Chairman Clinger joins Republican 
        leadership in requesting information on the IRS 
        investigation and other Travel Office questions. (No 
        substantive response ever was provided.)
          October 15, 1993.--Chairman Clinger writes Bernard 
        Nussbaum concerning the status of Harry Thomason as a 
        special government employee. (No substantive response 
        ever was provided.)
          September 13, 1994.--Chairman Clinger requests that 
        the White House provide access to GAO documents 
        maintained at the White House. (Request never 
        provided--later memo shows White House Counsel Neil 
        Eggleston recommended turning down the request after 
        the Appropriations bill for the White House had 
        passed.)
          September 20, 1994.--Chairman Clinger again requests 
        to review GAO documents at the White House.
          October 1994.--Chairman Clinger issues a report 
        analyzing the GAO report on the Travel Office and 
        calling for hearings on the discrepancies in the GAO 
        work papers versus the actual report and other various 
        outstanding issues.
            2. Chairman Clinger's Efforts in the Majority, 1995--
                    Present.
    Once elected Chairman of the new Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, Chairman Clinger announced that he would 
continue the Committee's investigation into the White House 
Travel Office matter. On June 14, 1995, the Committee makes 
first document request to White House focusing on the White 
House Management Review documents and documents related to all 
of Harry Thomason's activities.
          Throughout June and July, 1995.--White House fails to 
        produce any documents and requests that the Committee 
        hire security guards to protect any documents provided 
        to the Committee.
          July 18, 1995.--White House produces the Vince Foster 
        Travel Office file several weeks after providing it to 
        the press.
          August 2, 1995.--White House produces documents, 90% 
        of which previously have been made publicly available 
        (i.e. White House Management Review copies, GAO report 
        copies, press conference transcripts).
          August 9, 1995.--White House produces more copies of 
        the Management Review from various files and several 
        miscellaneous documents.
          August 28, 1995.--White House produces miscellaneous 
        handwritten notes by White House employees.
          September 5, 1995.--White House produces a privilege 
        log identifying 900 pages of documents from the White 
        House Management Review.
          September 13, 1995.--After negative press reaction to 
        White House privilege log, the White House produces 
        approximately 400 pages of interview notes from the 900 
        pages of Management Review documents.
          September 18, 1995.--White House produces Bruce 
        Lindsey documents regarding efforts by Harry Thomason 
        and Darnell Martens to obtain GSA consulting contracts 
        for their business, TRM. These documents had not been 
        identified previously as documents that were being 
        withheld in the privilege log. (On this same day, Harry 
        Thomason cancels a previously scheduled interview with 
        Committee staff.)
    On September 18, 1995, the Committee makes a second 
document request to White House requesting all White House 
Travel Office documents from all of the various investigations.
          September 25, 1995.--White House produces more notes 
        from the White House Management Review.
          September 28, 1995.--White House produces more 
        documents from Bruce Lindsey's office, Counsel's office 
        and Office of Administration.
          October 4, 1995.--White House produces additional 
        White House Management Review documents.
          October 5, 1995.--White House produces documents from 
        Neil Eggleston and Bill Kennedy.
          October 13, 1995.--White House produces documents 
        from Counsel's office, Office of Administration and 
        Records Management.
          October 17, 1995.--White House produces documents 
        from Cliff Sloan, Neil Eggleston and various White 
        House Management Review files.
          October 24, 1995.--Committee holds first hearing on 
        the Travel Office matter.
          October 26, 1995.--Billy Dale embezzlement trial 
        begins.
          November 14, 1995.--White House produces more White 
        House Management Review documents, including lengthy 
        chronologies and drafts, but still does not provide the 
        legal analysis prepared by Beth Nolan concerning Harry 
        Thomason's status as a special government employee 
        (staff is allowed to review).
          November 16, 1995.--Billy Dale acquitted.
          December 19, 1995.--White House Counsel sends out 
        memo to all staff to respond to Committee document 
        requests.
          December 22, 1995.--White House produces more 
        documents from Joel Klein, Office of Records 
        Management, Cliff Sloan, Patsy Thomasson and Counsel's 
        office.
          December 29, 1995.--Watkins memo allegedly found at 
        White House.
          January 3, 1996.--White House produces more documents 
        from various White House offices. Watkins memo is 
        produced.
    On January 5, 1996, the Committee issues bipartisan 
subpoenas to David Watkins and Harry Thomason for all 
documents. On January 11, 1996, the Committee issues bipartisan 
subpoenas to the White House for all outstanding documents and 
to six individuals at White House. Responsive documents are due 
to the Committee on January 22, 1996.
          January 22, 1996.--White House produces documents 
        from Counsel's office, Chief of Staff's office, Office 
        of Administration and other offices.
          January 29, 1996.--White House produces documents 
        from miscellaneous files including those of Patsy 
        Thomasson and Catherine Cornelius.
          February 1, 1996.--White House Counsel sends out memo 
        to all staff requesting all documents responsive to the 
        January 11, 1996 subpoena due on January 22, 1996.
          February 14, 1996.--White House produces documents 
        from various individual files.
    On February 7, 1996, the Committee sends individual 
subpoenas to more than 25 present and former White House staff 
(due February 26, 1996). On February 15, 1996, the Committee 
issues interrogatories to the First Lady due on February 29, 
1996. A subsequent request for an additional three weeks to 
respond was granted.
          February 15, 1996.--White House distributes a memo to 
        present and former staff, volunteers and others who 
        received personal subpoenas requesting that they turn 
        over their documents to the White House and stating 
        that the White House in turn will produce relevant 
        documents to the Committee.
          February 22, 1996.--White House produces documents 
        from various White House offices, including notes taken 
        by a White House intern monitoring the Billy Dale trial 
        and documents related to Billy Dale trial. White House 
        represents that responsive documents have been produced 
        and this should complete production but that there are 
        documents they believe are subject to privilege which 
        they are withholding. No privilege log is provided.
          March 4, 1996.--White House produces additional 
        documents.
          March 8, 1996.--White House produces documents from 
        Cliff Sloan, Todd Stern, Matt Moore, Dee Dee Myers, 
        Natalie Williams and Counsel's office.
          March 15, 1996.--White House produces a small number 
        of documents including a never before produced letter 
        to the First Lady from David Watkins dated May 3, 
        1994--the day after the GAO Travel Office Report was 
        issued.
          March 21, 1996.--First Lady provides responses to 
        Committee's interrogatories regarding the Travel 
        Office.
          April 1, 1996.--White House produces additional 
        documents including the first e-mail produced by the 
        White House.
          April 2, 1996.--White House produces additional 
        documents from Cliff Sloan's records and Office of 
        Personal Correspondence.
          April 18, 1996.--White House produces documents from 
        Dee Dee Myers that were left out of earlier productions 
        (documents are notes from May, 1993, concerning the 
        Travel Office).
          April 24, 1996.--White House produces several pages 
        of additional documents from Tom Castleton, David 
        Watkins and Information & Systems Technology.
          May 9, 1996.--White House continues to withhold 
        documents related to the Travel Office matter. The 
        Committee votes to hold Messrs. Quinn, Watkins and 
        Moore in contempt of Congress.

                        INVOCATION OF PRIVILEGES

A. Assertion of executive privilege

            1. Background
    As has been fully recounted above, the Committee's 
investigation of the Travel Office firings has been prolonged, 
and essentially thwarted, by the tactics of delay, obfuscation, 
and deliberate obstruction by the White House, and in 
particular by the custodian of the documents sought, White 
House Counsel John M. Quinn. Following failures to supply 
documents responsive to its written requests of June 14, and 
September 18, 1995, and the belated discovery of the Watkins 
memo on December 29, 1995, the Committee, with full bipartisan 
concurrence, issued subpoenas duces tecum to David Watkins on 
January 5, 1996, Mr. John Quinn on January 11, 1996, 20 
and to Matthew Moore on February 6, 1996, with return dates of 
January 11, 1996, January 22, 1996, and February 26, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ The subpoena was directed to the ``Custodian of Records, 
Executive Office of the President.'' White House Counsel John M. Quinn 
has acknowledged, through actions and words, that he is the custodian 
of the documents sought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A protracted process of attempted accommodation ensued 
which resulted in the discovery of previously requested or 
subpoenaed material amongst the production of various groupings 
of theretofore withheld documents. A rolling production of 
records ensued which continued sporadically for more than three 
months with no plausible explanation as to why documents were 
not found and produced earlier, and without any agreement as to 
a definitive timetable for the completion of the document 
production. Indeed, the White House throughout this period 
continually refused to supply the Committee with either an 
index of the documents being withheld or a privilege log 
specifically identifying documents for which presidential 
privilege was being claimed. The White House Counsel's Office 
also intervened with individuals with records subpoenaed by the 
Committee to have them send documents in their possession to 
the White House rather than directly to the Committee.
    On May 2, 1996, Chairman Clinger advised White House 
Counsel Quinn, Attorney General Janet Reno, and former White 
House aides David Watkins and Matthew Moore that they were not 
in compliance with the subpoenas previously served on them, 
that the final return date for the covered material would be 
close of business May 8, 1996, and that a meeting of the full 
Committee was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on May 9, 1996, at which 
time a vote on a resolution to cite them for contempt of 
Congress would be held if production of the records was not 
forthcoming. There followed a series of written and oral 
communications in which the White House adamantly refused to 
modify its stance of non-compliance or to supply an unequivocal 
constitutional basis for its position.
    In a May 3 letter to Chairman Clinger, Mr. Quinn decried 
the threat of a contempt citation as an election season 
``political tactic.'' In a conversation between Mr. Quinn and 
Chairman Clinger on the morning of May 3, the Chairman informed 
Mr. Quinn that an impediment to the resolution of the dispute 
was the Committee's inability to understand the nature of the 
documents being withheld and suggested again that a privilege 
log be supplied. That evening Mr. Quinn responded with a 
telecopied letter to the Chairman broadly describing the 
categories of documents being withheld:

          1. Documents relating to ongoing grand jury 
        investigations by the Independent Counsel;
          2. Documents created in connection with Congressional 
        hearings concerning the Travel Office matter; and
          3. Certain specific confidential internal White House 
        Counsel Office documents, including ``setting'' notes, 
        certain other counsel votes, memoranda which contain 
        pure legal analysis, and personnel records which are of 
        the type protected by the Privacy Act.

    There was no indication that any of these documents involve 
communications to or from the President nor was there any 
specific claim of presidential privilege, only an allusion to 
the President's right to have the services of White House 
counsel who can operate with sufficient confidentiality to 
serve him.
    Chairman Clinger responded by letter on May 6, explaining 
that the expansion of the Committee's investigation was the 
direct result of finding ``significant evidence that the White 
House Counsel's Office was used to coordinate official 
responses to investigative bodies and, too often, deny 
investigative agencies with appropriate access to that 
information'' which has raised serious questions ``[w]hether 
these actions met the standards for improper, even criminal 
conduct.'' The Chairman also made it clear that his May 2 
letter rejected an earlier (February 15, 1996) offer of limited 
access to certain documents conditioned on a surrender of the 
right of access to all other documents, and reiterated the 
firmness of the May 8 return date. Mr. Quinn responded that 
same day expressing a desire to continue to work toward a 
compromise solution, and offered to discuss making available 
material related to the IRS and FBI inquiries.
    The Chairman responded to this last communication the next 
day, May 7, expressing appreciation for the offer of the IRS 
and FBI records, but noting that the IRS document had been 
previously promised, and that with respect to the FBI records, 
it was the first time the Committee heard anything about the 
White House withholding FBI records. Mr. Clinger also invited 
the submission of a written assertion of presidential executive 
privilege by 8:00 a.m., May 9, 1996, which would be transmitted 
to all members of the Committee.
    On May 7, counsel for David Watkins submitted a legal 
memorandum claiming that drafts of the Watkins soul cleansing 
memo in the possession of Matthew Moore are protected by the 
attorney-client and work product privileges.
    On May 8, Mr. Quinn, during a meeting with the Chairman and 
the Ranking Minority Member, transmitted to the Committee a 
memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel, Department of 
Justice, suggesting that the scheduled vote on the criminal 
contempt citations be canceled and that legislation be passed 
vesting jurisdiction in a federal district court to resolve the 
subpoena compliance issue in a civil contempt proceeding before 
the court. In a response to the Ranking Minority Member dated 
that same day, the Chairman rejected the proposal as 
unreasonable, but advised that he would delay the filing of the 
Committee report on the contempt resolution to provide 
additional time for the White House to comply.
    On the morning of May 9, Mr. Quinn wrote the Chairman 
expressing his view that the threat of criminal contempt is 
``irresponsible'' and ``calculated not to find the truth but 
instead to make a political point.'' He asserted that the 
Committee's subpoenas were not ``sufficiently specific . . . to 
establish the demonstrably critical showing that the courts 
require in order for an oversight Committee to overcome the 
executive branch's strong interest in confidential and candid 
communications. Instead, you have unilaterally determined that 
this President is not entitled to any confidential legal 
communications and, therefore, any defense.'' Mr. Quinn then 
informed the Chairman that the Attorney General had provided 
the President with an opinion that ``executive privilege may be 
properly asserted with respect to the entire set of White House 
Counsel's Office documents currently being withheld from the 
Committee, pending a final Presidential decision on the 
matter,'' and that pursuant to that opinion the President had 
directed him to invoke executive privilege ``as a protective 
matter'' with respect to all the contested documents. The 
letter concluded with a request that any action with respect to 
the failure to comply with the subpoenas be held in abeyance 
pending the President's decision whether to claim privilege 
with respect to specific, individual documents.
    By a vote of 27-19, the Committee on May 9 agreed to report 
a resolution of contempt of Messrs. Quinn, Watkins and Moore to 
the floor of the House. 21 The Chairman announced, 
however, that he would delay transmitting the Committee report 
to the floor to allow further opportunity for resolution of the 
dispute. But as of the date of the transmittal of this report, 
there has been no meaningful movement toward accommodation by 
the White House nor has there been an official written 
assertion of executive privilege by the President pursuant to 
the procedures implemented by President Reagan on November 4, 
1982, and adopted by President Clinton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Prior to the Committee meeting, the Department of Justice 
agreed to comply with demands for documents in its possession. The 
portion of the contempt resolution directed at Attorney General Reno 
therefore was dropped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            2. There has been no effective claim of executive privilege 
                    by the President
    In his May 2, 1996, letter to White House Counsel John M. 
Quinn, Chairman Clinger unequivocally set the close of business 
May 8 as the final return date for subpoena duces tecum issued 
on January 11, 1996. The Chairman reiterated the finality of 
that closure date in his subsequent correspondence with Mr. 
Quinn on May 6 and 7 and in a meeting with him on May 8. Mr. 
Quinn acknowledged his understanding of the due date and the 
consequences of non-compliance and made it clear in his letters 
of May 2 and 3 that his failure to comply would be intentional. 
Thus, as of the close of business on May 8, upon his failure to 
timely produce the subpoenaed documents admittedly in his 
custody and control, Mr. Quinn's contempt was complete. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 329-30 (1950) (``[W]hen 
the government introduced evidence in this case that respondent validly 
had been served with a lawful subpoena directing her to produce records 
within her custody and control, and that on the day set out in subpoena 
she intentionally failed to comply, it made a prima facie case of 
willful default.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 7, Chairman Clinger invited Mr. Quinn to submit 
either a written statement setting forth valid claims of 
executive privilege signed by the President by 8:00 a.m. May 9. 
Mr. Quinn accepted that invitation by a letter of that date 
that related the view of Attorney General Reno that the 
President presently could assert executive privilege for all 
the subject documents until such time as he made final decision 
on the matter. Mr. Quinn advised that he had been directed to 
inform the Committee that the President was invoking executive 
privilege ``as a protective matter, with respect to all 
documents in the categories identified on page 3'' of the 
letter,'' until such time as the President, after consultation 
with the Attorney General, makes a final decision as to which 
specific documents require a claim of executive privilege.'' On 
the afternoon of May 9 the Committee voted to cite Mr. Quinn in 
contempt. The Chairman, however, agreed to delay transmission 
of the contempt report to the floor to allow for receipt of a 
further communication from the President on the matter of the 
privilege claim.
    As of the date of the transmittal of this report, it has 
been several weeks since the invocation of the ``protective'' 
privilege claim, there still has been no compliance with the 
Committee's subpoena nor has there been an official 
presidential invocation of executive privilege pursuant to the 
procedures established by President Reagan on November 22, 
1982, and adopted by President Clinton. Under those procedures, 
if designated officials, including the Attorney General, 
determine ``that the circumstances justify invocation of 
executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the 
President by the counsel to the President, who will advise the 
Department Head and the Attorney General of the President's 
decision.'' If the President decides to invoke the privilege, 
the decision is to be communicated to the congressional 
committee requesting the information that the claim is made 
with the specific approval of the President. In the past, 
Presidents in fact have executed and signed claims of privilege 
which have accompanied a detailed justification prepared by the 
subpoenaed official.
    Under these circumstances, it is the belief of the 
Committee that it has waited a respectful period of time for 
receipt of the appropriate presidential claim. The self-imposed 
procedures for such claims are the Committee's only guide to 
the President's intention and are presumably binding on him in 
this situation.23 A ``protective'' claim cannot endure 
indefinitely, stymying this Committee's investigation still 
further. Mr. Quinn's and Attorney General Reno's letters 
acknowledge that only the President himself can invoke the 
privilege. He has not done so. The Committee therefore 
determines that a reasonable period has elapsed for the 
President to make his claim and that the privilege has been 
waived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ See. e.g., Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 382-89 (1957); 
United States ex el Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 265-67 
(1954); Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535, 539-40 (1959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            3. Even if the protective claim of privilege were 
                    effective, it is insufficient to overcome the 
                    committee's lawful demand and need
    In United States v. Nixon,24 the Supreme Court for the 
first time recognized a constitutional basis for executive 
privilege holding that ``the protection of the confidentiality 
of Presidential communications has * * * constitutional 
underpinnings.'' 25 But the Court unequivocally rejected 
President Nixon's claim to an absolute privilege. Blanket 
claims, it held, are unacceptable without further, discrete 
justification, and then only the need to protect military, 
national security, or foreign affairs secrets are to receive 
deferential treatment in the face of a legitimate coordinate 
branch demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ 418 U.S. 683 (1973).
    \25\ 418 U.S. at 705-06.

          However, neither the doctrine of separation of 
        powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level 
        communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, 
        unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from 
        judicial process under all circumstances. The 
        President's need for complete candor and objectivity 
        from advisers calls for great deference from the 
        courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on 
        the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in 
        the confidentiality of such conversations, a 
        confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim 
        of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive 
        national security secrets, we find it difficult to 
        accept the argument that even the very important 
        interest in confidentiality of Presidential 
        communications is significantly diminished by 
        production of such material for in camera inspection 
        with all the protection that a district court will be 
        obliged to provide.
          * * * * * * *
          To read the Article II powers of the President as 
        providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena 
        essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no 
        more than a generalized claim of the public interest in 
        confidentiality of non-military and non-diplomatic 
        discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 
        `a workable government' and gravely impair the role of 
        the courts under Article III.26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Id. at 706, 707.

    In the matter before this Committee, the President's 
blanket, undifferentiated assertion of so-called ``protection'' 
privilege is unacceptable. There is not involved here any 
matter involving the need to protect military, diplomatic, or 
national security secrets. Nor is there any claim that what is 
involved are confidential communications between the President 
and his closest advisors. What is involved in this instance is 
the legitimate exercise of this Committee's constitutional 
prerogative to engage in effective oversight of the Executive 
Branch, which the Supreme Court has acknowledged is at its peak 
when the subject of investigation is alleged waste, fraud, 
abuse, or maladministration within a government department or 
even the White House. The investigative power, it has stated, 
``comprehends probes into departments of the federal Government 
to expose corruption, inefficiency, or waste.'' 27 ``[T]he 
first Congresses,'' it continued, held ``inquiries dealing with 
suggested corruption or mismanagement of government 
officials'',28 and subsequently, in a series of 
decisions,'' [t]he Court recognized the danger to effective and 
honest conduct of the Government if the legislative power to 
curb corruption in the Executive Branch unduly were hampered.'' 
29 Accordingly, the court stated, it recognizes ``the 
power of the Congress to inquire into and publicize corruption, 
maladministration, or inefficiencies in the agencies of 
Government.'' 30
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ 354 U.S. at 187.
    \28\ Id. at 182.
    \29\ Id. at 194-95.
    \30\ Id. at 200 n.33. See also, McGrain v. Daugherty, 272 U.S. 135, 
151, 177(1927); Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109,111 (1960); 
Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 504 n. 15 
(1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the Committee has gathered documents during the course 
of this investigation, a record has developed demonstrating 
that numerous previous Travel Office investigations were 
stymied by an unusual amount of resistance, delay, and denial 
in the production of necessary documents. Many congressional 
investigations, including this one, attempt to determine not 
only why certain activities occurred but why an administration 
has not acted or why they have delayed certain actions. From 
the first days of the Travel Office debacle, the President 
committed to cooperate. However, as discussed supra, even 
Justice Department officials have indicated that they were met 
with any unusual lack of candor and cooperation from White 
House officials. The dilatory tactics engaged in by the White 
House in producing documents for various investigations into 
the Travel Office and related matters have wasted hundreds of 
hours in staff time of the GAO and various divisions of the 
Justice Department. The Committee now seeks documents to 
determine why the White House engaged in such conduct and why 
such mal-administration occurred. Historically, such documents 
have been provided congressional committees, including such 
production by this Administration.31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ See Footnote 11. During a document dispute with the House 
Commerce Committee, then chaired by Rep. John D. Dingell, President 
Clinton's Justice Department turned over law enforcement sensitive 
documents to Congress after at first arguing that they were protected 
deliberative documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Nixon case, of course, did not involve the assertion of 
executive privilege in response to a congressional demand for 
information,32 but under the circumstances of this 
situation the Committee is confident that a court will reject 
the President's blanket claim of privilege in the face of this 
Committee's proper exercise of its oversight authority, its 
patience in pursuing the subject documents, and its palpable 
need for the documents it has sought. The Executive's conduct 
in the course of this matter can be seen as an affront to the 
Committee and the Congress. We reject the claim of privilege 
presented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ 418 U.S. at 712 n. 19 (``We are not here concerned with the 
balance between the President's generalized interest in confidentiality 
in and congressional demands for information.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Claims of attorney-client and work product privilege

            1. Background
    On January 3, 1996, the White House produced an undated 
nine-page typewritten ``draft'' memorandum by David Watkins in 
which he detailed his version of the ``surrounding 
circumstances and the pressures'' that led to the firing of the 
seven Travel Office employees in May 1993. Described as a 
``soul cleansing,'' it was intended to correct ``inaccuracies 
or erroneous conclusions'' contained in the internal White 
House Travel Office Management Review. The memo was found in 
late December 1995 amongst the files of Patsy Thomasson, then 
the Director of the Office of Administration at the White 
House, and was turned over to the Committee in belated response 
to previous document demands. No privilege was claimed with 
respect to the self-styled ``soul cleansing'' memo.
    On January 5, 1996, the Committee issued a subpoena duces 
tecum to Mr. Watkins for documents and records regarding the 
White House Travel Office matter. On January 15, Watkins' 
attorney Robert Mathias provided a privilege log indicating 
that a November 15, 1993, memorandum from Watkins to his 
counsel, as well as drafts and notes regarding the White House 
management review of Travel Office firings, were being withheld 
on grounds of attorney-client and work product privilege.
    On February 7, the Committee issued a subpoena duces tecum 
to Matthew Moore, a former attorney in the Office of Management 
and Administration for any records related to the White House 
Travel matter, including ``[a]ll records relating to the 
`Watkins memo' found in Patsy Thomasson's files on December 29, 
1995, and produced to the Committee on January 3, 1996, and all 
records of any contacts, communications, or meetings related to 
the findings of this memo.'' On February 26 Mr. Moore responded 
that he would not turn over covered documents in his possession 
for which Mr. Watkins had asserted claims of privilege. The 
documents were identified as ``undated draft memorandum from 
David Watkins re: response to internal travel office review.''
    On May 7, 1996, Mr. Watkins' attorney provided the 
Committee with a letter explaining the factual and legal basis 
for his claims of privilege. Briefly summarized, it states that 
in September 1993, Watkins began preparing a document 
responding to the various conclusions of the internal White 
House Travel Office Management Review. The document went 
through many iterations--at least five and perhaps as many as 
10 according to Moore--between early September and November 15 
when it was finalized as a ``Memorandum for Counsel.'' An 
unspecified number of the early drafts of the document were 
intended as a ``potential'' memo to then-White House Chief of 
Staff McLarty. Watkins enlisted the assistance of Matthew 
Moore, an attorney in the Office of Management and 
Administration, which he headed. Moore had graduated law school 
and passed the bar in 1992 and began work for Watkins in 
February of 1993.
    Moore is claimed by Watkins said to have assisted Watkins 
in the preparation of the memo in two ways. First, he acted as 
a ``scribe,'' typing many of the drafts, and performing an 
editing function. Second, he served to provide a potential 
privilege cloak for the documents: ``Mr. Watkins discussed with 
Mr. Moore, a lawyer, how to prepare the Memorandum for Counsel 
so that it would appropriately be considered privileged and 
confidential.'' The memo, it is asserted, ``was not prepared as 
part of the business of that office,'' and was written in 
Watkins' ``good faith belief that the Memorandum for Counsel 
would be kept privileged and confidential and that Mr. Moore's 
assistance, and status as an attorney, would help preserve the 
privileged and confidential status of the document.'' Copies of 
the draft memorandum were sent to Watkins' private attorney, at 
the time Ty Cobb, for his review and advice. Watkins kept 
drafts of the memos in his ``Ty Cobb file.'' The ``content'' of 
the drafts being withheld by Moore is claimed to be ``the same 
as one of the drafts included within Mr. Watkins' January 15, 
1996, privilege log.''
    Mr. Moore was deposed before the Committee on March 26, 
1996. He testified that ``I do not personally believe I was 
ever in or--ever formed a personal representation or ever 
served as his personal attorney.'' He never was paid for any 
personal representation. In his official capacity in the Office 
of Management and Administration, he would be sought out by 
Watkins for legal advice which Moore would secure by 
``confer[ring]] with the White House Counsel's Office'' and 
then conveying answers to Watkins. Moore's principal function 
was to respond to congressional requests, such as requests for 
further information from Members made at congressional 
hearings.
    Mr. Moore further testified that Patsy Thomasson was 
provided a copy of the ``soul cleansing'' memo and that he 
discussed the memo with Thomasson personally and that the memo 
was discussed at a meeting attended by Watkins, Moore and 
Thomasson.33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ See deposition of Matthew Moore, pages 70-72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question. Did you discuss either Deposition No. 4, Watkins 
memo, or any drafts with any other person other than David 
Watkins?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Can you please tell us who and approximately when 
you would have had those discussions?
    Answer. Patsy Thomasson, and approximately between 
September and November; certainly in September, 1993.
    Question. Would that have been during the period where it 
was being drafted and revised?
    Answer. That's my recollection.
    Question. Can you please tell us what you discussed with 
Patsy? Okay. First, I would ask you to discuss what you 
discussed with Patsy outside the presence of Mr. Watkins.
    Answer. I don't recall specific discussions with her edits 
or changes to the document. However, I do recall one very brief 
conversation in which we very briefly discussed the 
advisability of the preparation of this memo, Deposition 
Exhibit No. 4, the Watkins memo.
    Question. Can you just tell us in a little bit more detail 
what best you remember was said to Ms. Thomasson or by Ms. 
Thomasson?
    Answer. Basically we communicated to each other our view 
that the preparation of the memo was inadvisable.
    Question. How were these discussions held?
    Answer. Can you----
    Question. Were they in person?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Did you ever give her a copy of the Watkins memo 
or any of the other versions?
    Answer. Right. I don't really recall giving her a copy. I 
usually gave the copies straight to David.
    Question. Did you have any discussions about the Watkins 
memo----
    Answer. Can I go back just to say I may have given her a 
copy. I just don't recall.
    Question. Did you ever have any discussions about the 
Watkins memo with Patsy Thomasson in the presence of David 
Watkins? And by ``Watkins memo, I am going to be referring to 
meaning the memo as well as the drafts.
    Answer. I believe so, yes.
    Patsy Thomasson, the Director of the White House Office of 
Administration during the period in which the Watkins memo was 
evolving, was deposed by the Committee on April 22, 1996. She 
reported to Watkins and was not an attorney. She acknowledged 
that she was provided with a copy of the ``soul cleansing'' 
memo by Watkins at the time it was drafted and was asked to 
review it and provide edits and comments. She specifically 
advised Watkins that she ``didn't think it was a good idea for 
him to write a memorandum with regard to the Travel Office.''
    In testimony before the Committee on January 17, 1996, Mr. 
Watkins acknowledged that he initiated the preparation of the 
``soul cleansing'' memo, that Moore acted as a ``scribe'', and 
that the memo contained truthful, accurate facts and 
observations. At no point in his testimony did he claim any 
intent to cloak that memo in privilege. The hearing record also 
reveals that after its discovery in Ms. Thomasson's files, the 
memo was distributed throughout the White House before being 
transmitted to the Committee, and then was released to the 
press by the White House.34
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Hearing, ``White House Travel Office--Day Two,'' before the 
House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 104th Cong., 2d 
sess. 13-14, 17, 25-26 (1996) (Travel Office Hearing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            2. Assertions of claims of attorney-client and work product 
                    before congressional committees
    It is well-established by congressional practice that 
acceptance of a claim of attorney-client or work product 
privilege before a committee rests in the sound discretion of 
that committee. Neither can be claimed as a matter of right by 
a witness, and a committee can deny them simply because it 
believes it needs the information sought to be protected to 
accomplish its legislative functions.35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ See Morton Rosenberg, ``Investigative Oversight: An 
Introduction to the Law, Practice, and Procedure of Congressional 
Inquiry,'' CRS Report No. 95-464A, at 43 (Apr. 7, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In actual practice, all committees that have denied claims 
of privilege have engaged in a process of weighing 
considerations of legislative need, public policy, and the 
statutory duties of congressional committees to engage in 
continuous oversight of the application, administration and 
execution of the laws that fall within its jurisdiction, 
against any possible injury to the witness.36 In the 
particular circumstances of any situation, a committee may 
consider and evaluate the strength of a claimant's assertion in 
light of the pertinency of the documents or information sought 
to the subject of the investigation, the practical 
unavailability of the documents or information from any other 
source, the possible unavailability of the privilege to the 
claimant if it were to be raised in a judicial forum, and a 
committee's assessment of the cooperation of the witnesses in 
the matter, among other considerations. A valid claim of 
privilege, free of any taint of waiver, exception or other 
mitigating circumstance, would merit substantial weight. But 
any serious doubt as to the validity of the asserted claim 
would diminish its compelling character.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ See, e.g., ``Refusal of William H. Kennedy, III, To Produce 
Notes Subpoenaed By The Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater 
Development Corporation and Related Matters,'' Sen. Rept. No. 104-191, 
104th Cong. 1st Sess. 9-19 (1995); ``Proceedings Against Ralph 
Bernstein and Joseph Bernstein,'' H. Rept. No. 99-462, 99th Cong. 2d 
Sess. 13, 14 (1986); Hearings, ``International Uranium Control,'' 
Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 
Vol. 1, 60, 123 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, the conclusion that recognition of non-
constitutionally based privileges is a matter of congressional 
discretion is consistent with both traditional British 
parliamentary and the Congress' historical practice.37
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ See Rosenberg, supra, at 44-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The legal basis for Congress' prerogative in this area is 
premised upon its inherent constitutional prerogative to 
investigate which has been long recognized by the Supreme Court 
as extremely broad and encompassing, and which is at its peak 
when the subject is fraud, abuse, or maladministration within a 
government department.38 It is also founded on the 
Constitution's affirmative grant to each House of the authority 
to establish its own rules of procedure.39 The attorney-
client privilege is, on the other hand, a judge-made exception 
to the normal principle of full disclosure in the adversary 
process which is to be narrowly construed and has been confined 
to the judicial forum.40 The privilege has been deemed 
subject to a variety of exceptions, including communications 
between a client and attorney for the purpose of committing a 
crime or perpetrating a fraud or other obstruction of law at 
some future time, and to a strict standard of waiver.41 
See generally, Paul R. Rice, Attorney-Client Privilege in the 
United States, chaps. 8:2-8:15 and 9 (1993)(Rice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ McGrain v. Daugherty, 272 U.S. 135, 177 (1926); Watkins v. 
United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957); Eastland v. United States 
Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 504 n.15 (1975).
    \39\ See U.S. Constit., Art. I, sec. 5, cl. 2.
    \40\ Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Republic of the 
Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1423 (3d Cir. 1991).
    \41\ However, at least two federal circuits have held that 
disclosures to congressional committees do not waive claims of 
privilege elsewhere. See, Florida House of Representatives v. U.S. 
Dept. of Commerce, 961 F.2d 941, 946 (11th Cir. 1992); Murphy v. 
Department of the Army, 613 F.2d 1151, 1155 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Also see 
generally, Paul R. Rice, Attorney-Client Privilege in the United 
States, chaps. 8:2-8:15 and 9 (1993)(Rice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, the work product privilege,42 another judge-
made evidentiary exception, has always been recognized as a 
qualified privilege which may be overcome by a sufficient 
showing of need. The Supreme Court indicated, in the very case 
in which it created the doctrine, that ``[w]e do not mean to 
say that all [ ] materials obtained or prepared with an eye 
toward litigation are necessarily free from discovery in all 
cases.'' 43 Thus the courts repeatedly have held that the 
work product privilege is not absolute, but rather is only a 
qualified protection against disclosure,44 and that the 
burden is on the party asserting it to establish its 
applicability.45
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Some courts refuse to call the doctrine a privilege at all. In 
City of Philadelphia v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 210 F.Supp. 483, 
485 (E.D. Pa. 1962), mandamus and prohibition denied sub nom. In 
General Electric Corp. v. Kirpatrick, 312 F.2d 742 (3d Cir. 1962), the 
court stated that the work product principle ``is not a privilege at 
all; it is merely a requirement that very good cause be shown if the 
disclosure is made in the course of a lawyer's preparation of a case.''
    \43\ Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1974).
    \44\ See, e.g., Central National Insurance Co. v. Medical 
Protective Co. of Forth Worth, 107 F.R.D. 393, 395 (E.D. Mo. 1985); 
Chepanno v. Champion International Corp., 104 F.R.D. 395, 396 (D. Ore. 
1984).
    \45\ Barclaysamerican Corp. v. Kane, 746 F.2d 653, 656 (10th Cir. 
1984); Nutmeg Insurance Co. v. Atwell Vogel & Sterling, 120 F.R.D. 504, 
510 (W.D. La 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             3. The Watkins Objections to the Subpoena
    Counsel for Watkins has interposed three objections to the 
Committee's subpoenas for the drafts of the Watkins' memo: (1) 
the attorney-client privilege; (2) the work product doctrine; 
(3) and the risk that production would be held to be a waiver 
of the foregoing claimed privileges. The waiver issue will be 
addressed first before turning the privilege claims.
    a. Compliance with a Congressional Subpoena Would Not 
Affect a General Waiver of the Attorney-Client or Work Product 
Privileges.
    Counsel's concern that production of the subpoenaed drafts 
would result in a broad waiver of his client's common law 
privileges is without substantial foundation. The courts have 
long recognized that disclosure of documents in response to a 
court order is compelled, not voluntary, and, therefore, such 
disclosure does not function as a waiver of privilege.46
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ See, e.g., Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the 
Phillippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1427 n. 14 (3d Cir. 1991) (Holding that if 
the party that first invoked, but then withdrew its assertion of the 
privilege, and instead ``continued to object to the subpoena and 
produced the documents only after being ordered to do so, we would not 
consider its disclosure of those documents would be voluntary.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Disclosure to Congress pursuant to a subpoena issued in the 
course of a legitimate investigation of the Executive Branch 
would similarly not affect a waiver. Two circuits and two 
district courts expressly have recognized in the context of 
public requests for information under the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA) that, in light of Congress' superior 
rights to information, disclosure to Congress of arguably 
privileged materials does not result in a waiver of any 
privilege under FOIA. In Florida House of Representatives v. 
U.S. Department of Commerce,47 the appeals court held that 
because the FOIA exemption for ``deliberative process'' 
material may not be exercised against Congress, efforts to 
resist such a subpoena on grounds of privilege would be 
fruitless. Because the subpoena could not be resisted 
successfully, the court reasoned, providing the material to the 
Congress would not trigger a waiver of the privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ 961 F. 2d 941, 946 (11th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 113 S. Ct. 
446 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The claim of waiver previously was considered and rejected 
by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Murphy v. Department of 
the Army.48 Murphy involved a request for a document under 
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 49 from the 
Department of the Army which had been disclosed to a 
congressman. The requestor argued that even if the document 
fell within the deliberative process exemption of FOIA,50 
the disclosure constituted a waiver of the FOIA privilege. The 
appeals court rejected the argument, holding that with respect 
to the ``doctrine of waiver,'' that ``it is evident that the 
disclosure to the Congress could not have had that 
consequence.'' Congress, it stated, long has ``carve[d] out for 
itself a special right of access to privileged information not 
shared by others.'' 51 If ``every disclosure to Congress 
would be tantamount to a waiver of all privileges and 
exemptions, executive agencies inevitably would become more 
cautious in furnishing sensitive information to the legislative 
branch--a development at odds with public policy which 
encourages broad congressional access to governmental 
information.'' 52 The court concluded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ 613 F.2d 1151, 1155 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
    \49\ 5 U.S.C. 552 (1994).
    \50\ 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5).
    \51\ 617 F.2d at 1155-56.
    \52\ Id., at 1156.

    For these reasons, we conclude that, to the extent that 
Congress has reserved to itself in Section 552(c)[now, 552(d)] 
the right to receive information not available to the general 
public, and actually does receive such information pursuant to 
that section (whether in the form of documents or otherwise), 
no waiver occurs of the privileges and exemptions which are 
available to the executive branch under the FOIA with respect 
to the public at large.53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Id. See also, In re Sunrise Securities Litigation, 109 Bankr. 
658, 1990 U.S. Dist. Lexis 168, U.S.D.C. E.D.Pa., Jan. 9, 1990 (same); 
In re Consolidated Litigation Concerning International Harvester's 
Disposition of Wisconsin Steel, 9 E.B.C. 1929, 1987 U.S. Dist. Lexis 
10912, U.S.D.C. N.D. Ill. (same). Compare FTC v. Owings-Corning 
Fiberglass Corp., 626 F.2d 966, 970 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (release to a 
congressional requestor is not deemed disclosure to public generally); 
Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 589 F.2d 582, 589 (D.C. Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 
441 U.S. 943 (1979) (same); Ashland Oil Co., Inc. v. FTC, 548 F.2d 977, 
979 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (same).

    The concern raised by counsel for Watkins that disclosure 
would result in a waiver of privilege in future litigation is, 
therefore, wholly unwarranted in light of the compulsory and 
irresistible nature of the Committee's demands.54 We turn 
now to consideration of the privilege objections to the 
Committee's subpoenas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ It is to be noted that the American Bar Association Model Code 
of Professional Responsibility provides that ``A lawyer may reveal: * * 
* [c]onfidences or secrets when * * * required by law or court order.'' 
DR 4-101 (c)(2). See also, Meyerhoff v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 
497 F.2d 1190, 1195 (2d Cir. 1974); Application of Solomon Friend, 411 
F. Supp. 776, 777 note (SDNY 1985), cases holding that an attorney's 
obligation of confidentiality is waived if it is necessary to defend 
against accusations of wrongful conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    b. The attorney-client privilege does not shield the 
various versions of the Watkins memo from disclosure to this 
Committee.
    As has been indicated above, it is within the sound 
discretion of Congress to decide whether to accept a claim of 
common law testimonial privilege. Unlike some other 
testimonial, privileges such as the privilege against 
compulsory self-incrimination, neither the attorney-client 
privilege nor the work product doctrine is rooted in the 
Constitution.55 Moreover, congressional committees need 
not recognize claims of privilege in the same manner as would a 
court of law. A congressional committee must make its own 
determination regarding the propriety of recognizing the 
privilege in the course of an investigation taking into account 
the House's constitutionally-based responsibility to oversee 
the activities of the Executive Branch. In the circumstances of 
the situation before us, it is the Committee's considered 
judgment that Mr. Watkins' claims of privilege are not well-
founded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ See Mannes v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 466 n. 15 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    b.1  Watkins has not established that he entered into an 
attorney- client relationship with Moore.
    The burden of establishing the existence of the attorney-
client privilege rests with the party asserting the privilege. 
In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 83-2-35.56 Blanket 
assertions of the privilege have been deemed ``unacceptable,'' 
SEC v. Gulf & Western Industries, Inc.,57 and are 
disfavored strongly.58 The proponent conclusively must 
prove each element of the privilege, to wit: (1) a 
communication, (2) made in confidence and preserved, (3) to an 
attorney acting in his professional capacity, (4) by a client, 
(5) for the purpose of seeking or obtaining legal 
advice.59 But the mere fact that an individual 
communicates with an attorney does not make his communication 
privileged.60
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ 737 F.2d 447, 450-51 (6th Cir. 1983).
    \57\ 518 F. Supp. 675, 682 (D.D.C. 1981).
    \58\ In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 83-2-35, supra, 737 F.2d at 
454.
    \59\ See, e.g., 8 Wigmore, Evidence, Sec. 2292, at 554 (McNaughton 
rev. ed. 1964); United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F. 
Supp. 357, 358-59 (D. Mass. 1950).
    \60\ See, e.g., United States v. Costanzo, 625 F.2d 465, 468 (3d 
Cir. 1980) (``[I]t is true that `[a] communication is not privileged 
simply because it is made by or to a person who happens to be a 
lawyer'.''), cert. denied 472 U.S. 1017 (1985); Diversified Industries, 
Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596, 602 (8th Cir. 1977) (``A communication 
is not privileged simply because it is made by or to a person who 
happens to be a lawyer''); United States v. Tedder, 801 F.2d 1437, 
1442-43 (4th Cir. 1986) (Friend's communications with attorney held not 
privileged despite fact that friend was both a lawyer and colleague in 
same firm when he spoke to her not as a professional legal advisor, did 
not seek legal advice from her, and did not expect the communications 
to remain confidential.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The case law consistently has emphasized that one of the 
essential elements of the attorney-client privilege is that the 
attorney be acting as an attorney and that the communication be 
made for the purpose of securing legal services. The privilege 
therefore does not attach to incidental legal advice given by 
an attorney acting outside the scope of his role as attorney. 
```Acting as a lawyer' encompasses the whole orbit of legal 
functions. When he acts as an advisor, the attorney must give 
predominantly legal advice to retain his client's privilege of 
non-disclosure, not solely, or even largely, business advice.'' 
61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ Zenith Radio Corp. v. Radio Corp. of America, 121 F.Supp. 792, 
794 (D. Del. 1954) (emphasis supplied).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In order to ascertain whether an attorney is acting in a 
legal or business advisory capacity, the courts have held it 
proper to question either the client or the attorney regarding 
the general nature of the attorney's services to his client, 
the scope of his authority as agent and the substance of 
matters which the attorney, as agent, is authorized to pass 
along to third parties.62 Indeed, invocation of the 
privilege may be predicated on revealing facts tending to 
establish the existence of an attorney-client relation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Colton v. U.S., 306 F.2d 633, 636, 638 (2d Cir. 1962); U.S. v. 
Tellier, 255 F.2d 441 (2d Cir. 1958); J.P. Foley & Co., Inc. v. 
Vanderbilt, 65 FRD 523, 526-27 (S.D.N.Y. 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, the client must intend that his communications 
with his lawyer are confidential and the confidentiality must 
be maintained subsequently.63
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ Rice, supra, at 6:1, 6:2, 6:30, 9:1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because of the privilege's inhibitory effect on the truth-
finding process and its impairment of the public's ``right to 
every man's evidence,'' 64 modern liberal discovery rules 
have taken a narrow view of the privilege.65 This tendency 
toward limiting the privilege is manifested most clearly in the 
strict standard of waiver.66 Thus the voluntary disclosure 
of privileged information, whether by the client or the 
attorney with the client's consent, waives the privilege 
67 because it destroys the confidentiality of a 
communication and thereby undermines the justification for 
preventing compelled disclosures.68 Waiver need not be 
express,69 nor is it necessary that the client waive the 
privilege knowingly.70 Waiver may be evidenced by word or 
act,71 but may be inferred from a failure to speak or act 
when words or action would be necessary to preserve 
confidentiality.72 Courts regularly hold that the 
privilege is waived as to the material disclosed when the 
client or his attorney deliberately discloses the contents of a 
privileged communication, such as when answering 
interrogatories, testifying in court or at examination before 
trial, submitting affidavits or pleadings to the Court, or in 
transacting business with a third party.73
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ 8 J. Wigmore Sec. 2192, at 70.
    \65\ Magida ex rel. Vilcon Detinning Co. v. Continental Can Co., 12 
F.R.D. 74, 77 (S.D.N.Y. 1951).
    \66\ See, e.g., Permian Corp. v. United States, 665 F.2d 1214, 1219 
(D.C. Cir. 1981); United States v. AT & T Co., 642 F.2d 1285, 1299 
(D.C. Cir. 1980).
    \67\ 8 J. Wigmore, Sec. 2327, at 632-39.
    \68\ United States v. AT & T Co., 642 F.2d 1285, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 
1980) ``[t]he mere showing of voluntary disclosure will generally 
suffice to show waiver of the attorney-client privilege.''); In re 
Horowitz, 482 F.2d 72, 82 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 414 U.S. 867 (1973).
    \69\ Blackburn v. Crawford, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 175, 194 (1965).
    \70\ In re Grand Jury Investigation of Ocean Transp., 604 F.2d 672 
(D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 915 (1979).
    \71\ Magida ex rel. Vulcan Determining Co. v. Continental Can Co., 
12 F.R.D. 74, 77 (S.D.N.Y. 1951).
    \72\ Id.
    \73\ 8 J. Wigmore, Sec. 2327.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, the courts have held that less than full 
disclosure often will cause a waiver, not only as to disclosed 
communications, but also as to communications relating to the 
same subject matter that were not disclosed themselves.74 
By partial disclosure, the client may be waiving voluntarily 
the privilege as to that which he considers favorable to his 
position, but attempting to invoke the privilege as to the 
remaining material, which he considers unfavorable.75 
Selective assertion or disclosure usually involves a material 
issue in the proceeding, and there is a great likelihood that 
the information disclosed is false or intended to mislead the 
other party.76 Thus, pleading an ``advice of counsel'' 
defense, which puts the attorney's advice in issue,77 has 
been held to waive the privilege as to all communications 
relating to that advice. The rationale for the subject matter 
waiver rule is one of fairness. Professor Wigmore has stated 
the principle as follows: ``[W]hen [the client's] conduct 
touches a certain point of disclosure, fairness requires that 
his privilege shall cease whether he intended that result or 
not. He cannot be allowed, after disclosing as much as he 
pleases, to withhold the remainder. It therefore is designed to 
prevent the client from using the attorney-client privilege 
offensively, as an additional weapon.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\ Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. of America v. Shamrock 
Broadcasting Co., 521 F.Supp. 638, 641 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); R.J. Hereley & 
Sons Co. v. Stotler & Co., 87 F.R.D. 358, 359 (N.D. Ill. 1980); 
Hercules, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 434 F.Supp. 136, 156 (D. Del. 1977); 
Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1146, 1161-62 
(D.S.C. 1974).
    \75\ Perrigrion v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., 77 F.R.D. 455, 461 (N.D. 
Calif. 1978); Hercules, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 434 F. Supp. 136, 156 (D. 
Eel. 1977); Duplan v. Deering Milliken, 397 F.Supp. 1146, 1161-62 
(D.S.C. 1974); AT & T v. United Tel. Co., 60 F.R.D. 177, 188-86 (M.D. 
Gla. 1973).
    \76\ United States v. Aronoff, 466 F.Supp. 855, 862 (S.D.N.Y. 
1979).
    \77\ E.g., United States v. Woodall, 438 F.2d 1317, 1323-24 (5th 
Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 933 (1971); Transworld Airlines v. 
Hughes, 332 F.2d 602, 615 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. dismissed, 380 U.S. 248 
(1965); Barr Marine Prods. v. Borg-Warner Corp., 84 F.R.D. 631, 635 
(E.D. Pa. 1979); Hangards, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 413 F.Supp. 926, 
929 (N.D. Calif. 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The courts also have limited severely the attorney-client 
privilege through the development of an implied waiver 
doctrine. Thus, where a client shares his attorney-client 
communications with a third party, the communications between 
attorney and client are no longer strictly ``confidential,'' 
and the client has waived his privilege over them. 78 Even 
if the client attempts to keep communications confidential by 
having the third party agree not to disclose the communications 
to anyone else, the courts will still consider 
``confidentiality'' between attorney and client breached and 
the communication no longer privileged. 79 Courts have 
applied this concept of confidentiality narrowly to prevent 
corporations from sharing an attorney-client communication with 
an ally and then shielding the communication from a grand jury 
or adversary. 80 As a general rule, courts also apply the 
waiver rule to disclosures made to government agencies. 81 
Thus a person or corporation who voluntarily discloses 
confidential attorney-client communications to a government 
agency loses the right to later assert privilege for those 
communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\ See, e.g., United States v. El Paso Co., 682 F.2d 530, 539, 
540 (5th Cir. 1982) (Creating documents with knowledge that independent 
accountants may need access to them to complete an audit waives 
privilege.); Permian Corp. v. United states, 665 F.2d 1214, 1219 (D.C. 
Cir. 1981) (Disclosure of documents to SEC waives privilege); United 
States v. Miller, 660 F.2d 563, 567-68 (5th Cir. 1981) (Previous 
delivery of accounting books to IRS vitiates privilege.); United States 
v. Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Co., 15 F.R.D. 461, 464 (E.D. Mich. 1954) 
(Privilege waived on disclosure to Justice Department).
    \79\ 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence, Sec. 2367 at 636 (McNaughton rev. ed. 
1961).
    \80\ Permian Corp. v. U.S., 665 F.2d 1214, 1221-22 (D.C. Cir. 
1981).
    \81\ See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 660 F.2d 563, 567-68 (5th 
Cir. 1981) (disclosure to IRS); In re Grand Jury Investigation of Ocean 
Transp., 604 F.2d 672 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 915 
(1979) (to Antitrust Div. of Dept. of Justice); Donovan v. Fitzsimmons, 
90 F.R.D. 583, 585 (N.D. Ill. 1981) (to Dept. of Labor); Litton 
Systems, Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 27 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 
(Callaghan) 819 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (to district attorney); In re Penn. 
Cent. Commercial Paper Litig., 61 F.R.D. 453, 462-64 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) 
(to SEC); D'Ippolito v. Cities Serv. Co., 39 F.R.D. 610 (S.D.N.Y. 1965) 
(to Antitrust Div. of Dept. of Justice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While some lower courts have adopted a ``limited waiver'' 
rule, which allows corporations to share their confidential 
attorney-client communications with agencies such as the SEC 
without having to waive the privileged status of these 
documents against other parties, 82 it is a distinctly 
minority view. The prevailing view, enunciated in the most 
recent decisions of the Second, 83 Fourth, 84 and 
District of Columbia Circuits, 85 holds that ``if a client 
communicates information to his attorney with the understanding 
that the information will be revealed to others, that 
information, as well as `the details underlying the data which 
was to be published,' will not enjoy the privilege.'' 86
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\ See, e.g., Diversified Industries v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596, 
611 (8th Cir. 1977); Byrnes v. IDS Realty Trust Co., 85 F.R.D. 679, 
687-89 (S.D.N.Y. 1980); In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 478 F.Supp. 368, 
372-73 (E.D. Wisc. 1979).
    \83\ In re John Doe Corporation, 675 F.2d 482 (2d Cir. 1982).
    \84\ In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619 (4th Cir. 1988); 
United States v. (Under Seal), 748 F.2d 871, 875 (4th Cir. 1984); In re 
Grand Jury Proceedings, 727 F.2d 1352, 1356 (4th Cir. 1984).
    \85\ In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 738 F.2d 1367 (D.C. Cir. 1984); In 
re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Permian Corp. v. United 
States, 665 F.2d 1214 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
    \86\ In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 
1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The appeals court in In re Sealed Case explained the 
rationale and scope of the implied waiver rule as follows:

          The implied waiver doctrine has been more fully 
        developed, however, in the context of the attorney-
        client privilege. Any disclosure inconsistent with 
        maintaining the confidential nature of the attorney 
        client relationship waives the privilege. When a party 
        reveals a part of a privileged communication in order 
        to gain an advantage in litigation, it waives the 
        privilege as to all other communications relating to 
        the same subject matter because ``the privilege of 
        secret consultation is intended only as an incidental 
        means of defense and not as an independent means of 
        attack, and to use it in the latter character is to 
        abandon it in the former.''
          A simple principle unites the various applications of 
        the implied waiver doctrine. Courts need not allow a 
        claim of privilege when the party claiming the 
        privilege seeks to use it in a way that is not 
        consistent with the purpose of the privilege. Thus, 
        since the purpose of the attorney-client privilege is 
        to protect the confidentiality of attorney-client 
        communications in order to foster candor within the 
        attorney-client relationship, voluntary breach of 
        confidence for tactical purposes waives the privilege. 
        Disclosure is inconsistent with confidentiality, and 
        courts need not permit hide-and-seek manipulation of 
        confidence in order to foster candor.87
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\ 676 F.2d 793, 818 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

    The testimony before this Committee of Mr. Watkins, Mr. 
Moore and Ms. Thomasson, their conduct during the evolution of 
the memo, as well as the conduct of the White House in handling 
the disputed documents, belie the existence of a valid claim of 
attorney-client privilege. There is substantial doubt whether 
there was in fact an attorney-client relation between Moore and 
Watkins and whether Moore was actually performing legal 
services for Watkins. There is no doubt that even if such a 
relation arose at some early time, the necessary maintenance of 
confidentiality was not maintained and the privilege, if it 
existed at all, was waived.
    Mr. Watkins' testimony before this Committee on January 16, 
1996, prior to the revelation that numerous drafts pre-and 
post-dating the soul cleansing memo were discovered in 
Thomasson's files, described Moore's role in the creation of 
that document as solely that of a ``scribe:'' ``I dictated this 
memorandum * * * I had a scribe to actually write it.'' 88 
It is only when the existence of the numerous drafts of the 
document became known that a legal relationship was concocted. 
Watkins' legal memo concedes Moore was a scribe, but also 
claims he was advising Watkins ``how to prepare the Memorandum 
to Counsel so that it would be considered privileged and 
confidential.'' More to the point, Mr. Watkins is said to have 
believed that ``Moore's assistance, and status as an attorney, 
would help preserve the privileged and confidential status of 
the document.'' To prove Mr. Moore's value, Watkins' counsels' 
memo points to the fact that each and every version was stamped 
``PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL.'' But it is hardly necessary to 
have an attorney to wield such a stamp. What is necessary is 
that one's attorney perform legal services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\ Travel Office Hearing, supra, at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Moore testified that he certainly did not believe he 
was acting as Watkins' private attorney in this matter.89 
Rather, only allows that Watkins could have ``a colorable claim 
[of privilege] to assert.'' 90 Nor does Moore directly 
claim he was Watkins' attorney in this matter in his official 
capacity as ``special counsel'' to that Office. In describing 
how he ``gave'' legal advice, he stated that Watkins would come 
to him about a legal issue and he would go to the White House 
Counsel's Office for the answer and then convey it to 
Watkins.91
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \89\ Dep. Tr. at 64-65.
    \90\ Id. at 65.
    \91\ Id. at 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In fact, Moore was fresh out of law school and a legal 
tyro, while Watkins throughout this entire period had a major 
Washington law firm, Hogan & Hartson, on retainer. Indeed, 
Watkins' present counsel asserts that many, if not all, of the 
drafts in question were sent to Mr. Cobb of that firm ``for his 
review and advice.'' Yet the privileged relationship that is 
asserted is between Moore and Watkins and not Cobb and Watkins.
    Close scrutiny of the ``soul cleansing'' memo, which is 
asserted to contain the same content as some of the drafts now 
in contest, does not indicate that it is a legal document or 
one that required the application of legal skills. It is 
essentially a factual recitation, from Watkins' point of 
reference, of what happened during the period that led to the 
May 1993 firings of the Travel Office staff, why it happened, 
and why the internal review was inaccurate. The Travel Office 
was squarely within Mr. Watkins' official jurisdiction. This 
document, then, readily can be seen as predominantly relating 
to the business of the Office of Management and Administration 
rather than as a document that dealt with legal issues or even 
needed more than minimal legal expertise.
    In sum, this aspect of the claim of attorney-client 
privilege appears to be nothing more than a transparent 
afterthought. There was no intent to create the requisite 
relation; and the documents created related to the business of 
the Office of Management and Administration.
    Finally, even if an attorney-client relationship could be 
established, it certainly was waived by the early sharing of 
the ultimately-revealed draft with Patsy Thomasson, by the 
discussions of that draft by Watkins and Moore with Thomasson, 
and by its wide distribution after its discovery by the White 
House to other White House personnel and the media. It would be 
specious to contend that the waiver is limited only to 
Thomasson's draft. Watkins' counsel has asserted that the 
content of the withheld drafts is similar. That alone suffices 
to vitiate the privilege for all other extant drafts. Selective 
assertion and disclosure is not tolerated by the courts. It is 
equally unacceptable to this Committee.
    b.2 The Claim of Protection under the Work Product Doctrine 
is not Sustainable.
    Watkins claims that the work product doctrine protects the 
withheld documents because they were the ``work of an attorney 
is preparation for litigation'' and contain ``subjective 
beliefs, impressions, and strategies'' which are protected as 
``opinion'' work product. In fact, the work product doctrine is 
not applicable in the congressional forum; but even if 
applicable, it cannot be sustained under the circumstances of 
this situation. It is problematic that the documents in 
question actually were prepared for litigation. In any event, 
the Committee's need for the documents would demonstrate the 
heightened need necessary when opinion work product is involved 
if this matter were before a court. It is plain that the 
qualified privilege afforded has been waived by Watkins' 
conduct.
    The qualified immunity from discovery of an attorney's work 
product is recognized by the Supreme Court 92 and codified 
in Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
93 The Rule provides that in a civil action there is 
qualified immunity from discovery when materials are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\ Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947).
    \93\ Rule 26(b)(3) provides in pertinent part: ``Trial Preparation: 
Materials * * * [A] party may obtain discovery of documents and 
tangible things * * * prepared in anticipation of litigation or for 
trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's 
representative (including the other party's attorney, consultant, 
surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the 
party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the 
preparation of the party's case and that the party is unable without 
undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by 
other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required 
showing has been made, the Court shall protect against disclosure of 
the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an 
attorney or other representative of a party concerning the 
litigation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          1. ``documents and tangible things;''
          2. ``prepared in anticipation of litigation or for 
        trial;'' and
          3. ``by or for another party or for that other 
        party's representative.''
To overcome the qualified immunity, the party seeking discovery 
must make a showing of: (1) substantial need for the materials; 
and (2) inability to obtain the substantial equivalent of the 
information without undue hardship. Upon such a showing, the 
qualified immunity from discovery is overcome and the court 
will order the materials produced.94
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \94\ See, generally 8 Wright, Miller and Marcus, Federal Practice 
and Procedure, Sections 2021-2028 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The federal rules do not define what is meant by the term 
``litigation'' or ``in anticipation of.'' However, the Special 
Masters' Guidelines for the Resolution Privilege Claims, 
approved and adopted by the court in United States v. American 
Telephone & Telegraph Co.,95 contain a detailed discussion 
of both phrases that reflects precedent to that time and has 
been influential since then. The Special Masters defined 
``litigation'' as including ``a proceeding in a court or 
administrative tribunal in which the parties have the right to 
cross-examine witnesses or to subject an opposing party's 
presentation of proof to equivalent disputation.'' 86 F.R.D. at 
627. On its face, the definition would not apply to Congress, 
which of course is not a court or administrative tribunal, or 
to a congressional investigative hearing which, while often 
confrontational, does not afford an opportunity for witnesses 
to cross-examine other witness' or present rebuttal testimony 
as would be the case in the adversarial adjudicative forum. We 
are aware of no court that has held the work product doctrine 
applicable to a legislative proceeding. The definition is also 
consonant with the language of Rule 26(b)(3) which exclusively 
uses terms such as ``party'', ``litigation'', ``trial'' and 
``discovery'' which are alien to the legislative hearing 
process.96
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\ 86 F.R.D. 603 (D.D.C. 1980).
    \96\ Wright, Miller and Marcus, supra, Section 2024 at 338-357; 86 
F.R.D. at 627-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The ``in anticipation'' element was defined by the Special 
Masters to mean:

        any time after initiation of the proceeding or such 
        earlier time as the party who normally would initiate 
        the proceeding had tentatively formulated a claim, 
        demand, or charge. When the material was prepared by a 
        party who normally would initiate such a proceeding, 
        that person must establish the date when the claim, 
        demand, or charge was tentatively formulated. When the 
        material was prepared by a potential defendant or 
        respondent, that person must establish the date when he 
        received a demand or warning of charges or information 
        from an outside source that a claim, demand, or charge 
        was in prospect.97
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\ 86 F.R.D. at 627.

     The courts have made it clear that while there is no 
requirement that litigation have already commenced in order for 
the work product doctrine to be operative, there must be ``a 
more immediate showing than the remote possibility of 
litigation.'' 98 ``[F]or documents to qualify as attorney 
work product, there must be an identifiable prospect of 
litigation (i.e., specific claims that already have arisen) at 
the time the documents were prepared.'' 99 One appellate 
court recently recognized that ``because litigation is an ever-
present possibility in American life, it is more often the case 
than not that new events are documented with the general 
possibility of litigation in mind. Yet `[t]he mere fact that 
litigation does ensue does not, by itself, cloak materials' 
with work product immunity. The document must be prepared 
because of the prospect of litigation when the preparer faces 
an actual claim or potential claim following an actual event or 
series of events that reasonably could result in litigation.'' 
100 Materials prepared in the ordinary course of business 
will not be protected from production, even if the party is 
aware that the document may also be useful in the event of 
litigation.101 Similarly, ``[t]he acts performed by a 
public employee in the performance of his official duties are 
not `prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial' 
merely by virtue of the fact that they are likely to be the 
subject of later litigation.'' 102
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\ Garfinkle v. Arcada National Corp., 64 F.R.D. 688, 690 (SDNY 
1974).
    \99\ Fox v. California Sierra Financial Services, 120 F.R.D. 520, 
525 (N.D. Calif. 1988).
    \100\ National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Murray Sheet Metal Co., 967 
F.2d 980, 984 (4th Cir. 1992).
    \101\ Smith v. Conway Organization, 154 F.R.D. 73, 78 (SDNY 1994). 
See also Litton Industries v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb, Inc., 125 F.R.D. 
51, 54-55 (SDNY 1989).
    \102\ Grossman v. Schwartz, 125 F.R.D. 376, 388 (SDNY 1989); 
Department of Economic Development v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 139 F.R.D. 
295, 700 (SDNY 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rule 26(b)(3) provides heightened protection for ``mental 
impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of an 
attorney or other representative of a party concerning the 
litigation.'' This protection against disclosure, however, is 
not absolute and has been held to yield in appropriate 
circumstances.103 Thus, when mental impressions are at 
issue in the case and the need for the material is compelling, 
they have been held discoverable.104 Courts consistently 
have denied the protection in such ``at issue'' cases where 
complete or partial lack of recollection of critical meetings 
or events has been claimed.105 The protection has been 
denied where what was at issue was the reason a government 
prosecutor instituted an action.106
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\ In re John Doe Corporation, 675 F.2d 482, 492 (2d Cir. 1982).
    \104\ Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573, 577 
(9th Cir. 1992) (claim of bad faith in the settlement process); 
Handguards Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 413 F.Supp 926, 931-31 (N.D. 
Calif. 1976) (bad faith in instituting litigation).
    \105\ Erlich v. Howe, 848 F.Supp 842, 492-93 (SDNY 1994); Redvanly 
v. NYNEX Corp., 152 F.R.D. 460, 468-69 (SDNY 1993); Doubleday v. Ruh, 
149 F.R.D. 601, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1993); In re Worlds of Wonder Securities 
Litigation, 147 F.R.D. 208, 212 (N.D. Cal. 1992).
    \106\ Doubleday v. Ruh, supra, 149 F.R.D. at 608 (``Here, plaintiff 
asserts that the main issue of her case is the affect [sic] defendants 
had on the district attorney's decision to prosecute''.); EEOC v. 
Anchor Continental, Inc., 74 F.R.D. 523, 526-28 (D.S.C. 1977) 
(``However, there must be an exception to this [work product] rule when 
the Court's in camera inspection reveals that the plaintiff, a branch 
of the United States government, has little faith in its case, has 
little evidence to go on and hopes to be able to prove the case through 
discovery or force a settlement upon a defendant who might not be able 
to stand the financial burden of defending itself''.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Assuming the subject documents are not covered by 
attorney-client privilege, it would appear that a court would 
have difficulty in finding that the documents were prepared 
``in anticipation of litigation.'' We are not aware of case 
precedent holding that a congressional investigative hearing is 
a proceeding meant to covered by Rule 26(b)(3). The qualified 
privilege recognized by the rule was designed for the adversary 
process and, like the attorney-client privilege, is likely to 
be held limited to the needs of that forum. It is also 
problematic whether a successful argument could be made that 
any of the documents were produced in the reasonably 
foreseeable likelihood that Watkins would be a party in any 
civil or criminal action.
     Further, even if the documents fall within the scope of 
the rule, the Committee would likely be able to demonstrate the 
heightened level of need required when opinion work product is 
involved. The Committee's inquiry has been concerned in large 
part with the motivations of the participants in the Travel 
Office matter. Indeed, claims of lack of complete or only 
partial recollections of meetings or events have consistently 
impeded the progress of the Committee's investigation. The case 
law alluded to above indicates that in such circumstances the 
courts would deny work product protection.
    Additionally, the actions of Watkins and the White House in 
dealing with the soul cleansing memo, recounted above in the 
discussion of the issue of waiver of the attorney-client 
privilege, are equally applicable and compelling here.
    Finally, it is to be recalled that the burden is on the 
claimant to demonstrate the applicability of the privilege 
claimed, and in the end the determination whether to accept it 
rests in the sound discretion of the Chairman and the 
Committee.

                               AUTHORITY

    The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is a duly 
established Committee of the House of Representatives, pursuant 
to the Rules of the House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 
Second Session.
    Rule 10 grants the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight jurisdiction over, inter alia, ``The overall economy, 
efficiency and management of government operations and 
activities * * *'' Rule 10 further states that the Committee 
``may at any time conduct investigations of any matter * * *''
    The Rules of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, approved on January 10, 1995, provide that the 
Chairman ``shall: (d) Authorize and issue subpoenas as provided 
in House Rule XI, clause 2(m), in the conduct of any 
investigation or activity or series of investigations or 
activities within the jurisdiction of the committee.''
    Pursuant, therefore, to its responsibilities and authority 
as mandated by the House of Representatives, the Committee has 
issued subpoenas for documents and information which, as 
prescribed by Committee rules, were deemed essential to its 
inquiry. The subpoenas which form the basis of the recommended 
resolution were issued in full conformance with this authority.
    As indicated above, White House Counsel John M. Quinn, 
David Watkins, and Matthew Moore were summoned to furnish 
materials in their custody and control pursuant to valid, duly 
executed subpoenas of the Committee, but they deliberately 
failed to comply with the terms of said subpoena.

                                       CHRONOLOGY OF CORRESPONDENCE \107\                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Date                             To                      From                   Subject        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 1, 1993.........................  Hon. John Conyers,       Hon. William F.          Request Investigation. 
                                        Jr.\108\.                Clinger, Jr.\109\.                             
June 16, 1993........................  Thomas F. McLarty \110\  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Ask Questions.         
                                                                Hon. Robert Michel                              
                                                                 \111\.                                         
                                                                Hon. Newt Gingrich                              
                                                                 \112\.                                         
                                                                Hon. Richard Armey                              
                                                                 \113\.                                         
                                                                Hon. Henry Hyde \114\..                         
June 18, 1993........................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Thomas F. McLarty......  Announce Mgmt. Review. 
July 2, 1993.........................  Robert Michel..........  Thomas F. McLarty......  Release Mgmt. Review.  
July 13, 1993........................  Hon. Jack Brooks \115\.  President Bill Clinton.  Promise Cooperation.   
July 15, 1993........................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John Conyers, Jr.......  Refer to GAO.          
August 6, 1993.......................  President Bill Clinton.  Robert Michel..........  Asks Questions.        
                                                                Dick Armey.............                         
                                                                Newt Gingrich..........                         
                                                                Henry Hyde.............                         
                                                                William F. Clinger, Jr.                         
August 24, 1993......................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Thomas F. McLarty......  Refer to Justice       
                                                                                          Department.           
October 11, 1993.....................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Bernard W. Nussbaum      Refer to Justice       
                                                                 \116\.                   Department.           
October 15, 1993.....................  Bernard W. Nussbaum....  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Asks Questions.        
October 26, 1993.....................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Bernard W. Nussbaum....  Refer to Justice       
                                                                                          Department.           
February 24, 1994....................  President Bill Clinton.  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Asks Questions.        
                                                                Hon. Frank Wolf \117\..                         
                                                                Richard Armey..........                         
                                                                Henry Hyde.............                         
February 24, 1994....................  Janet Reno \118\.......  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Asks Questions.        
                                                                Henry J. Hyde..........                         
                                                                Richard Armey..........                         
September 13, 1994...................  Joel I. Klein \119\....  Kevin Sabo \120\.......  Request for Documents. 
September 20, 1994...................  Philip Lader \121\.....  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for Documents. 
April 24, 1995.......................  Steven Riewerts \122\..  Tichenor & Associates    Accounting             
                                                                 \123\.                   Recommendations.      
May 4, 1995..........................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Abner J. Mikva \124\...  Limited Document       
                                                                                          Access.               
May 11, 1995.........................  Phil Larsen \125\......  Jonathan R. Yarowsky     Document Review        
                                                                 \126\.                   Procedures.           
May 31, 1995.........................  Abner Mikva............  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for Documents. 
June 1, 1995.........................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Abner J. Mikva.........  Requests a Meeting.    
June 14, 1995........................  Abner Mikva............  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Requests for           
                                                                                          Interviews.           
June 16, 1995........................  Barbara Comstock \127\.  Jonathan R. Yarowsky...  Promise of Documents.  
June 26, 1995........................  Abner Mikva............  Kevin Sabo.............  Procedures for         
                                                                                          Documents.            
June 29, 1995........................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Abner J. Mikva.........  Promise of Documents.  
July 7, 1995.........................  Kevin Sabo.............  Jonathan R. Yarowsky...  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
July 13, 1995........................  Abner Mikva............  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for Documents. 
July 15, 1995........................  William F. Clinger. Jr.  Abner J. Mikva.........  Procedures for         
                                                                                          Documents.            
July 17, 1995........................  Abner Mikva............  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Requests for Documents.
July 19, 1995........................  Phil Larsen............  Natalie R. Williams      Limited Access to      
                                                                 \128\.                   Documents.            
July 20, 1995........................  Abner Mikva............  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Requests for           
                                                                                          Information.          
July 25, 1995........................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Abner J. Mikva.........  Provides Limited       
                                                                                          Information.          
July 26, 1995........................  Abner Mikva............  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Requests for           
                                                                                          Information.          
August 1, 1995.......................  Natalie Williams.......  Phil Larsen............  Procedures for         
                                                                                          Documents.            
August 2, 1995.......................  Phil Larsen............  Natalie Williams.......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents             
August 9, 1995.......................  Phil Larsen............  Natalie Williams.......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
August 17, 1995......................  Abner Mikva............  Kevin Sabo.............  Procedures for         
                                                                                          Documents.            
August 23, 1995......................  Kevin Sabo.............  Jane C. Sherburne \129\  Procedures for         
                                                                                          Documents.            
August 24, 1995......................  Abner Mikva............  Kevin Sabo.............  Procedures for         
                                                                                          Documents.            
August 25, 1995......................  Phil Larsen............  Natalie Williams.......  Promise of Documents.  
August 25, 1995......................  Barbara Comstock.......  Natalie Williams.......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
August 25, 1995......................  Natalie Williams.......  Phil Larsen............  Request for Documents. 
August 28, 1995......................  Barbara Comstock.......  Natalie Williams.......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
August 30, 1995......................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Abner J. Mikva.........  Answers Questions.     
September 1, 1995....................  Barbara Comstock.......  Jane C. Sherburne......  Answers Questions.     
September 1, 1995....................  Kevin Sabo.............  Jane C. Sherburne......  Procedures for         
                                                                                          Interviews            
September 5, 1995....................  Barbara Comstock.......  Natalie Williams.......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
September 6, 1995....................  Abner Mikva............  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for Documents. 
September 6, 1995....................  Jane C. Sherburne......  Barbara K. Bracher       Requests Information.  
                                                                 \130\.                                         
September 8, 1995....................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Abner J. Mikva.........  Procedures for         
                                                                                          Documents.            
September 12, 1995...................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
September 15, 1995...................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Answers Questions.     
September 18, 1995...................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
September 18, 1995...................  Abner Mikva............  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for Documents. 
September 18, 1995...................  Abner Mikva............  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for Documents. 
September 20, 1995...................  Jane Sherburne.........  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Request for Documents. 
September 20, 1995...................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
September 22, 1995...................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
September 25, 1995...................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane Sherburne.........  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
September 27, 1995...................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Abner J. Mikva.........  Answers Questions.     
September 28, 1995...................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
October 4, 1995......................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
October 5, 1995......................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
October 11, 1995.....................  Terry Good \131\.......  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for Documents. 
October 11, 1995.....................  Abner Mikva............  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for Documents. 
October 12, 1995.....................  Kevin Sabo.............  Jane Sherburne.........  Procedures for         
                                                                                          Documents.            
October 13, 1995.....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Promise to Produce     
                                                                                          Documents.            
October 13, 1995.....................  Jane Sherburne.........  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Request for Documents. 
October 13, 1995.....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
October 13, 1995.....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
October 16, 1995.....................  Barbara Comstock.......  Natalie Williams.......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
October 17, 1995.....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
October 18, 1995.....................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Abner J. Mikva.........  Promise to Produce     
                                                                                          Documents.            
October 20, 1995.....................  Jane Sherburne.........  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Request for Documents. 
October 21, 1995.....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Promise to Produce     
                                                                                          Documents.            
October 23, 1995.....................  Abner Mikva............  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Clarification of Doc.  
                                                                                          Request.              
November 2, 1995.....................  Jane Sherburne.........  Barbara Comstock.......  Clarification of Doc.  
                                                                                          Request.              
November 6, 1995.....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Procedures for         
                                                                                          Documents.            
November 8, 1995.....................  Jane Sherburne.........  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Procedures for         
                                                                                          Documents.            
November 13, 1995....................  Jane C. Sherburne......  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Procedures for         
                                                                                          Documents.            
November 14, 1995....................  John M. Quinn \132\....  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for Documents. 
November 14, 1995....................  Barbara Bracher........  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
November 29, 1995....................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for Documents. 
November 29, 1995....................  Jane C. Sherburne......  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Clarification of Doc.  
                                                                                          Request.              
December 14, 1995....................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for Documents. 
December 20, 1995....................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Promise to Produce     
                                                                                          Documents.            
December 22, 1995....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
January 2, 1996......................  Thomas F. McLarty......  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for            
                                                                                          Information.          
January 3, 1996......................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
January 11, 1996.....................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for Documents. 
January 16, 1996.....................  President Bill Clinton.  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for            
                                                                                          Cooperation.          
January 16, 1996.....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Christopher D. Cerf      Limited Access to      
                                                                 \133\.                   Documents.            
January 17, 1996.....................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Answers to Questions.  
January 18, 1996.....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Promise to Produce     
                                                                                          Documents.            
January 19, 1996.....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Christopher D. Cerf....  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
January 22, 1996.....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
January 22, 1996.....................  Barbara Bracher........  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
January 22, 1996.....................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Promise to Produce     
                                                                                          Documents.            
January 22, 1996.....................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for            
                                                                                          Information.          
January 23, 1996.....................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for            
                                                                                          Cooperation.          
January 23, 1996.....................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Information.          
January 24, 1996.....................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Information.          
January 25, 1996.....................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Answers to Questions.  
January 29, 1996.....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
February 1, 1996.....................  President Bill Clinton.  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for            
                                                                                          Cooperation.          
February 1, 1996.....................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Information.          
February 2, 1996.....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
February 5, 1996.....................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Information.          
February 6, 1996.....................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Clarification of Doc.  
                                                                                          Request.              
February 9, 1996.....................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Procedures for         
                                                                                          Documents.            
February 14, 1996....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
February 15, 1996....................  Hillary Clinton, Esq...  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for            
                                                                                          Information.          
February 26, 1996....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Information           
February 26, 1996....................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Procedures for         
                                                                                          Documents.            
February 27, 1996....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Answers Questions.     
February 27, 1996....................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
March 4, 1996........................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
March 5, 1996........................  Kevin Sabo.............  Jane C. Sherburne......  Answers Questions.     
March 8, 1996........................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
March 12, 1996.......................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Notification of        
                                                                                          Depositions.          
March 15, 1996.......................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Answers Questions.     
March 15, 1996.......................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
March 20, 1996.......................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for Privilege  
                                                                                          Log.                  
March 21, 1996.......................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  David E. Kendall \134\.  Responses of Mrs.      
                                                                                          Clinton.              
March 21, 1996.......................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Request Cont. Rolling  
                                                                                          Prod.                 
March 26, 1996.......................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for            
                                                                                          Information.          
March 27, 1996.......................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Answers Questions.     
March 27, 1996.......................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for            
                                                                                          Information.          
March 27, 1996.......................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for            
                                                                                          Information.          
March 28, 1996.......................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for            
                                                                                          Information.          
March 28, 1996.......................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
April 1, 1996........................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Information.          
April 2, 1996........................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
April 3, 1996........................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Promise to Provide     
                                                                                          Information.          
April 3, 1996........................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Answers Questions.     
April 4, 1996........................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request for Documents. 
April 5, 1996........................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
April 5, 1996........................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Answers Questions.     
April 9, 1996........................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Jane C. Sherburne......  Answers Questions.     
April 11, 1996.......................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Jane C. Sherburne......  Answers Questions.     
April 18, 1996.......................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
April 23, 1996.......................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
April 24, 1996.......................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
April 24, 1996.......................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
May 2, 1996..........................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Request Final Prod. of 
                                                                                          Docs.                 
May 2, 1996..........................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Claims                 
                                                                                          Politicalization.     
May 3, 1996..........................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Discuss Docs. Withheld.
May 3, 1996..........................  Cardiss Collins........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Seeking Assistance.    
May 6, 1996..........................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Demand Final Prod.     
May 6, 1996..........................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Suggest More           
                                                                                          Compromise.           
May 7, 1996..........................  John M. Quinn..........  William F. Clinger, Jr.  Requests Executive     
                                                                                          Priv. Claim.          
May 7, 1996..........................  Barbara K. Bracher.....  Jane C. Sherburne......  Limited Access to      
                                                                                          Documents.            
May 9, 1996..........................  William F. Clinger, Jr.  John M. Quinn..........  Claims Executive       
                                                                                          Privilege.            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ This correspondence has been made public in Correspondence between the White House and Congress in the    
  Proceedings Against John M. Quinn, David Watkins, and Matthew Moore, Committee Investigation into the White   
  House Travel Officer Matter, House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 104th Congress, 2d Session,  
  May 1996.                                                                                                     
\108\ John Conyers, at the time of this letter was the Chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations.
  He is currently the Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary.                          
\109\ William F. Clinger, Jr., at the time of this letter, was the Ranking Minority Member of the House         
  Committee on Government Operations. He is currently Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and  
  Oversight.                                                                                                    
\110\ Thomas F. McLarty, at the time of this letter, was the White House Chief of Staff.                        
\111\ Robert Michel, at the time of this letter, was the Minority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives.  
  He currently is retired from the U.S. House.                                                                  
\112\ Newt Gingrich, at the time of this letter, was the Minority Whip in the U.S. House of Representatives. He 
  currently is the Speaker of the U.S. House.                                                                   
\113\ Richard Armey, at the time of this letter, was the Chairman of the Republican Conference in the U.S. House
  of the Representatives. He currently is the Majority Leader of the U.S. House.                                
\114\ Henry Hyde, at the time of this letter, was a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary. He currently
  is the Chairman of that committee.                                                                            
\115\ Jack Brooks, at the time of this letter, was Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary. He         
  currently is retired from the U.S. House.                                                                     
\116\ Bernard W. Nussbaum, at the time of this letter, was the White House Counsel.                             
\117\ Frank Wolf, at the time of this letter, was the Ranking Minority Member of the House Appropriation's      
  Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government.                                             
\118\ Janet Reno is the Attorney General of the United States.                                                  
\119\ Joel Kline is the Deputy Counsel to the President.                                                        
\120\ Kevin Sabo is the General Counsel of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.              
\121\ Philip Lader, at the time of this letter, was the White House Deputy Chief of Staff.                      
\122\ Steven Riewerts was the interim director of the White House Travel Office after the May 1993 firings.     
\123\ Tichenor and Associates is a management accounting firm which was hired to audit the White House Travel   
  Office for calendar year 1994.                                                                                
\124\ Abner J. Mikva, at the time of the letter, was the White House Counsel. He currently is retired from the  
  U.S. Government.                                                                                              
\125\ Phil Larsen, at the time of the letter, was the Chief Investigator of the House Committee on Government   
  Reform and Oversight. He currently is retired from the U.S. Government.                                       
\126\ Jonathan R. Yarowsky is an Associate Counsel at the White House.                                          
\127\ Barbara Comstock is an Investigative Counsel with the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. 
\128\ Natalie R. Williams, at the time of the letter, was an Associated Counsel at the White House.             
\129\ Jane C. Sherburne is a Special Counsel at the White House.                                                
\130\ Barbara K. Bracher is the Chief Investigative Counsel with the House Committee on Government Reform and   
  Oversight.                                                                                                    
\131\ Terry Good is the Director of the White House Office of Records Management.                               
\132\ John M. Quinn is the White House Counsel.                                                                 
\133\ Christopher D. Cerf is an Associate Counsel at the White House.                                           
\134\ David E. Kendall is a private attorney representing the President and First Lady.                         

                        COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XI

    (1) Pursuant to clauses 2(l)(2) (A) and (B) of rule XI, a 
majority of the Committee having been present, the resolution 
recommended in this report was approved by a vote of 27 ayes to 
19 nays.
    (2) Pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(l)(3)(A) and rule X, 
clause 2(b)(1), the findings and recommendations of the 
Committee are found in the Facts, Background, and Findings 
section of this report.
    (3) Pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(l)(3)(B) and section 
308(a)(l) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee finds that no new budget authority, new spending 
authority, new credit authority or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures result from enactment of this 
resolution.
    (4) Pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(l)(3)(C) and section 
403(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee 
finds that a statement of the Congressional Budget Office cost 
estimate is not required as this resolution is not of a public 
character.
    (5) Pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(l)(4), the Committee 
finds that a statement of inflationary impact is not required 
as this resolution is not of a public character.

                               CONCLUSION

    The Committee properly proceeded with its bipartisan 
investigation of the allegations regarding the terminations of 
White House Travel Office workers. Upon due deliberation, it 
received the advice of the Chairman of the Committee that the 
cooperation of the individuals named in the resolution was not 
forthcoming. In essence, the individuals are seeking to set the 
priorities and schedule of the Committee's investigation into 
the Travel Office matter. The Congress cannot accept that 
arrangement as a constraint on its investigatory authority.
    Accordingly, the Committee recommends to the House the 
following resolution:
    Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
Speaker of the House certify the report of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, detailing the refusal of John 
M. Quinn to produce papers to the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, to the United States Attorney for the 
District of Columbia, for him to be proceeded against in the 
manner and form provided by law; and be it further
    Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
Speaker of the House certify the report of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, detailing the refusal of David 
Watkins to produce papers to the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight, to the United States Attorney for the District 
of Columbia, for him to be proceeded against in the manner and 
form provided by law; and be it further
    Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
Speaker of the House certify the report of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, detailing the refusal of 
Matthew Moore to produce papers to the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, to the United States Attorney for the 
District of Columbia, for him to be proceeded against in the 
manner and form provided by law.
            ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR.

A. Character of the Presidency
    It is troubling that the President of the United States 
persists in his efforts to cover-up a scandal having no 
connection with any national security or vital domestic policy 
issue. In the final analysis, the Travel Office matter reflects 
the character of the President and his presidency.
    We are by no means rushing matters here. For example, when 
Congress subpoenaed Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for 
documents pertaining to national security, a House committee 
met two days after the return date of the subpoena and voted 
Mr. Kissinger in contempt of Congress despite an assertion of 
executive privilege. By contrast, we have provided months and 
months for production, and the White House Counsel's Office 
previously committed to timely claims of executive privilege so 
that just such a confrontation as this would not occur. 
Clearly, the White House's word on this was hollow.
    Frankly, the President's last minute and ineffective claim 
of executive privilege is an unprecedented development. I am 
disappointed that the President, who three years ago pledged to 
get to the bottom of the Travel Office matter and cooperate 
instead has taken the extraordinary position of attempting to 
assert a blanket, undifferentiated executive privilege over all 
outstanding Travel Office documents. Such a blanket executive 
privilege was rejected in U.S. v. Nixon. But in the Nixon case, 
the White House had at least identified the documents they were 
withholding. This President once promised the most open 
Administration in the history of the nation; yet now doesn't 
even meet the woefully low standard of President Nixon in 
identifying withheld documents.
    This is the first executive privilege claim attempted by 
President Clinton. The rules governing executive privilege have 
not been updated since they were issued by President Ronald 
Reagan in 1982 but White House Counsel John M. Quinn informed 
me that the Clinton Administration would follow the Reagan 
procedures. Quoting from this order:

          ``Executive privilege will be asserted only in the 
        most compelling circumstances, and only after careful 
        review demonstrates that assertion of this privilege is 
        necessary.'' ``Congressional requests for information 
        shall be complied with as promptly and as fully as 
        possible, unless it is determined that compliance 
        raises a substantial question of executive privilege.''
          ``A `substantial question of executive privilege' 
        exists if disclosure of the information requested might 
        significantly impair the national security (including 
        the conduct of foreign relations), the deliberative 
        process of the executive branch, or other aspects of 
        the performance of the executive branch's 
        constitutional duties.'' (emphasis added)

    It has been White House policy since the Kennedy 
Administration not to invoke executive privilege when 
allegations of wrongdoing are at issue. Certainly, that is the 
case with the Travel Office matter. Already, there has been a 
criminal referral from the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
involving Mr. David Watkins' statements regarding the Travel 
Office firings. Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's 
jurisdiction has been expanded to encompass this and other 
Travelgate issues.
    In light of the expansion of the independent counsel's 
jurisdiction, the President's actions are particularly 
troubling. I would note, for example, that President Reagan 
waived all claims of executive privilege during the Iran-Contra 
investigation.
    I find it difficult to understand how documents related to 
the White House Travel Office scandal somehow rise to a 
``substantial question of executive privilege.'' Certainly, 
disclosure of these documents would not impair the national 
security or the conduct of foreign relations. Nor would the 
performance of the executive branch's constitutional duties be 
impaired if President Clinton kept his own pledge to get to the 
bottom of this matter.
B. A culture of secrecy
    The Committee's receipt of an ineffective blanket claim of 
executive privilege the morning of the Committee vote was 
typical of the Administration's pattern of response from the 
start--delay and delay until threatened with criminal contempt 
for refusing to comply with proper procedure, then try to buy 
more time with hollow promises of future cooperation. We have 
heard a great deal about the 40,000 pages of documents as proof 
of White House cooperation. But the quantity of documents does 
not determine the thoroughness of production. President Clinton 
continues to withhold an unidentified body of subpoenaed 
records. Many of the records emanate from the Counsel's office.
    In the wake of the uproar over the Travel Office firings, 
the President promised to ``get to the bottom'' of what 
happened in the firing of the Travel Office employees. He also 
committed to Congress that he would fully cooperate with 
Justice Department investigations into this matter. No issue of 
executive privilege was raised. No talk of internal 
deliberative process or withholding documents was ever 
mentioned by the President at that time.
    In the past, I have participated with my colleagues in 
subpoenaing documents from White House officials. In my 
experience, I never before have met with such intransigence 
from any previous administration. Had a Republican 
administration behaved in this manner, I by no means would have 
endorsed such disdain for Congress.
    The Administration's resistance to oversight in this matter 
began almost immediately after the firings and demonstrates the 
culture of secrecy that has become its hallmark. In notes dated 
May 27, 1993, White House Management Review author Todd Stern 
wrote,

          Problem is that if we do any kind of report and fail 
        to address those questions, the press jumps on you 
        wanting to know answers; while if you give answers that 
        aren't fully honest (e.g., nothing re: HRC), you risk 
        hugely compounding the problem by getting caught in 
        half-truths. You run the risk of turning this into a 
        cover-up. (emphasis added)
    This White House embarked on an unmistakable course which 
frustrated, delayed, and derailed investigators from the White 
House itself, the GAO, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and 
the administration's own Justice Department Office of 
Professional Responsibility and Public Integrity Sections. That 
is what has brought the Committee to this unfortunate impasse.
    This White House simply refuses to provide this Committee 
with the subpoenaed documents that will help us bring this 
Travel Office investigation to a close, something that I have 
sought to do for nearly three years. Documents inexplicably 
have been misplaced in ``stacks,'' or ``book rooms'' or storage 
boxes, where they languished for months if not years, despite 
subpoenas and document requests from numerous official 
investigative bodies.
    If President Clinton responds to investigations of 
presumably minor internal problems this way, how does he handle 
far more serious national and international matters? This 
administration's culture of secrecy could have disastrous 
consequences where critical national policy matters involving 
foreign affairs are concerned. Let there be no 
misunderstanding. What we have before the Committee should not 
be the issue of a constitutional confrontation. This Committee 
seeks no records pertaining to the national security. This is 
not Bosnia. This is not Iran. International relations are not 
at stake.
    When the White House, as in the case here, fails to comply 
fully with investigations mandated by Congress or senior 
Justice Department officials, the oversight role critical to 
our system of checks and balances is compromised and it is 
incumbent upon this Committee to assert and to uphold its 
jurisdiction and congressional prerogatives.

C. Deliberate attempt to obstruct legitimate oversight

    Almost three years ago, I requested information and 
hearings into the Travel Office matter. I repeatedly was 
stymied in my efforts until Republicans gained a majority in 
the House. Prior to the change in House leadership, the White 
House refused to provide access to any documents. For the past 
three years, the White House has made every effort to 
deliberately, and continuously, obstruct legitimate oversight 
by both the executive branch and the Congress.
    In a particularly cynical memo, White House Associate 
Counsel Neil Eggleston wrote his superiors advising that the 
White House should deny Republicans access to GAO Travel Office 
documents until after the White House appropriations bill was 
enacted. This exhibits the gamesmanship which has epitomized 
this Administration and its counsel's office. Now, even 
subpoenas are not treated seriously.
    As I have mentioned, we already have had a criminal 
referral regarding David Watkins'' statements about the Travel 
Office. This came about after a long-withheld ``soul cleansing 
memo'' by Mr. Watkins which surfaced years after it should have 
been produced to numerous investigative bodies in response to 
document requests and subpoenas. Not a single previous 
investigation had access to that document. While several people 
in the White House knew about this memo, it never was turned 
over to the GAO, OPR, Public Integrity, or this Committee, 
frankly, for years.
    It was the ``surprise'' finding of one version of that two-
and-a-half year old ``soul cleansing'' memo that caused this 
Committee to move to bipartisan subpoenas for the production of 
documents. The subpoenas to the White House were issued on a 
bipartisan basis with input from the minority staff. Subpoenas 
to the White House and to individuals in turn produced other 
documents that previously had been overlooked.
    I am convinced that the White House also is running the 
clock into the political season precisely so that it may cry 
foul, claiming that this whole investigation is an election 
year ploy.
    Ask the White House: Was it an election year ploy in 1993 
when the President signed a law mandating a GAO review of the 
Travel Office? Was it an election year ploy when his own deputy 
attorney general ordered a Justice Department Office of 
Professional Responsibility study in 1993? Was it an election 
year ploy when the Justice Department began an investigation of 
the President's longtime Hollywood pal, Harry Thomason?
    My initial target date to complete this investigation was 
the summer of 1993. I myself first requested answers on this 
subject three years ago. And, when I became chairman of this 
Committee, I made every effort to complete this investigation 
last fall.

D. Civil contempt as a remedy

    I will close by addressing the recommendation of the 
President's Counsel that Congress resolve this document dispute 
by enacting a civil remedy statute and proceeding in civil 
court. Frankly, I am astonished at hearing this recommendation 
by a Democrat President when the contemnor is a Democrat after 
knowing that the concept of a civil remedy has been so 
resoundingly rejected by previous Democrat Congress'' when the 
contemnor was a Republican.
    Former House of Representative Counsel Stanley Brand noted 
during the contempt of Congress dispute with the Reagan 
Administration Environmental Protection Agency Administrator 
Anne Burford:

           ``It was the first time in this controversy that we 
        heard that the [criminal contempt] statute was somehow 
        an unseemly use of the judicial process. I would also 
        agree that a civil sanction is too easily invoked. As a 
        lawyer involved in civil litigation, if you allow me to 
        set foot into Federal district court to litigate a 
        claim of privilege, I can guarantee you I will be there 
        for at least three years * * * Committees will have a 
        lot of litigation, a lot of lawyers, a lot of travel 
        around to the various district courts in the United 
        States, but will have no papers, and it will have no 
        basis upon which to make the judgments it has to make. 
        It will be, quite frankly, a lawyer's field day and I 
        don't think that is in the interest of the Congress or 
        in the interest of the citizenry.'' 135
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \135\ ``Prosecution of Contempt of Congress,'' Hearings before the 
Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Government Relations of the 
House Committee on the Judiciary, 98th Congress, 2d Sess., (Nov. 15, 
1983), page 24.

    The civil contempt statute resolution was also soundly 
criticized by my colleague, Congressman Barney Frank, who sits 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
on the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. Frank stated,

          ``I am afraid that the procedure * * * would make it 
        too easy. The threshold for going to court, I think 
        under that, is too low, and I think we would be in 
        court much too often * * * The criminal sanction is the 
        way to force the issue and I would assume in any case 
        where a judge found against the official, that the 
        result would be not the imprisonment of that official, 
        but the production of the papers. It is difficult for 
        me to think that any executive branch official sworn to 
        uphold the laws, as we all are, would defy a court 
        order and withhold papers that he or she was ordered to 
        bring to us.'' 136
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \136\ Id. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Conclusion

    Clearly, citing contempt is a serious action. I am saddened 
that it is necessary to take that step. The Congress must 
invoke contempt, however, when a White House repeatedly 
exhibits such disdain for civil and criminal investigations as 
this one has throughout all of the Travelgate inquiries. I 
certainly have anticipated the complaints my colleagues have 
raised. But I must note that, in the past, when the House's 
rights to information and the public's right to know have been 
so baldly denied, the constitutional responsibilities and 
institutional interests of this body have been recognized on a 
bipartisan basis.
    Long after all the other investigations gave up on finding 
the truth this Committee continues to hold the President and 
his administration to his word, to the pledges and commitments 
of full cooperation which he made to the nation and to Congress 
three years ago. It remains my hope that President Clinton will 
recognize that the unfortunate course that he has chosen 
creates a constitutional confrontation and may lead to the 
criminal prosecution of one of his trusted aides. A true 
statesman would take immediate steps to end a dispute over 
records which have no impact on national security and no impact 
on public-policy making. I have a constitutional duty to 
perform effective oversight. The President has a constitutional 
duty to cooperate.

 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 104th CONGRESS, ROLLCALL 
  [Offered by: Mr. Burton. Motion to move the previous question on the  
                               amendment]                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Name                 Aye             Name             Nay  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clinger...................       X   Mrs. Collins--IL......       X 
Mr. Gilman....................  .......  Mr. Waxman............       X 
Mr. Burton....................       X   Mr. Lantos............       X 
Mr. Hastert...................       X   Mr. Wise..............  .......
Mrs. Morella..................  .......  Mr. Owens.............  .......
Mr. Shays.....................       X   Mr. Towns.............       X 
Mr. Schiff....................       X   Mr. Spratt............  .......
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen..............       X   Mrs. Slaughter........       X 
Mr. Zeliff....................       X   Mr. Kanjorski.........       X 
Mr. McHugh....................       X   Mr. Condit............       X 
Mr. Horn......................       X   Mr. Peterson..........  .......
Mr. Mica......................       X   Mr. Sanders...........  .......
Mr. Blute.....................       X   Mrs. Thurman..........       X 
Mr. Davis.....................       X   Mrs. Maloney..........       X 
Mr. McIntosh..................       X   Mr. Barrett...........       X 
Mr. Fox.......................       X   Ms. Collins--MI.......       X 
Mr. Tate......................       X   Ms. Norton............  .......
Mr. Chrysler..................       X   Mr. Moran.............  .......
Mr. Gutknecht.................       X   Mr. Green.............       X 
Mr. Souder....................       X   Mrs. Meek.............  .......
Mr. Martini...................       X   Mr. Fattah............       X 
Mr. Scarborough...............       X   Mr. Brewster..........  .......
Mr. Shadegg...................       X   Mr. Holden............       X 
Mr. Flanagan..................       X   Mr. Cummings..........       X 
Mr. Bass......................       X                                  
Mr. LaTourette................       X                                  
Mr. Sanford...................       X                                  
Mr. Ehrlich...................       X                                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 26 Ayes, 15 Nays.                                                


 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 104th CONGRESS, ROLLCALL 
  [Offered by Mr. Waxman. Amendment No. 1, amendment in the Nature of a 
                               Substitute]                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Name                 Aye             Name             Nay  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clinger...................       X   Mrs. Collins--IL......       X 
Mr. Gilman....................  .......  Mr. Waxman............       X 
Mr. Burton....................       X   Mr. Lantos............       X 
Mr. Hastert...................       X   Mr. Wise..............  .......
Mrs. Morella..................  .......  Mr. Owens.............  .......
Mr. Shays.....................       X   Mr. Towns.............       X 
Mr. Schiff....................       X   Mr. Spratt............  .......
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen..............       X   Mrs. Slaughter........       X 
Mr. Zeliff....................       X   Mr. Kanjorski.........       X 
Mr. McHugh....................       X   Mr. Condit............       X 
Mr. Horn......................       X   Mr. Peterson..........  .......
Mr. Mica......................       X   Mr. Sanders...........  .......
Mr. Blute.....................       X   Mrs. Thurman..........       X 
Mr. Davis.....................       X   Mrs. Maloney..........       X 
Mr. McIntosh..................       X   Mr. Barrett...........       X 
Mr. Fox.......................       X   Ms. Collins--MI.......       X 
Mr. Tate......................       X   Ms. Norton............  .......
Mr. Chrysler..................       X   Mr. Moran.............  .......
Mr. Gutknecht.................       X   Mr. Green.............       X 
Mr. Souder....................       X   Mrs. Meek.............  .......
Mr. Martini...................       X   Mr. Fattah............       X 
Mr. Scarborough...............       X   Mr. Brewster..........  .......
Mr. Shadegg...................       X   Mr. Holden............       X 
Mr. Flanagan..................       X   Mr. Cummings..........       X 
Mr. Bass......................       X                                  
Mr. LaTourette................       X                                  
Mr. Sanford...................       X                                  
Mr. Ehrlich...................       X                                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 16 Ayes, 26 Nays.                                                

 amendment in the nature of a substitute to h. res. --, offered by ----
                                 ------

    Whereas, the Committee has held no hearing on the dispute 
relating to the production of these records or on the 
production of records by John M. Quinn, David Watkins and 
Matthew Moore; be it
    Resolved, That the Speaker not certify any report pursuant 
to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194 detailing the refusal of John M. Quinn, 
David Watkins, or Matthew Moore to produce papers to the 
Committee until such time as the Committee holds a public 
hearing on the production of records by John M. Quinn, David 
Watkins, and Matthew Moore.

 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 104th CONGRESS, ROLLCALL 
     [Offered by: Mr. Burton. Motion to move the previous question]     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Name                 Aye             Name             Nay  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clinger...................       X   Mrs. Collins--IL......       X 
Mr. Gilman....................  .......  Mr. Waxman............       X 
Mr. Burton....................       X   Mr. Lantos............       X 
Mr. Hastert...................       X   Mr. Wise..............  .......
Mrs. Morella..................  .......  Mr. Owens.............  .......
Mr. Shays.....................       X   Mr. Towns.............       X 
Mr. Schiff....................       X   Mr. Spratt............       X 
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen..............       X   Mrs. Slaughter........       X 
Mr. Zeliff....................       X   Mr. Kanjorski.........       X 
Mr. McHugh....................       X   Mr. Condit............       X 
Mr. Horn......................       X   Mr. Peterson..........  .......
Mr. Mica......................       X   Mr. Sanders...........  .......
Mr. Blute.....................       X   Mrs. Thurman..........       X 
Mr. Davis.....................       X   Mrs. Maloney..........       X 
Mr. McIntosh..................       X   Mr. Barrett...........       X 
Mr. Fox.......................       X   Ms. Collins--MI.......       X 
Mr. Tate......................       X   Ms. Norton............  .......
Mr. Chrylser..................       X   Mr. Moran.............  .......
Mr. Gutknecht.................       X   Mr. Green.............       X 
Mr. Souder....................       X   Mrs. Meek.............  .......
Mr. Martini...................  .......  Mr. Fattah............       X 
Mr. Scarborough...............  .......  Mr. Brewster..........  .......
Mr. Shadegg...................       X   Mr. Holden............       X 
Mr. Flanagan..................       X   Mr. Cummings..........       X 
Mr. Bass......................       X                                  
Mr. LaTourette................       X                                  
Mr. Sanford...................       X                                  
Mr. Ehrlich...................       X                                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 26 Ayes, 18 Nays.                                                

 amendment in the nature of a substitute to h. res. ------, offered by 
                              collins (il)

    Whereas, the dispute in question before the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight (``the Committee'') involves 
the production of three categories of records as described in 
White House Counsel John M. Quinn's May 3, 1996, letter to 
Chairman Clinger, namely
          (a) Documents relating to ongoing grand jury 
        investigations by the Independent Counsel;
          (b) Documents created in connection with 
        Congressional hearings concerning the Travel Office 
        matter; and
          (c) Certain specific confidential internal White 
        House Counsel office documents including ``vetting'' 
        notes, staff meeting notes, certain other counsel 
        notes, memoranda which contain pure legal analysis, and 
        personnel records which are of the type that are 
        protected by the Privacy Act; be it
    Resolved, That the Speaker not certify any report pursuant 
to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194 detailing the refusal of John M. Quinn, 
David Watkins, or Matthew Moore to produce papers to the 
Committee until such time as the Committee
          (1) makes available for public inspection the 
        following records:
                  (a) All records of communications related to 
                the White House Travel Office matter, including 
                all letters, memoranda, notes of meetings, 
                phone logs, e-mails, computer entries, video or 
                audio tapes, calendars, press releases, 
                diaries, telephone message slips, notes, 
                talking points, journal entries, opinions, 
                analyses, summaries, and disks between Members 
                or staff of the Committee and the Independent 
                Counsel or staff of the Independent Counsel 
                (both Mr. Fiske and Mr. Starr) from May 19, 
                1993 until the present;
                  (b) All records of communications related to 
                the preparation for hearings by the Committee 
                on the White House Travel Office matter, 
                including all letters, memoranda, notes of 
                meetings, phone logs, e-mails, computer 
                entries, video or audio tapes, calendars, press 
                releases, diaries, telephone message slips, 
                notes, talking points, journal entries, 
                opinions, analyses, summaries, and disks 
                between staff of the Committee including 
                Barbara Bracher and Barbara Comstock and the 
                Chairman of the Committee, Members of the 
                Committee, other staff of the Committee, 
                Members or staff of the House leadership 
                including Virginia Thomas, or any other 
                individual assisting the Committee in the White 
                House Travel Office matter, or any other 
                individual including Steven Tabackman, Billy 
                Ray Dale, any employee of the Department of 
                Justice, the FBI, or the Independent Counsel 
                from May 19, 1993 to the present; and
                  (c) All records of communications related to 
                the White House Travel Office matter, including 
                all letters, memoranda, notes of meetings, 
                phone logs, e-mails, computer entries, video or 
                audio tapes, calendars, press releases, 
                diaries, telephone message slips, notes, 
                talking points, journal entries, opinions, 
                analyses, summaries, and disks of Members or 
                staff of the Committee reflecting internal 
                deliberations of the Committee including staff 
                notes, staff meeting notices, and other notes 
                of the Committee or its staff, and personnel 
                records from May 19, 1993 to the present.

 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 104TH CONGRESS, ROLLCALL 
[Offered by: Mr. Clinger. Final passage of House Resolution, proceedings
  against John M. Quinn, David Watkins, and Matthew Moore, pursuant to  
                 title 2, U.S. Code, Secs. 192 and 194]                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Name                 Aye             Name             Nay  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clinger...................       X   Mrs. Collins--IL......       X 
Mr. Gilman....................       X   Mr. Waxman............       X 
Mr. Burton....................       X   Mr. Lantos............       X 
Mr. Hastert...................       X   Mr. Wise..............       X 
Mrs. Morella..................       X   Mr. Owens.............       X 
Mr. Shays.....................       X   Mr. Towns.............       X 
Mr. Schiff....................       X   Mr. Spratt............       X 
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen..............       X   Ms. Slaughter.........  .......
Mr. Zeliff....................       X   Mr. Kanjorski.........       X 
Mr. McHugh....................       X   Mr. Condit............       X 
Mr. Horn......................       X   Mr. Peterson..........  .......
Mr. Mica......................       X   Mr. Sanders...........       X 
Mr. Blute.....................       X   Mrs. Thurman..........       X 
Mr. Davis.....................       X   Mrs. Maloney..........       X 
Mr. McIntosh..................       X   Mr. Barrett...........       X 
Mr. Fox.......................       X   Miss Collins--MI......       X 
Mr. Tate......................       X   Ms. Norton............       X 
Mr. Chrysler..................       X   Mr. Moran.............  .......
Mr. Gutknecht.................       X   Mr. Green.............       X 
Mr. Souder....................       X   Mrs. Meek.............  .......
Mr. Martini...................       X   Mr. Fattah............       X 
Mr. Scarborough...............  .......  Mr. Brewster..........  .......
Mr. Shadegg...................       X   Mr. Holden............       X 
Mr. Flanagan..................       X   Mr. Cummings..........       X 
Mr. Bass......................       X                                  
Mr. LaTourette................       X                                  
Mr. Sanford...................       X                                  
Mr. Ehrlich...................       X                                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals: 27 Ayes, 19 Nays.                                               

                               h. res. --

    Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
Speaker of the House certify the report of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, detailing the refusal of John 
M. Quinn to produce papers to the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, to the United States Attorney for the 
District of Columbia, for him to be proceeded against in the 
manner and form provided by law; and be it further
    Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
Speaker of the House certify the report of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, detailing the refusal of David 
Watkins to produce papers to the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight, to the United States Attorney for the District 
of Columbia, for him to be proceeded against in the manner and 
form provided by law; and be it further
    Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
Speaker of the House certify the report of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, detailing the refusal of 
Matthew Moore to produce papers to the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, to the United States Attorney for the 
District of Columbia, for him to be proceeded against in the 
manner and form provided by law.

                               Appendix 1

                    Congressional Research Service,
                                   The Library of Congress,
                                       Washington, DC, May 8, 1996.
To: Hon. Bill Clinger, Chairman, House Committee on Government Reform 
        and Oversight.
From: American Law Division.
Subject: Constitutional necessity for appearance before a committee of 
        a custodian of subpoenaed documents prior to a vote to hold the 
        custodian in contempt of Congress.
    On January 11, 1996, your Committee issued and served 
subpoenas duces tecum on the White House for 30 categories of 
documents relating to the White House Travel Office matter, 
returnable by January 22. Attempts at resolution of the matter 
have continued since that time through correspondence, meetings 
and telephone communications between you and members of your 
Staff and White House officials, in particular John Quinn, the 
White House Counsel, who is official with custody and control 
of the pertinent documents.
    On May 2, you advised Mr. Quinn that the response to the 
subpoenas had been unsatisfactory. You noted that a body of 
records was being withheld, apparently ``on separation of 
powers or Executive Privilege'' grounds, but that no privilege 
log had been produced specifying the particular records being 
withheld and particular privilege being asserted. You concluded 
with a notification that all documents responsive to the 
Committee's subpoenas were to be turned over by close of 
business May 8, and that for any documents not produced the 
President must personally make a written claim of executive 
privilege. Finally, you advised Mr. Quinn that you had 
scheduled a Committee meeting for the morning of May 9 at which 
time you would request a vote to hold him in contempt if the 
documents are not supplied.
    Mr. Quinn replied by letter on May 3, acknowledging that he 
understood that your letter ``threaten[ed] to hold me in 
contempt for failing to produce certain materials which 
essentially reflect the internal deliberations of the White 
House Counsel's Office.'' He pointed to his Office's attempt at 
compliance as reflected in the production of 40,000 pages of 
documents over the period but noted that compliance was 
complicated by two shifts in the original purpose of the 
Committee's inquiry, which was to ``investigate what actually 
happened in the Travel Office matter.'' The first shift was 
``to investigate the numerous investigations that were 
conducted of the underlying conduct,'' and then ``to 
investigate how we respond to your investigation of the 
investigations.'' The White House Counsel then specifically 
defined the three categories of documents being withheld:
          1. Documents relating to ongoing grand jury 
        investigations by the Independent Counsel;
          2. Documents created in connection with Congressional 
        hearings concerning the Travel Office matter; and
          3. Certain specific confidential internal White House 
        Counsel office documents including ``vetting'' notes, 
        staff meeting notes, certain other counsel notes, 
        memoranda which contain pure legal analysis, and 
        personnel records which are of the type that are 
        protected by the Privacy Act.
    The letter concluded that the materials sought ``go far 
beyond events relating to the Travel Office matter'' and 
``presumes to ask for * * * our internal preparation for 
Congressional hearings * * *, our private communication with 
Members and staff of this Committee, as well as our response to 
the Office of Independent Counsel.''
    You responded to Mr. Quinn's letter on May 6, informing him 
that your May 2 letter was intended to reject all previous 
White House offers of compromise. You also explained that the 
expansion of the Committee's investigation was the result of 
revelations that raised questions whether certain ``actions met 
the standards for improper or even criminal conduct.'' You 
noted that his description of the categories of documents 
withheld was appreciated but that a ``detailed privilege log is 
still requested and would have been more useful.'' You 
reiterated your demand that all subpoenaed documents be 
produced by May 8.
    In a letter of response dated May 6, Mr. Quinn asked for a 
further opportunity to accommodate the Committee's needs and 
``the President's interest in protecting confidential 
communications.'' He offered to discuss making available 
material related to FBI and IRS inquiries.
    You replied on May 7 that you would accept the preferred 
documents but that their acceptance would not waive full 
compliance with the January 11 subpoenas. You stated that you 
would not ``accept the proposition that non-executive 
privileged attorney-client relationships or internal 
deliberative process privileges exist'', but invited a written 
statement ``of any valid executive privilege claims'' ``or a 
written claim of Executive Privilege signed by the President,'' 
to be transmitted to the Committee by 8:00 a.m., May 9. You did 
not invite Mr. Quinn to testify at that Committee meeting nor 
has he yet asked to be present.
    You have inquired whether, on the basis of the proceedings 
thus far, there is a constitutional necessity for the Committee 
to have Mr. Quinn present at the contempt meeting to 
specifically refuse to comply and to have an opportunity to 
explain his noncompliance in order to make the proposed 
contempt citation legally sufficient. You also ask whether all 
other steps legally necessary to support a criminal proceeding 
under 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194 have been met. We conclude that it 
appears that Mr. Quinn's presence is not necessary and that 
your Committee will have met the prima facie requirements for 
sustaining a contempt.

                               discussion

    The offense of criminal contempt of Congress under 2 U.S.C. 
192, 194, is established by meeting four principal elements: 
(1) jurisdiction and authority; (2) legislative purpose; (3) 
pertinency; (4) willfulness. See, John C. Grabow Congressional 
Investigations: Law and Practice, Ch. 3.4(b) (1988).
    1. Jurisdiction and Authority.--The jurisdiction of the 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee is broadly defined in 
House Rule X, 1(g) and includes oversight of the ``overall 
economy, efficiency and management of government operations and 
activities, including Federal procurement,'' Rule X 1, (g)(6), 
and the Committee has the authority to issue subpoenas for 
testimony and documents pursuant to House Rule XI, 2(m)(2). In 
this case, the activities of the Travel Office would seem to 
fall well within the Committee's jurisdiction and subpoenas for 
documents were issued and served in accordance with House and 
Committee rules on the appropriate custodians of the documents. 
Custody and control has been acknowledged by word and action.
    In his May 3 letter Mr. Quinn appears to raise an objection 
to the fact that as your Committee's investigation progressed, 
its scope increased. However, the courts have not limited 
congressional inquiry to its initial stated scope. In Eastland 
v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 391, 509 (1975), 
the Supreme Court recognized that a congressional investigation 
may lead ``up some `blind alleys' and into non productive 
enterprises. To be a valid investigative inquiry there need to 
be no predictable end result.'' More recently, in Senate Select 
Committee on Ethics v. Packwood, 845 F.Supp. 17, 20-21 (D. D.C. 
1994), stay pending appeal denied, 114 S.Ct. 1036 (1994), the 
court rejected a claim of overbreath with regard to a subpoena 
for a Senator's personal diaries, holding that the Committee's 
investigation was not limited in its investigatory scope to its 
original demand ``even though the diaries might prove 
compromising in respects to the Committee has not yet 
foreseen.''
    2. Legislative Purpose.--The Supreme Court has made it 
clear that Congress does not have to state explicitly what it 
intends to do as a result of an investigation. In In re 
Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 669 (1897), the Court upheld the 
validity of a resolution authorizing an inquiry into charges of 
corruption against certain Senators despite the fact that it 
was silent as to what might be done when the investigation was 
completed.
    In McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927), the original 
resolution that authorized the Senate investigation made no 
mention of a legislative purpose. A subsequent resolution for 
the attachment of a contumacious witness declared that his 
testimony was sought for the purpose of obtaining ``information 
necessary as a basis for such legislative and other action as 
the Senate may deem necessary and proper.'' The Court found 
that the investigation was ordered for a legitimate object. It 
wrote:

          The only legitimate object the Senate could have in 
        ordering the investigation was to aid in legislating; 
        and we think the subject matter was such that the 
        presumption should be indulged that this was the real 
        object. An express avowal of the object would have been 
        better; but in view of the particular subject-matter 
        was not indispensable * * *.
          The second resolution--the one directing witness be 
        attached--declares that this testimony is sought with 
        the purpose of obtaining ``information necessary as a 
        basis for such legislative and other action as the 
        Senate may deem necessary and proper.'' This avowal of 
        contemplated legislation is in accord with what we 
        think is the right interpretation of the earlier 
        resolution directing the investigation. The suggested 
        possibility of ``other action'' if deemed ``necessary 
        or proper'' is of course open to criticism in that 
        there is no other action in the matter which would be 
        within the power of the Senate. But we do not assent to 
        the view that this indefinite and untenable suggestion 
        invalidates the entire proceeding. The right view in 
        our opinion is that it takes nothing from the lawful 
        object avowed in the same resolution and rightly 
        inferable from the earlier one. It is not as if an 
        admissible or unlawful object were affirmatively and 
        definitely avowed.

    Moreover, when the purpose asserted is supported by 
reference to specific problems which in the past have been, or 
in the future may be, the subject of appropriate legislation, 
it has been held that a court cannot say that a committee of 
the Congress exceeds its power when it seeks information in 
such areas. Sheoton v. United States, 404 F.2d 1292, 1297 (D.C. 
Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1024 (1969). In the past, 
the types of legislative activity which have justified the 
exercise of the power to investigate have included: the primary 
functions of legislating and appropriating, Barenblatt v. 
United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959); the function of deciding 
whether or not legislation is appropriate, Quinn v.  United 
States, 349 U.S. 155, 161 (1955); oversight of the 
administration of the laws by the executive branch, McGrain v. 
Daugherty, supra, 279 U.S. at 295; and the essential 
congressional function of information itself in matters of 
national concern, United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 43, 45 
(1953); Watkins v. United States, supra, 354 U.S. at 200 n.3.
    3. Pertinency.--In determining general questions of the 
pertinency of inquiries to the subject matter under 
investigation, the courts have required only that the specific 
inquiries be reasonably related to the subject matter area 
under investigation, Sinclair v. United States, supra, 279 U.S. 
at 299; Ashland Oil, Inc. v. F.T.C., 409 F.Supp. at 305. An 
argument that pertinence must be shown ``with the degree of 
explicitness and clarity required by the Due Process Clause'' 
has been held to confuse the standard applicable in those rare 
cases when the constitutional rights of individuals are 
implicated by congressional investigations with the far more 
common situation of the exercise of legislative oversight over 
the administration of the law which does not involve an 
individual constitutional right or prerogative. It is, of 
course, well established that the court will intervene to 
protect constitutional rights from infringement by Congress, 
including its committees and members. See, e.g., Yellin v. 
United States, 374 U.S. 1089, 143, 144 (1969); Watkins v. 
United States,  supra; United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1, 5 
(1892). But ``[w]here constitutional rights are not violated, 
there is no warrant to interfere with the internal procedures 
of Congress.'' Exxon Corporation v. F.T.C., 589 F.2d 582, 590 
(D.C. Cir. 1978).
    4. Willfullness.--Section 192 refers to witnesses who 
``willfully make default.'' The courts have long established 
that willfullness as used in the statute does not require the 
showing of a specific criminal intent, bad faith or moral 
turpitude. Braden v. United States, 365 U.S. 431, 437 (1961), 
Barsky v. United States, 167 F.2d 241, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1948). It 
deals only with intentional conduct. United States v. Bryan, 
339 U.S. 323 (1950). The requirement is satisfied if ``the 
refusal was deliberate and intentional and was not a mere 
inadvertence or an accident.'' Field v. United States. 167 F.2d 
97, 100 (D.C. Cir. 1947), cert denied, 332 U.S. 851 (1948). 
With particular respect to failures to produce documents called 
for by a subpoena duces, tecum, default occurs upon the return 
date of the subpoena. United States v. Bryan, supra, 339 U.S. 
at 330. The correspondence reviewed above provides a 
substantial basis for finding that the withholding of the 
subpoenaed documents by Mr. Quinn in intentional.
    Finally, with respect to the legal necessity to allow Mr. 
Quinn the opportunity to make an in person appearance before 
the Committee in order to make his refusal and given an 
explanation, we find no authority that establishes a due 
process right to such an appearance. Indeed, there is a case 
law to the contrary. In Groppi v. Leslie, 404 U.S. 496 (1972), 
the Court noted that it decisions recognizing the ``the power 
of the Houses of Congress to prevent contemptuous conduct leave 
little question that the Constitution imposes no general 
barriers to the legislative exercise of such power. 404 U.S. at 
499. They acknowledged that some process is due but the nature 
of that process would be decided on a case-by-case basis. The 
Court admonished that ``[c]ourts must be sensitive to the 
nature of a legislative contempt proceeding and `possible 
burden on that proceeding' that a given procedure might 
entail.'' Id at 500. The Court stated that ``the panoply of 
procedural rights that are accorded a defendant in a criminal 
trial have never been thought necessary in legislative contempt 
proceeding.'' Id. at 501. This was brought home most clearly 
several years earlier in United States v. Bryan, supra, a case 
involving a subpoena for records under Section 192. The Court 
rejected an argument that the statute required a refusal to 
take place before a quorum of a committee. The Court explained 
that under Section 192, there is no such requirement with 
respect to document production and, in fact, is not an 
essential element of the offense.

          Respondent attempts to equate R.S. Sec. 102 with the 
        perjury statute considered in the Christoffel case by 
        contending that it applies only to the refusal to 
        testify or produce papers before a committee--i.e., in 
        the presence of a quorum of the committee. But the 
        statute is not so limited. In the first place, it 
        refers to the wilful failure by any person ``to give 
        testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under 
        inquiry before * * * any committee of either House of 
        Congress.'' not to the failure to testify before a 
        congressional committee. And the fact that appearance 
        before a committee is not an essential element of the 
        offense is further emphasized by additional language in 
        the statute, which, after defining wilful default in 
        the terms set out above, continues, ``or who, having 
        appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to 
        the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a 
        misdemeanor, * * *.'' (Emphasis supplied.)
          It is clear that R.S. Sec. 102 is designed to punish 
        the obstruction of inquires in which the Houses of 
        Congress or their committees are engaged. If it is 
        shown that such an inquiry is, in fact, obstructed by 
        the intentional withholding of documents, it is 
        unimportant whether the subpoenaed person proclaims his 
        refusal to respond before the full committee, sends a 
        telegram to the chairman, or simply stays away from the 
        hearing on the return day. His statements or actions 
        are merely evidence from which a jury might infer an 
        intent to default. A proclaimed refusal to respond, as 
        in this case, makes that intent plain. But it would 
        hardly be less plain if the witness embarked on a 
        voyage to Europe on the day before his scheduled 
        appearance before the committee.
          Of course a witness may always change his mind. A 
        default does not mature until the return date of the 
        subpoena, whatever the previous manifestations of 
        intent to default. But when the Government introduced 
        evidence in this case that respondent had been validly 
        served with a lawful subpoena directing her to produce 
        records within her custody and control, and that on the 
        day set out in the subpoena she intentionally failed to 
        comply, it made a prima facie case of wilful default.

339 U.S. at 329-30.
    Moreover, it appears that the congressional practice with 
respect to appearances of senior Executive Branch officials who 
have received document subpoenas is not uniform. In the eight 
instances since 1975 in which cabinet level officials have been 
held in contempt by a House, a committee, or subcommittee, at 
least one, that of Henry Kissinger in 1975, was voted by the 
committee in his absence on the basis of a letter for him 
refusing to comply on the ground of executive privilege. See 
Senate Report No. 94-693, 94th Cong, 2d. Sess. (1975). Three 
other instances, involving Secretaries of Energy Duncan (1980) 
and Edwards (1981), and Attorney General William French Smith 
(1984), give strong indication from press reports that these 
individuals also did not appear. See 38 Cong. Q. 1307-08, 1352-
53 (1980) (Duncan); 39 Cong. Q. 1342, 1425 (1981) (Edwards); 
Washington Post, Nov. 1, 1984, A-15 (Smith).
    We conclude then, that subpoenas are legally sufficient and 
the non-appearance of Quinn at the contempt hearing, 
particularly in light of the invitation to file a written 
explanation of his refusal, and his failure (to date) to 
request a personal appearance, would not appear to violate 
procedural due process requirements.

                                          Morton Rosenberg,
                                 Specialist in American Public Law.

                               Appendix 2

                          subpena duces tecum

    By Authority of the House of Representatives of the 
Congress of the United States of America
    To Custodian of Records, Executive Office of the President
    You are hereby commended to produce the things identified 
on the attached schedule before the full Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives 
of the United States, of which the Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr. 
is chairman, by producing such things in Room 2157 of the 
Rayburn House Office Building, in the city of Washington, on 
Monday, January 22, 1996, at the hour of 5:00 p.m.
    To Kevin Sabo, Barbara Bracher, Barbara Comstock, or U.S. 
Marshals Service to serve and make return.
    Witness my hand and the seal of the House of 
Representatives of the United States, at the city of 
Washington, this 11th day of January, 1996.

                                 William F. Clinger, Jr., Chairman.
    Attest: Robin H. Carle, Clerk.
    By: Linda G. Nave, Deputy Clerk.

 document request to the white house executive office of the president

Definitions and instructions

    (1) For the purposes of this request, the word ``record'' 
or ``records'' shall include but shall not be limited to any 
and all originals and identical copies of any item whether 
written, typed, printed, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, 
filmed, graphically portrayed, video or audio taped, however 
produced or reproduced, and includes but is not limited to any 
writing, reproduction, transcription, photograph, or video or 
audio recording, produced or stored in any fashion, including 
any and all computer entries, memoranda, diaries, telephone 
logs, telephone message slips, tapes, notes, talking points, 
letters, journal entries, reports, studies, drawings, 
calendars, manuals, press releases, opinions, documents, 
analyses, messages, summaries, bulletins, e-mail (e-mail are 
limited to those specified in particular requests or that have 
been reduced to hard copies and are responsive to any of the 
outlined requests), disks, briefing materials and notes, cover 
sheets or routing cover sheets or any other machine readable 
material of any sort whether prepared by current or former 
employees, agents, consultants or by any non-employee without 
limitation. ``Record'' shall also include redacted and 
unredacted versions of the same record.
    (2) For purposes of this request, ``The White House Travel 
Office matter'' refers to all events leading to the May 19, 
1993 firings of the White House Travel Office employees and 
includes all information provided about the White House Travel 
Office and any employees of the White House Travel Office at 
any time from January 1, 1993 to the present; the activities of 
Harry Thomason, Darnell Martens and Penny Sample at the White 
House; all allegations of wrongdoing concerning the Travel 
Office employees; actions taken by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation and the Department of Justice, both prior to and 
after the firings (including the actions by any field office 
personnel and any White House involvement in coordination or 
attendance of interviews), including but not limited to U.S. v. 
Billy Ray Dale; all investigations and subsequent reviews of 
the Travel Office firings by any agency including, but not 
limited to the White House Management Review, the FBI Weldon 
Kennedy/I.C. Smith review, the FBI OPR review, the Justice 
Department OPR review, the IRS internal review, the Treasury 
Inspector General review, the General Accounting Office review, 
the proposed U.S. House of Representatives ``Resolution of 
Inquiry'' considered and voted on in the House Judiciary 
Committee in July 1993; and all actions relating to or 
describing the criminal investigations into the White House 
Travel Office matter including any subsequent action or 
activities of any kind as a result of the above mentioned 
events by the White House, the Treasury Department, the IRS, 
the General Services Administration, the General Accounting 
Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Independent 
Counsel (both Mr. Fiske and Mr. Starr) and the Department of 
Justice up to the date of this request unless otherwise 
limited.
    (3) For purposes of this request, the terms ``refer'' or 
``relate'' and ``concerning'' as to any given subject means 
anything that constitutes, contains, embodies, identifies, 
deals with, or is in any manner whatsoever pertinent to that 
subject, including but not limited to records concerning the 
preparation of other records.
    (4) For purposes of this request ``White House'' refers to 
any and all employees in the Executive Office of the President; 
employees in the Office of the First Lady; employees in the 
Office of the Vice-President; consultants, whether paid or not 
paid; volunteers; and all other employees of the executive 
branch assigned to, or working at the White House, regardless 
of designation describing their service at the White House.
    (5) For purposes of this request any records requested 
includes all records in the physical possession of the White 
House, all records in the possession of any custodians (such as 
Mr. Kendall) of White House documents, any records maintained 
in the White House residence, any documents which have been 
placed into any manner of storage. Unless a time period is 
specifically identified, the request includes all documents to 
the present.

                          Documents Requested

    1. Any records related to the White House Travel Office 
matter or the White House Project from the following 
individuals and/or offices (which would also include all 
assistants and secretaries): The White House Counsel's office, 
Maggie Williams, Capricia Marshall, Lisa Caputo, Neel 
Lattimore, Isabelle Tapia, Mary Beck, Vince Foster, Deborah 
Gorham, Linda Tripp, Bill Kennedy, David Watkins, Catherine 
Cornelius, Clarissa Cerda, Jeff Eller, Patsy Thomason, Ricki 
Seidman, Mark Gearan, Dwight Holton, Andre Oliver, Todd Stern, 
Jean Charleton, Brian Foucart, Janet Green, Beth Nolan, 
Clifford Sloan, Mack McLarty, Bill Burton, David Dreyer, Anne 
Edwards, Rahm Emanuel, David Leavey, Bruce Lindsey, Darnell 
Martens, Matt Moore, Dee Myers, Lloyd Cutler, Jane Sherburne, 
Abner Mikva, Mark Fabiani, Tom Hufford, Roy Neel, John Podesta, 
Rita Lewis, David Gergen, Craig Livingston, Marjorie Tarmey, 
Ira Magaziner, Bernard Nussbaum, Jennifer O'Connor, Penny 
Sample, George Stephanopoulos, Frank Stidman, Harry Thomason, 
Lorraine Voles, Jeremy Gaines, Dale Helms, David Gergen, Joel 
Klein, Neil Eggleston, Steve Neuwirth, Cheryl Mills, Jurg 
Hochuli, Andris Kalnins, Matt Moore, Lorraine Voles and Bruce 
Overton.
    2. All records related to the General Accounting Office 
review of the White House Travel Office.
    3. All records related to the Justice Department's Office 
of the White House Travel Office.
    4. Any records related to American Express obtaining the 
White House Travel Office business including all records 
related to any contact with GSA or American Express up to the 
time of this letter.
    5. All records related to the Peat Marwick review of the 
White House Travel Office and any subsequent reviews such as 
that performed by Tichenor and Associates and any records 
reflecting any contacts, communications or meetings with any 
Peat Marwick attorneys or officials to the present.
    6. Any records of any contacts or communications related to 
any IRS matter regarding UltraAir and/or any IRS matter 
regarding any other White House charter company, any IRS matter 
related to any of the fired seven travel office employees, or 
any other IRS matter related to the White House Travel Office 
and any records of contact or communications with IRS 
Commissioner Peggy Richardson by Mack McLarty, Webb Hubbell, 
Bruce Lindsey, Vince Foster, Bill Kennedy, or any member of the 
White House Counsel's office from May 1, 1993 to the present.
    7. All records related to the Treasury Inspector General's 
investigation of the IRS audit of UltrAir. (The investigation 
requested by Rep. Frank Wolf in May 1993).
    8. Any records relating to any proposal to use independent 
financing or unused Presidential Inaugural Committee funds to 
assists anyone on the White House staff, out source White House 
duties or tasks, or otherwise assist White House operations. 
This would include records regarding any efforts both inside 
and outside the White House to explore evaluate or implement 
such proposal. It would also include records of any subsequent 
analysis of such efforts.
    9. Any records relating to or mentioning the finding of the 
note in Mr. Foster's briefcase or any other location following 
his death, any Travel Office records of Mr. Foster's and any 
records relating to the finding of or existence of or 
explanations of any files of Mr. Foster's relating to the White 
House Travel Office matter, Special Government Employees, 
issues of nepotism, the use of volunteers or any efforts to 
obtain Office of Legal Counsel opinions on any of these matters 
and any records of any contacts with Mr. James Hamilton, Lisa 
Foster, Harry Thomason, Susan Thomases, James Lyons about 
Vincent Foster's records.
    10. Any records relating to Mr. Thomason, Mr. Martens, Ms. 
Penny Sample, Ms. Betta Carney and Mr. Steve Davison and any 
other World Wide Travel employees including, but not limited 
to, all records indicating what these individuals did while at 
the White House, any documents relating to issues arising out 
of any actions they took while at the White House, any 
personnel records, requests for passes or pass forms, requests 
for office space and any forms related to office space, phones 
or other equipment,and any records relating to any actions 
taken by these individuals regarding the White House Travel 
Office. (For Ms. Sample, this request would also include all 
trip files for trips she had any involvement with while at the 
White House.)
    11. All records about problems or allegations or wrongdoing 
in the Travel Office from January 20, 1993 to present.
    12. All tapes or videotapes produced by Mr. Thomason or any 
associates of his for the White House, the Bill Clinton for 
President Committee or the Clinton/Gore '92 Committee and all 
billings and financial statements relating to such work.
    13. Any tapes, tape recordings or videotapes of any kind 
related to the White House Travel Office, the White House 
Travel Office employees, or any allegations of wrongdoing by 
anyone in the White House Travel Office or any air charter 
company or other business doing business with the White House 
Travel Office.
    14. Calendars of the following individuals: Bill Kennedy, 
Vince Foster, Mack McLarty, Ricki Seidman, John Podesta, Todd 
Stern, Dwight Holton, Andre Oliver, Brian Foucart, Bruce 
Lindsey, Jack Kelly, Matt Moore, Beth Nolan, Cliff Sloan, 
Bernard Nussbaum, David Watkins, Catherine Cornelius, Jennifer 
O'Connor, George Stephanopoulos, Dee Dee Myers, Clarissa Cerda, 
Jeff Eller, Patsy Thomasson, Mark Gearan, Leon Panetta, Harry 
Thomason, and Maggie Williams indicating any meetings, messages 
or discussions with any of these same named individuals among 
or between each other and among or between these names 
individuals and Susan Thomases, Darnell Martens, Webb Hubbell, 
(Harry or Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, Larry Herman (or any other 
KPMG partners or employees) or James Lyons between May 1 and 
July 31, 1993.
    15. Phone records (including message slips, (phone logs, 
pages, or any White House records of phone calls) for the same 
named individuals in paragraph #14 above, making or receiving 
calls from any of the same named individuals between May 1 and 
July 31, 1993.
    16. All calendars and phone records, message slips or phone 
logs, of the following individuals, made to or from any of the 
following individuals, from May 1, 1995 through November 30, 
1995 regarding the White House Travel Office matter or the case 
of U.S. v. Billy Ray Dale: Jane Sherburne, John Yarowsky, 
Natalie Williams, Miriam Nemitz, Judge Mikva, Maggie Williams, 
Capricia Marshall, patsy Thomasson, John Podesta, Catherine 
Cornelius, Mark Gearan, Bruce Lindsey, David Watkins, Janet 
Greene, Betsey Wright, Webb Hubbell, Bill Kennedy, Jeff Eller, 
Neil Eggleston, Cliff Sloan, Mike Berman, Harry Thomason, 
Darnell Martens, Catherine Cornelius, John Podesta, Beth Nolan, 
James Hamilton, Susan Thomases, James Lyons, Roy Neel, John 
Gaughan, any employee of the Military office, Larry Herman, 
John Shutkin, any employee of KPMG Peat Marwick, Billy Ray 
Dale, Barney Brasseux, John Dreylinger, Ralph Maughan, John 
McSweeney, Robert VanEimeren, Gary Wright, David Bowie; Pam 
Bombardi, Tom Carl, Stuart Goldberg, Lee Radek, Jamie Gorelick, 
Adam Rossman, David Sanford.
    17. All records related to Travel Office funds and/or 
documents being placed in the White House military office and 
all records of any inquiries about related events.
    18. All records of any contacts with David Watkins or Bill 
Kennedy from the time they ended their employment at the White 
House to the present.
    19. All Executive order documents located in Mr. Foster's 
Travel office files and/or his briefcases.
    20. All records related to Harry Thomason and/or Darnell 
Martens discussing or pursuing contacts with GSA, all records 
related to ICAP, and any record of the White House Counsel's 
office analyzing the issues raised by Mr. Thomason and Mr. 
Martens actions at the White House.
    21. All records related to any sexual harassment complaints 
about Mr. David Watkins during the Clinton/Gore 1992 campaign 
or during his tenure at the White House and any records of 
meetings, actions, or communications regarding such complaints 
and all records related to the $3,000 per month retainer 
provided to Mr. Watkins by the Clinton for President campaign.
    22. All records of any contacts, communications or meetings 
regarding the ``Watkins memo'' produced to the Committee on 
January 3, 1996 and the chain of custody of this memo.
    23. All indices or catalogues of Vincent Foster's office, 
tapes, computer and documents and who received each document 
from his office.
    24. All records relating to the actions of Mr. Watkins at 
the White House regarding the use of White House helicopters, 
the names of all individuals in the two helicopters used in May 
1994 for Mr. Watkins golf outing and all records relating to 
his departure from the White House.
    25. All e-mail to or from the following individuals from 
May 7, 1993 through May 28, 1993, concerning the White House 
Travel Office matter as defined in paragraph (2), the White 
House project, or the Presidential Inaugural Commission: David 
Watkins, Patsy Thomasson, Jennifer O'Connor, Brian Foucart, 
Peter Siegel, Paul Toback, Catherine Cornelius, Clarissa Cerda, 
Dee Dee Myers, David Leavey, George Stephanopoulos, Mack 
McLarty, Ricki Seidman, Bill Burton, Bruce Lindsey, Harry 
Thomasson, Darnell Martens, Maggie Williams, Capricia Marshall, 
Lisa Caputo, Mark Gearan, Bernard Nussbaum, Isabelle Tapia, 
Vincent Foster, Deborah Gorham, Linda Tripp, Betsy Pond, Bill 
Kennedy, John Podesta, Dwight Holton, Andre Oliver, Todd Stern, 
Jean Charleton, Beth Nolan, Clifford Sloan, Rahm Emanuel, 
Lorraine Voles, and Craig Livingstone.
    26. All e-mail to or from the following individuals from 
June 26, 1993 through August 1, 1993, concerning the White 
House Travel Office matter as defined in paragraph (2), the 
White House project, or the Presidential Inaugural Commission: 
Vincent Foster, Mack McLarty, David Watkins, Patsy Thomasson, 
John Podesta, Todd Stern, Dwight Holton, Andre Oliver, Bernard 
Nussbaum, Bruce Lindsey, Ricki Seidman, Mark Gearan, Maggie 
Williams, Lisa Caputo, George Stephanopoulos and Cliff Sloan.
    27. All e-mail to or from the following individuals from 
September 1, 1993 through December 20, 1993, concerning the 
White House Travel Office matter as defined in paragraph (2), 
the White House project, or the Presidential Inaugural 
Commission: Mack McLarty, David Watkins, Patsy Thomasson, Cliff 
Sloan, Neil Eggleston, Bruce Lindsey, John Podesta, Todd Stern, 
Ricki Seidman, Maggie Williams, Mark Gearan, and George 
Stephanopoulos.
    28. All e-mail to or from the following individuals from 
May 1, 1994 through September 8, 1994, concerning the White 
House Travel Office matter as defined in paragraph (2), the 
White House project, or the Presidential Inaugural Commission: 
Neil Eggleston, Lloyd Cutler, Joel Klein, John Podesta, Jane 
Sherburne, Sheila Cheston, Maggie Williams and Todd Stern.
    29. All records relating to the matter of United States of 
America v. Billy Ray Dale, any investigation by the Justice 
Department into the White House Travel Office matter as defined 
in paragraph (2), and all records relating to Billy Ray Dale as 
well as any records of talking points prepared about Mr. Dale 
to the present.
    30. All records related to the gathering of documents for 
any review or investigation related to the White House Travel 
Office matter as defined in paragraph (2). This includes, but 
should not be limited to, the White House Management Review, 
the IRS internal review, the GAO Travel OFfice review, the OPR 
investigation, the Public Integrity investigation, the Treasury 
IG investigation, the FBI internal review, Independent Counsel 
Robert Fiske, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

                          manner of production

    Please provide a document production log for all documents 
produced with a description of the document, the identity of 
the individual who created or authored the document, identify 
the individual and location where each document was found, 
identify any handwriting of any notes or notations on any 
document and the author of any such notations. In addition, 
please indicate for each item requested if you know of any 
document which would be responsive and previously existed but 
you no longer have access to or it has been destroyed. For any 
documents which have been destroyed please identify the 
document and who destroyed it. In addition, for all documents 
produced to date, as well as any additional items, identify all 
documents which originated in Vincent Foster's office.

                               Appendix 3

                          Subpena Duces Tecum

    By Authority of the House of Representatives of the 
Congress of the United States of America
    To David Watkins
    You are hereby commanded to produce the things identified 
on the attached schedule before the full Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives 
of the United States, of which the Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr. 
is chairman, by producing such things in Room 2154 of the 
Rayburn House Office Building, in the city of Washington, on 
Thursday, January 11, 1996 at the hour of 2:00 p.m.
    To Kevin Sabo, Barbara K. Bracher, or any U.S. Marshall to 
serve and make return.
    Witness my hand and the seal of the House of 
Representatives of the United States, at the city of 
Washington, this Fifth day of January, 1996
                                  William F. Clinger, Jr. Chairman,
    Attest: Robin H. Carle, Clerk.

                   DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO DAVID WATKINS

Definitions and instructions

    (1) For the purposes of this request, the word ``record'' 
or ``records'' shall include but shall not be limited to any 
and all originals and identical copies of any item whether 
written, typed, printed, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, 
filmed, graphically portrayed, video or audio taped, however, 
produced or reproduced, and includes but is not limited to any 
writing, reproduction, transcription, photograph, or video or 
audio recording, produced or stored in any fashion, including 
any and all computer entries, memoranda, diaries, telephone 
logs, telephone message slips, tapes, notes talking 
points,letters, journal entries, reports, studies, drawings, 
calendars, manuals, press releases, opinions, documents, 
analyses, messages, summaries, bulletins, e-mail disks, 
briefing materials and notes, cover sheets or routing cover 
sheets or any other machine readable material of any sort 
whether prepared by current or former employees, agents, 
consultants or by any non-employee without limitation. 
``Record'' shall also include redacted and unredacted versions 
of the same record.
    (2) For purposes of this request, ``The House Travel Office 
matter'' refers to all events leading to the May 19, 1993 
firings of the White House Travel Office; any and all 
information provided about the White House Travel Office and 
any employees of the White House Travel Office at any time from 
January 1, 1991 to the present; any and all records regarding 
any allegations of wrongdoing by Travel Office employees; all 
actions taken both prior to and after the firings by the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation (including the actions taken by 
any field office personnel and any White House involvement in 
coordinating or sitting in on interviews) and the Department of 
Justice; all reviews of the firings conducted by any agency 
including, but not limited to the White House Management 
Review, the FBI Weldon Kennedy/I.C.Smith review, the FBI OPR 
review, the Justice Department OPR review, the General 
Accounting Office review, the proposed U.S. House of 
Representatives ``Resolution of Inquiry'' considered and voted 
on in the House Judiciary Committee in July 1993, and any other 
documents related to these matters; and all actions relating to 
or describing the investigation and subsequent acts and 
activities of any kind by the White House, the Treasury 
Department, the IRS, the General Services Administration, the 
General Accounting Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
the Independent Counsel (both Mr. Fiske and Mr. Starr) and the 
Department of Justice up to the date of this letter.
    (3) For purposes of this request, the terms ``refer'' or 
``relate'' and ``concerning'' as to any given subject means 
anything that constitutes, contains, embodies, identifies, 
deals with, or is in any manner whatsoever pertinent to the 
subject, including but not limited to records concerning the 
preparation of other records.
    (4) For purposes of this request ``White House'' refers to 
any and all employees of the Executive Office of the President; 
the First Lady and her office; the President; the Vice-
President; consultants, whether paid or not paid; volunteers; 
and all employees of the executive branch assigned to, or 
working at the White House, regardless of designation 
describing the service at the White House.
    (5) For purposes of this request any records requested 
included all records which you have in your physical possession 
as well as any records to which you have access, any records 
which were formerly in your possession or which you have put in 
storage or anyone has put in storage on your behalf. Unless a 
time period is specifically identified, the request includes 
all documents to the present.

                          DOCUMENTS REQUESTED

    1. Any records related to the White House Travel Office 
matter from January 1991 to present.
    2. All records related to the White House Project.
    3. All records related to any efforts to use Presidential 
Inaugural Commission funds for any White House purposes or for 
any outside employees who would assist the White House in any 
manner.
    4. All records related to the General Accounting Office 
review of the White House Travel Office.
    5. All records related to the Justice Department's Office 
of Professional Responsibility review of the White House Travel 
Office or any records related to the justice Department's 
Office of Public Integrity investigation or the Justice 
Department's Independent Counsel investigation (either Mr. 
Fiske or Mr. Starr).
    6. Any records related to American Express obtaining the 
White House Travel Office business including all records 
related to any contact with GSA or American Express up to the 
time of this letter relating to the original contract and 
subsequent renewals by the White House.
    7. All records (and subsequent contacts) related to the 
Peat Marwick review of the White House Travel Office and any 
subsequent reviews such as that performed by Tichenor and 
Associates.
    8. Any records related to any actions taken by the IRS 
regarding UltrAir and other White House charter company, any of 
the fired seven travel office employees, or any other IRS 
matter related to the White House Travel Office.
    9. All records related to the Treasury Inspector General's 
investigation of the IRS audit of UltrAir completed in March 
1994.
    10. Any records relating to any notes or files of Vincent 
Foster, any Travel Office records of Mr. Foster's and any 
records relating to the finding of or existence of or 
explanations of any files of Mr. Foster's relating to the White 
House Travel Office matter.
    11. Any records relating to Mr. Thomason, Mr. Martens, Ms. 
Penny Sample, Ms. Betta Carney and Mr. Steve Davison and any 
other World Wide Travel employees or Air Advantage employees 
including, but not limited to, all records indicating what 
these individuals did while at the White House, any documents 
relating to issues arising out of any actions they took while 
at the White House, any personnel records, requests for passes 
or pass forms, requests for office space and any documents or 
notes related to office space, phones or other equipment, and 
any records relating to any actions taken by these individuals 
regarding the White House Travel Office.
    12. All videotapes produced by Mr. Thomason or any 
associates of his for the White House, the Bill Clinton for 
President Committee or the Clinton/Gore '92 Committee and all 
billings and financial statements relating to such work.
    13. Any documents, including draft or final Executive 
Orders connected with transportation, travel, GSA, procurement, 
contracting, the White House Travel Office operations or The 
White House Project or any efforts to use an outside source of 
funding to assist the White House staff.
    14. All records related to Harry Thomason and/or Darnell 
Martens, all records related to ICAP, all records related to 
any Executive Orders connected with any changes in contracting 
or procuring or related to National Performance Review efforts.
    15. All records related to your employment and/or any 
consultant work you have done with any Clinton campaign 
committee from 1991 to the present.
    16. All records of all contacts and communications with any 
past or present White House personnel, campaign personnel, or 
Betsey Wright, Skip Rutherford, Mike Berman, Webster Hubbell, 
Susan Thomases, James Lyons, Harry Thomason, Darnell Martens, 
Markie Post, Jack Palladino or any attorney representing the 
President or the First Lady from June 1, 1995 to present.
    17. All calendars, phone logs, message slips and phone 
bills from January 1991 to the present.
    18. All records relating to any complaints against you for 
sexual harassment or inappropriate actions by any employee, 
volunteer or contractor for any Clinton campaign or the White 
House office. (For any complaints from the White House office 
beginning on January 20, 1993 and thereafter).
    19. All records relating to your $3,000 month retainer or 
any other retainers or payments form the Clinton for President 
Committee from June 1994 to the present.
    20. All records relating to your actions during your tenure 
at the White House regarding the use of White House helicopters 
and all records relating to your departure from the White 
House.
    21. All records pertaining to the employment and/or 
resignation of Patsy Thomasson, Janet Greene, Jean Charleton, 
Brian Foucart.

                          MANNER OF PRODUCTION

    Please provide a document production log for all documents 
produced. In addition, please indicate for each item requested 
if you know of any document which you know to have existed but 
you no longer have access to or it has been destroyed. For any 
documents which have been destroyed please identify the 
document and who destroyed it.

                               Appendix 4

                          Subpena Duces Tecum

    By Authority of the House of Representatives of the 
Congress of the United States of America.
    To Matthew Moore.
    You are hereby commanded to produce the things identified 
on the attached schedule before the full Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives 
of the United States, of which the Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr. 
is chairman, by producing such things in Room 2157 of the 
Rayburn House Office Building, in the city of Washington, on 
Monday, February 26 1996, at the hour of 5:00 pm.
    To Kevin Sabo, Barbara Bracher, Barbara Comstock, or U.S. 
Marshals Service to serve and make return.
    Witness my hand and the seal of the House of 
Representatives of the United States, at the city of 
Washington, this 6th day of February, 1996.
                                  William F. Clinger, Jr. Chairman.
    Attest: Robin H. Carle, Clerk.

                   Document requests to matthew moore

Definitions and instructions

    (1) For the purposes of this request, the word ``record'' 
or ``records'' shall include but shall not be limited to any 
and all originals and identical copies of any item whether 
written, typed, printed, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, 
filmed , graphically portrayed, video or audio taped, however 
produced or reproduced, and includes but is not limited to any 
writing, reproduction, transcription, photograph, or video or 
audio recording, produced or stored in any fashion, including 
any and all computer entries, memoranda, diaries, telephone 
logs, telephone message slips, tapes, notes, talking points, 
letters, journal entries, reports, studies, drawings, 
calendars, manuals, press releases, opinions, documents, 
analyses, messages, summaries, bulletins, e-mail, disks, 
briefing materials and notes, cover sheets or routing cover 
sheets or any other machine readable material of any sort 
whether prepared by current or former employees, agents, 
consultants or by any non-employee without limitation. 
``Record'' shall also include redacted and unredacted versions 
of the same record.
    (2) For purposes of this request, ``The White House Travel 
Office matter'' refers to all events leading to the May 19, 
1993 firings of the White House Travel Office employees and 
includes all information provided about the White House Travel 
Office and any employees of the White House Travel Office at 
any time from January 1, 1993 to the present; the activities of 
Harry Thomason, Darnell Martens and Penny Sample at the White 
House; all allegations of wrongdoing concerning the Travel 
Office employees; actions taken by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation and the Department of Justice, both prior to and 
after the firings (including the actions by any field office 
personnel and any White House involvement in coordination or 
attendance of interviews), including but not limited to U.S. v. 
Billy Ray Dale; all investigations and subsequent reviews of 
the Travel Office firings by any agency including, but not 
limited to the White House Management Review, the FBI Weldon 
Kennedy/I.C. Smith review, the FBI OPR review, the Justice 
Department OPR review, the IRS internal review, the Treasury 
Inspector General review, the General Accounting Office review, 
the proposed U.S. House of Representatives ``Resolution of 
Inquiry'' considered and voted on in the House Judiciary 
Committee in July 1993; and all actions relating to or 
describing the criminal investigations into the White House 
Travel Office matter including any subsequent action or 
activities of any kind as a result of the above mentioned 
events by the White House, the Treasury Department, the IRS, 
the General Services Administration, the General Accounting 
Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Independent 
Counsel (both Mr. Fiske and Mr. Starr) and the Department of 
Justice up to the date of this request unless otherwise 
limited.
    (3) For purposes of this request, the terms ``refer'' or 
``relate'' and ``concerning'' as to any given subject means 
anything that constitutes, contains, embodies, identifies, 
deals with, or is in any manner whatsoever pertinent to that 
subject, including but not limited to records concerning the 
preparation of other records.
    (4) For purposes of this request ``White House'' refers to 
any and all employees of the Executive Office of the President; 
the First Lady and her office; the President; the Vice-
President; consultants, whether paid or not paid; volunteers; 
and all employees of the executive branch assigned to, or 
working at the White House, regardless of designation 
describing their service at the White House.
    (5) For purposes of this request any records requested 
included all records which you have in your physical possession 
as well as any records to which you have access, any records 
which were formerly in your possession or which you have put in 
storage or anyone has put in storage on your behalf. Unless a 
time period is specifically identified, the request includes 
all documents to the present.

                          documents requested

    1. Any records related to the White House Travel Office 
matter from January 1993 to present.
    2. All records related to the White House Project which 
involved both improving the ``staging'' of Presidential events 
as well as finding a way to utilize excess Presidential 
Inaugural Commission funds for outsourcing White House 
assistance or providing assistance to the White House.
    3. All records related to any efforts to use Presidential 
Inaugural Commission funds for any White House purposes or for 
any outside employees who would assist the White House in any 
manner.
    4. All records related to the General Accounting Office 
review of the White House Travel Office.
    5. All records related to the Justice Department's Office 
of Professional Responsibility review of the White House Travel 
Office or any records related to the Justice Department's 
Office of Public Integrity investigation or any other Justice 
Department investigation.
    6. Any records related to American Express obtaining the 
White House Travel Office business including all records 
related to any contact with GSA or American Express up to the 
time of this letter relating to the original contract and 
subsequent renewals by the White House.
    7. All records related to the KPMG Peat Marwick review of 
the White House Travel Office and any subsequent reviews such 
as that performed by Tichenor and Associates, including all 
contacts with any KPMG Peat Marwick employee.
    8. Any records related to any actions taken by the IRS 
regarding UltrAir and any other White House charter company, 
any of the fired seven travel office employees, or any other 
IRS matter related to the White House Travel Office and any 
records of contacts or communications with IRS Commissioner 
Peggy Richardson.
    9. All records related to the Treasury Inspector General's 
investigation of the IRS audit of UltrAir completed in March 
1994.
    10. Any records relating to any notes or files of Vincent 
Foster's office, any Travel Office records of Mr. Foster's and 
any records relating to the finding of or existence of or 
explanations of any files or notes of Mr. Foster's relating to 
the White House Travel Office matter.
    11. Any records relating to Mr. Harry Thomason, Mr. Darnell 
Martens, Ms. Penny Sample, Ms. Betta Carney and Mr. Steve 
Davison and any other World Wide Travel employees or Air 
Advantage employees including, but not limited to, all records 
indicating what these individuals did while at the White House, 
any documents relating to issues arising out of any actions 
they took while at the White House, any personnel records, 
requests for passes or pass forms, requests for office space 
and any documents or notes related to office space, phones or 
other equipment, and any records relating to any actions taken 
by these individuals regarding the White House Travel Office.
    12. All tapes or videotapes produced by Mr. Thomason or any 
associates of his for the White House, the Bill Clinton for 
President Committee or the Clinton/Gore '92 Committee and all 
billings and financial statements relating to such work.
    13. Any tapes, tape recordings, or videotapes of any kind 
related to the White House Travel Office matter, any employee 
of the White House Travel Office or any allegations of 
wrongdoing by any employee of the White House Travel Office or 
any air charter company doing business with the White House 
Travel Office.
    14. Any documents, related to the Federal Aviation 
Administration, transportation, travel, GSA, procurement, 
contracting, the White House Travel Office operations or The 
White House Project or any efforts to use an outside source of 
funding to assist the White House staff.
    15. All records related to Harry Thomason and/or Darnell 
Martens, all records related to ICAP, all records related to 
any Executive Orders connected with any changes in contracting 
or procuring or related to National Performance Review efforts.
    16. All records of all contacts and communications with 
anyone in the White House Counsel's office, Mack McLarty, Bruce 
Lindsey, Harold Ickes, Mark Gearan, Webster Hubbell, Susan 
Thomases, James Lyons, Harry Thomason, Mike Berman, Darnell 
Martens, John Podesta, Betsey Wright, Todd Stern, Maggie 
Williams, Patsy Thomasson, Bruce Overton, Catherine Cornelius, 
Clarissa Cerda, George Stephanopoulos, David Dreyer, David 
Watkins or Jeff Eller from June 1, 1995 to present.
    17. All calendars from May 1, 1993 to July 31, 1993 
indicating any meetings, messages or discussions with any of 
the following individuals: Bill Kennedy, Vince Foster, Mack 
McLarty, Ricki Seidman, John Podesta, Todd Stern, Dwight 
Holton, Andre Oliver, Brian Foucart, Bruce Lindsey, Jack Kelly, 
Matt Moore, Beth Nolan, Cliff Sloan, Bernard Nussbaum, David 
Watkins, Catherine Cornelius, Jennifer O'Connor, George 
Stephanopoulos, Dee Dee Myers, Clarissa Cerda, Jeff Eller, 
Patsy Thomasson, Mark Gearan, Leon Panetta, Harry Thomason, 
Darnell Martens, Susan Thomases, Webb Hubbell, Linda 
Bloodworth-Thomason, Larry Herman (or any other KPMG partner or 
employee), James Lyons and Maggie Williams.
    18. All phone logs and message slips for the same named 
individuals in paragraph #17 above, making or receiving calls 
from any of the same named individuals from May 1, 1993 through 
July 31, 1993.
    19. All records relating to any complaints against David 
Watkins for sexual harassment or inappropriate actions by any 
employee, volunteer or contractor for any Clinton campaign or 
the White House office. (For any complaints from the White 
House office beginning on January 20, 1993 and thereafter.)
    20. All records relating to the ``Watkins memo'' found in 
Patsy Thomasson's files on December 29, 1995 and produced to 
the Committee on January 3, 1996 and all records of any 
contacts, communications, or meetings related to the finding of 
this memo.
    21. All records relating to the matter of United States of 
America v. Billy Ray Dale and any investigation related to the 
Justice Department investigation of the White House Travel 
Office matter.
    22. All records detailing any alleged wrongdoing by any 
employee of the White House Travel Office and all records of 
any communications or contacts to that effect.
    23. All records relating to Travel Office records and funds 
being placed in a military office safe.
    24. Any records relating to any of the above requests that 
you have maintained at any time outside the White House or in 
any storage facility.

                          MANNER OF PRODUCTION

    Please provide a document production log for all documents 
produced, identifying the document, identifying the handwriting 
of any notes or notations, identifying where this document 
comes from. In addition, please indicate for each item 
requested if you know of any document which you know to have 
existed but you no longer have access to or it has been 
destroyed. For any documents which have been destroyed please 
identify the document and who destroyed it.

                                                William F. Clinger.
                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                                summary

    The failure of the Committee to provide any semblance of 
fundamental due process and fairness, as well as its refusal to 
make any effort to accommodate the interests of the Executive 
Branch, not only renders H.Res. ____ invalid, but also 
demonstrates a blatant contempt for the rule of law, and a 
repugnance to our Constitutional democracy. The willingness of 
the Majority to deprive three individuals of their personal 
liberty for transparent political goals demeans the 
Constitutional authority of Congressional oversight. For these 
reasons we strongly oppose the resolution.
    From January 5, 1996 through February 7, 1996, the 
Committee sent out 36 subpoenas regarding the White House 
Travel Office matter. On January 5, 1996, the Committee sent a 
subpoena to David Watkins. On January 11, 1996, the Committee 
sent a far-reaching and broad subpoena to the Custodian of 
Records at the White House Office of Administration and a 
similar subpoena to the Custodian of Records at the Executive 
Office of the President. Both subpoenas were received by Jane 
C. Sherburne. On February 6, 1996, the Committee sent a 
subpoena to Matthew Moore.
    In correspondence to the Committee, John Quinn, Counsel to 
the President, has raised significant issues of privilege 
regarding three categories of documents subpoenaed from the 
White House. Mr. Quinn argued that (1) turning over these 
documents to the Committee would chill the deliberative process 
of the President's Counsel and the President's closest 
advisors, (2) the documents requested are not pertinent to the 
Committee's investigation, and (3) the Committee has refused 
any effort to reach an accommodation on these documents.
    David Watkins and Matthew Moore have both argued that a 
limited number of draft documents in their possession are 
covered by attorney-client and attorney work product 
privileges.
    Despite numerous requests over a three month period by the 
President's counsel to resolve all remaining White House Travel 
Office issues, the Chairman has made no effort to accommodate 
the concerns of the Executive Branch. On the other hand, Mr. 
Quinn has made several reasonable proposals to provide the 
Committee with access to confidential documents in order to 
accommodate the legitimate needs of the Committee.
    Chairman Clinger has refused the request of the Ranking 
Minority Member, Cardiss Collins, to have a hearing on these 
important and complex issues before voting on the contempt 
citation. Such a hearing is not only legally required, but 
would have helped Members to resolve the legal and factual 
issues in dispute.
    The Committee never considered or specifically overruled 
claims of privilege before approving the contempt resolution, 
never specifically informed the subjects of the contempt 
resolution that their claims of privilege had been overruled, 
and never ordered them to comply with the Committee's 
determination prior to approving the contempt resolution.
    The real motivation of this contempt resolution is a 
carefully orchestrated effort by the Republican leadership to 
embarrass the President in the closing months of this election 
year. Specifically, the resolution is in response to a 
memorandum from Representatives Bob Walker and Jim Nussle to 
all House Full and Subcommittee Chairmen dated April 23, 1996. 
That memorandum follows:
Memorandum
To: All House Full and Subcommittee Chairmen.
From: Bob Walker and Jim Nussle.
Subject: Request for information--URGENT.
Date: April 23, 1996.
    On behalf of the House Leadership, we have been asked to 
cull all committees for information that you already have on 
three subjects listed below. We are compiling information for 
packaging and presentation to the Leadership for determining 
the agenda. You are a tremendous source for this project. The 
subjects are:
          Waste, Fraud and Abuse in the Clinton Administration
          Influence of Washington Labor Union Bosses/Corruption
          Examples of Dishonesty or ethical lapse in the 
        Clinton Administration
    Please have your staff review pertinent GAO reports, 
Inspector General reports or committee investigative materials 
or newspaper articles for departments and agencies within your 
jurisdiction that expose anecdotes that amplify these areas.
    Send your material to Ginni Thomas at H-226, U.S. Capitol 
or fax it to 6-1116. We need this information as soon as 
possible--no later than close of business on Friday, April 26.
    On May 2, 1996, only nine days after the Republican 
leadership issued this memorandum, the Committee Chairman 
announced the scheduling of a full committee meeting for May 9, 
to consider the contempt resolution. There was no consultation 
with the Minority Members of the Committee or the White House 
about the contempt resolution before sending out the Committee 
meeting notice on May 2. The failure to even consult with the 
Minority Members of this Committee about an issue of such 
importance strongly suggests that this resolution was 
politically motivated.

Failure of the Committee To Attempt Any Accommodation With the 
        Executive Branch Is a Fatal Flaw

    Between January 11 and February 26, 1996, the White House 
sent to the Committee 28,000 pages of documents. However, 
because of the enormous breadth of the subpoena, there were a 
number of confidential and sensitive documents covered by the 
subpoena. In order to provide the Committee with access to 
those confidential documents, John Quinn presented a proposal 
to Chairman Clinger. That proposal is contained in a February 
26, 1996, letter from John Quinn to Chairman Clinger. In that 
letter Mr. Quinn stated:

          As you know, the nature of this internal deliberative 
        material was the subject of discussion at our February 
        15, 1996, meeting. At that meeting we described the 
        materials we are prepared to have you or your staff 
        review in camera and those that we are seeking your 
        agreement to withhold altogether. This material is 
        limited to (1) documents related to the ongoing 
        criminal investigations of the Independent Counsel; (2) 
        materials created in the course of preparation for 
        Congressional hearings; (3) materials prepared in 
        responding to this and other Congressional subpoenas; 
        (4) White House Counsel vetting notes, staff meeting 
        notes, and a subpoenaed legal analysis document 
        unrelated to the Travel Office issues; and (5) 
        personnel records which are of the type that are 
        subject to the Privacy Act. We understand that you are 
        considering our positions and the concerns which 
        support them. This material is not included in this 
        production. (Emphasis added)

    Unfortunately, Chairman Clinger never responded to this 
proposal.
    By February 26, the White House had virtually completed its 
document response to the Committee. As John Quinn stated in his 
letter of February 26 to Chairman Clinger:

          As you are aware, we have made a number of interim 
        productions and have already provided the Committee 
        with 28,000 pages of documents, including over 17,000 
        pages provided since January 22, 1996. We believe, with 
        this production, the White House will have virtually 
        completed its response to this subpoena. Given the 
        breadth of the subpoena, of course, we may find 
        additional documents. Should this occur, we will 
        provide them to the Committee promptly. (Emphasis 
        added)

    Consistent with Mr. Quinn's promise to Chairman Clinger in 
his letter of February 26, to turn over to the Committee any 
additional documents uncovered, on March 4, 8, and 15, the 
White House sent to the Committee three very small supplemental 
productions of documents. However, inexplicably Chairman 
Clinger responded by sending a letter to Mr. Quinn dated March 
20, 1996, critical of Mr. Quinn for uncovering additional 
documents. Chairman Clinger stated in his letter:

          Indeed, the February 26, 1996, production was to have 
        been the final production except for the documents 
        being held in suspension. In spite of this assurance, 
        your March 15, 1996, production included still more 
        responsive documents which clearly did not fall within 
        your privileged categories. It is clear that we need to 
        come to closure on all outstanding subpoenaed 
        documents.

    On March 21, 1996, John Quinn wrote a letter to Chairman 
Clinger restating what Mr. Quinn made clear in his February 26 
letter to Chairman Clinger, that if additional documents were 
uncovered he would ensure that they were turned over to the 
committee:

          I thus made absolutely clear to the Committee that we 
        would continue to work to confirm that there were no 
        further responsive documents and that should we locate 
        any further material, we would promptly provide it to 
        the Committee.

    In that same letter Mr. Quinn renewed his request to 
Chairman Clinger to work out a compromise on the issues of 
privilege:

          I look forward to discussing further with you the 
        quite separate matter of our privileged documents. The 
        issues raised with regard to those documents, of 
        course, have nothing to do with either the discovery or 
        the production of the letter about which you wrote me.

    Chairman Clinger once again never responded to Mr. Quinn's 
efforts to reach a compromise on this issue. This was the 
second time that Chairman Clinger ignored a direct request from 
Mr. Quinn to resolve the outstanding issues of privilege.
    On March 26, Chairman Clinger wrote to John Quinn and asked 
him to explain why the White House had instructed Mr. Craig 
Livingstone, Director of White House Personnel Security, to 
invoke executive privilege at a staff deposition taken on March 
22, 1996. On March 27, Mr. Quinn wrote back to Chairman Clinger 
and explained that the White House did not instruct Mr. 
Livingstone to invoke executive privilege and that Mr. 
Livingstone did not invoke executive privilege as far as he 
could determine. In that same letter Mr. Quinn for the third 
time asked Chairman Clinger to resolve the issues of privilege:

          As you know, we have had preliminary discussions 
        about resolving White House privileges in the course of 
        this part of the Committee's investigation; but as of 
        yet we have not had the opportunity to resolve that 
        issue. I hope we will be able to meet soon to address 
        that issue.

    Without ever responding to John Quinn's third request to 
work out an accommodation on the issues of privilege, on May 2, 
1996, Chairman Clinger sent a letter to John Quinn informing 
him that a Committee meeting was scheduled for May 9, to vote a 
resolution of contempt against him unless all White House 
documents were turned over to the Committee by close of 
business on May 8, 1996.
    In a letter dated May 2, 1996, Ranking Minority Member, 
Cardiss Collins wrote to Chairman Clinger indicating that she 
disagreed with the decision to seek a contempt resolution 
because Chairman Clinger had not attempted any accommodation 
with the White House. In addition Rep. Collins specifically 
requested a hearing before proceeding with the contempt 
resolution:

          In order for the Committee Members to have an 
        understanding of all issues involved in this 
        resolution, I request a hearing on this matter prior to 
        any committee vote on this resolution. Fundamental due 
        process and basic fairness require that each of the 
        individuals who are identified in the resolution should 
        be allowed to testify on the issue, and present their 
        case. To suggest that individuals have willfully 
        refused to comply with a Congressional subpoena and 
        should be considered in contempt of Congress is a 
        serious charge. At a minimum, they deserve to be 
        allowed to provide the committee with their testimony 
        on the issue.

    In a May 3,1996, letter to Chairman Clinger, John Quinn 
again attempted to resolve the matter. In that letter, he 
clarified the three areas of confidential documents that the 
White House had provided to the Committee:
          1. Documents relating to ongoing grand jury 
        investigations by the Independent Counsel;
          2. Documents created in connection with Congressional 
        hearing(s) concerning the Travel Office matter; and
          3. Certain specific confidential internal White House 
        Counsel office documents including ``vetting'' notes, 
        staff meeting notes, certain other counsel notes, 
        memoranda which contain pure legal analysis, land 
        personnel records which are of the type that are 
        protected by the Privacy Act.
    In that same letter John Quinn pointed out that the 
material for which the Committee was threatening contempt went 
far beyond events relating to the Travel Office matter itself. 
He also, once again, renewed his request to reach an 
accommodation on this issue.
    On May 3, 1996, Chairman Clinger wrote a letter to Ranking 
Minority Member Collins denying her request for a hearing to 
resolve the privilege issues.
    On May 6, 1996, Chairman Clinger wrote a letter to John 
Quinn refusing to discuss any accommodation or compromise and 
merely demanded all of the documents.
    On May 6, 1996, John Quinn again wrote to Chairman Clinger 
offering to resolve these issues:

        My offer to work with you to reach a compromise stands. 
        I believe we have not exhausted the opportunities for 
        accommodating the Committee's needs consistent with the 
        President's interest in protecting confidential White 
        House communications. For example, I gather from news 
        reports that you are particularly concerned abut 
        material related to the IRS and FBI inquiries. To the 
        extent we have such documents, I am prepared to discuss 
        making them available to you.

    On May 7, 1996, Chairman Clinger wrote back to John Quinn 
and once again rejected his offer to reach any compromise.
    On May 8, 1996, Chairman Clinger finally agreed to a 
meeting with Congresswoman Cardiss Collins and John Quinn. At 
that meeting Mr. Quinn presented a new proposal. He outlined 
the confidential documents that he was prepared to allow 
committee staff to review; he offered to produce a privilege 
log and provided a strict timetable by which all of this 
material would be available. Chairman Clinger agreed to 
consider Mr. Quinn's offer.
    Within an hour after that meeting Chairman Clinger wrote to 
Congresswoman Collins rejecting Mr. Quinn's latest offer and 
refusing any compromise. He also invited Mr. Quinn to submit 
his views on the issue of executive privilege to the Committee.
    On May 9, Mr. Quinn wrote back to Chairman Clinger to 
explain his objections to providing the Committee with the 
three categories of documents. In that letter he also renewed 
his interest in reaching an accommodation with the Committee. 
In the final paragraph of his letter Mr. Quinn wrote:

        As always, I remain willing in the meantime to discuss 
        this matter with you so that the legitimate needs of 
        the Committee and the interests of the White House can 
        be met.

    One final time Chairman Clinger did not attempt any 
accommodation with the White House.

                              legal issues

A. Executive privilege

    The Supreme Court has recognized that the Constitution 
gives the President the power to protect the confidentiality of 
Executive Branch deliberations. See generally Nixon v. 
Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 446-455 
(1977). Once this privilege has been asserted courts consider 
it presumptively valid, requiring the courts and Congress to 
articulate a specific reason why it needs each disputed 
document. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683.
    This power is independent of the President's power over 
foreign affairs, national security, or law enforcement; it is 
rooted in ``the necessity for protection of the public interest 
in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in 
Presidential decision making.'' United States v. Nixon, 418 
U.S. at 708. As Chief Justice Burger stated:

        the expectation of a President to the confidentiality 
        of his conversations and correspondence, like the claim 
        of confidentiality of judicial deliberations, for 
        example, has all the values to which we accord 
        deference for the privacy of all citizens and added to 
        those values, is the necessity for protection of the 
        public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or 
        harsh opinions in Presidential decision making. A 
        President and those who assist him must be free to 
        explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies 
        and making decisions and to do so in a way many would 
        be unwilling to express except privately (id. at 708).

    Chief Justice Burger went on to explain why executive 
privilege extends to the President's advisors:

        * * * [a] President and those who assist him must be 
        free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping 
        policies and making decisions and to do so in a way 
        many would be unwilling to express except privately 
        (id. at 708).

    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit has explicitly held that executive privilege 
is applicable to Congressional demands for confidential 
information. See Senate Select Committee on Presidential 
Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F. 2d 725 (D.C. Cir. 1974) 
(en banc). In that case the court of appeals rejected a Senate 
committee's efforts to obtain tape recordings of conversations 
in President Nixon's offices. The court held that the tapes 
were constitutionally privileged and that the committee had not 
made a strong enough showing to overcome the privilege.
    In a memorandum dated June 19, 1989, by William P. Barr, 
former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, 
U.S. Department of Justice, Mr. Barr further explains why the 
doctrine of executive privilege has even greater application 
when Congress has subpoenaed documents. Mr. Barr on page 5 
states:

          The possibility that deliberations will be disclosed 
        to Congress is, if anything, more likely to chill 
        internal debate among Executive Branch advisers. When 
        the Supreme Court held that the need for presidential 
        communications in the criminal trial of President 
        Nixon's close aides outweighed the constitutional 
        privilege, an important premise of its decision was 
        that it did not believe that ``advisers will be moved 
        to temper the candor of their remarks by the infrequent 
        occasions of disclosure because of the possibility that 
        such conversations will be called for in the context of 
        a criminal prosecution.'' By contrast, congressional 
        requests for Executive Branch deliberative information 
        are anything but infrequent. Moreover, compared to a 
        criminal prosecution, a congressional investigation is 
        usually sweeping; its issues are seldom narrowly 
        defined * * * For all these reasons, the constitutional 
        privilege that protects Executive Branch deliberations 
        against judicial subpoenas must also apply, perhaps 
        even with greater force, to Congress'' demands for 
        information.

    Courts have also made it clear that when the Congress has a 
legitimate need for information and the Executive Branch has a 
legitimate need to keep information confidential the doctrine 
of executive privilege requires each Branch to accommodate the 
needs of the other. In United States v. American Tel. & Tel. 
Co., 567 F.2d 121, 127,130 (D.C Cir. 1977) the court said:

          The framers * * * expected that where conflicts in 
        scope of authority arose between the coordinate 
        branches, a spirit of dynamic compromise would promote 
        resolution of the dispute in the manner most likely to 
        result in efficient and effective functioning of our 
        governmental system. Under this view, the coordinate 
        branches do not exist in an exclusively adversary 
        relationship to one another when a conflict in 
        authority arises. Rather, each branch should take 
        cognizance of an implicit constitutional mandate to 
        seek optimal accommodation through a realistic 
        evaluation of the needs of the conflicting branches in 
        the particular fact situation.
          Because it was a deliberate feature of the 
        constitutional scheme to leave the allocation of powers 
        unclear in certain situations, the resolution of 
        conflict between the coordinate branches in these 
        situations must be regarded as an opportunity for a 
        constructive modus vivendi, which positively promotes 
        the functioning of our system. The Constitution 
        contemplated such accommodation. Negotiation between 
        the two branches should thus be viewed as a dynamic 
        process affirmatively furthering the constitutional 
        scheme.

    Congress and the Executive Branch must both justify their 
specific need for documents. Assistant Attorney General Barr 
explains this requirement in his memorandum of June 19:

        the process of accommodation requires that each Branch 
        explain to the other why it believes its needs to be 
        legitimate. Without such an explanation, it may be 
        difficult or impossible to assess the needs of one 
        Branch and relate them to those of the other. At the 
        same time, requiring such an explanation imposes no 
        great burden on either Branch. If either Branch has a 
        reason for needing to obtain or withhold information, 
        it should be able to express it.
          The duty of Congress to justify its request not only 
        arises directly from the logic of accommodation between 
        the two Branches, but it is established in the case law 
        as well. In United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court 
        emphasized that the need for evidence was articulated 
        and specific.

    Thus under relevant case law, the Committee is 
Constitutionally required to make a principled effort to 
acknowledge and if possible meet the legitimate needs of the 
Executive Branch. In order to meet this requirement the 
Committee must articulate to the White House a specific need 
for the documents requested. It is not enough for the Committee 
to assert, as it has in this case, that the three categories of 
documents withheld by the White House are relevant to the 
Committee's investigation.
    As we indicated earlier, the White House has made several 
reasonable proposals to accommodate the needs of the Committee. 
One of those proposals was to permit Chairman Clinger or his 
staff to review in camera some of the withheld documents. 
Chairman Clinger rejected this proposal. Ironically, in United 
States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 706, Chief Justice Burger said 
that in camera inspection is exactly the type of accommodation 
required by the Constitution.

B. Committee must consider, and specifically rule on an individual's 
        objections, and then require the individual to produce 
        documents, before a congressional contempt resolution is ripe

    Since contempt of Congress under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 is a 
criminal matter, courts have required the highest level of 
intent and due process. Under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192, a person who 
has been ``summoned as a witness'' by a committee to appear to 
testify or to produce documents and who fails to do so, or who 
appears but refuses to respond to questions, is guilty of a 
misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and 
imprisonment for up to one year.
    In Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155 (1955), the 
defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for 
the District of Columbia of refusing to answer a question asked 
by a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities of 
the House of Representatives under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192. The 
Supreme Court held that the defendant could not be convicted 
since the committee had not overruled his objection to the 
question asked and specifically directed him to answer.
    The Supreme Court in Quinn made it clear that under 2 
U.S.C. Sec. 192 contempt cannot be sustained unless the failure 
to produce documents is a willful and intentional act. The 
Court stated:

          * * * a clear disposition of the witness' objection 
        is a prerequisite to prosecution for contempt is 
        supported by long-standing tradition here and in other 
        English-speaking nations. In this country the tradition 
        has been uniformly recognized in the procedure of both 
        state and federal courts. It is further reflected in 
        the practice of congressional committees prior to the 
        enactment of Sec. 192 in 1857: a specific direction to 
        answer was the means then used to apprise a witness of 
        the overruling of his objection. Against this 
        background Sec. 192 became law. No relaxation of the 
        safeguards afforded a witness was contemplated by its 
        sponsors (id. at 167, 168).

    The Court in Quinn went on to explain one of the fatal 
defects with the subcommittee's attempt to hold the witness in 
contempt under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192:

          At no time did the committee specifically overrule 
        his objection based on the Fifth Amendment; nor did the 
        committee indicate its overruling of the objection by 
        specifically directing petitioner to answer. In the 
        absence of such committee action, the petitioner was 
        never confronted with a clear-cut choice between 
        compliance and noncompliance, between answering the 
        question and risking prosecution for contempt. At best 
        he was left to guess whether or not the committee had 
        accepted his objection (p. 166).

    As the Supreme Court in Quinn makes clear, in order to 
determine whether the failure to produce documents is willful 
courts have required committees of the Congress to ascertain 
the grounds relied upon by a person for refusing to turn over 
documents. The committee must then clearly rule on the 
objection. If the committee overrules the objection and 
requires the production of documents, it must instruct the 
person that his continued refusal to turn over documents will 
make him liable to prosecution for contempt of Congress. If a 
committee fails to adequately apprise a person that the 
documents are required, notwithstanding his objection, the 
element of deliberateness necessary for conviction for contempt 
under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 is lacking and such a conviction cannot 
stand. Emspak v. United States, 349 U.S. 190 (1955)
            i. Committee hearing required before resolution of contempt
    The courts have held that the process for specifically 
ruling on a person's objections and claims of privilege 
requires a hearing before the person is held in contempt of 
Congress. In United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, the 
respondent was the executive secretary and had custody of the 
records of an association which was under investigation by the 
Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of 
Representatives. The Committee issued and served upon the 
respondent a subpoena directing her to produce before the 
Committee, at a stated time, specified records of the 
association. The respondent appeared before the Committee, but 
refused to produce the records on the ground that the Committee 
was without constitutional right to demand them. The Supreme 
Court spelled out the hearing requirement in its ruling:

          The offense of contempt of Congress, with which we 
        are presently concerned, on the other hand, matures 
        only when the witness is called to appear before the 
        committee to answer questions or produce documents and 
        willfully fails to do so. Until that moment he has 
        committed no crime. There is, in our jurisprudence, no 
        doctrine of ``anticipatory contempt'' (id. at p. 341).

    In Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapter 15, section 17, 
there is a brief discussion of procedures leading up to a 
contempt citation. There is a general recognition that such 
proceedings do not require a trial by the Congress. The 
Parliamentarian makes a note in Footnote 7. It states:

          In Groppi v. Leslie, 404 U.S. 496 (1972), a decision 
        which reviewed an action of the Wisconsin legislature 
        but nonetheless rested on congressional precedents, the 
        U.S. Supreme Court held that a witness may not be 
        punished for contempt unless he has been accorded due 
        process of law in a proceeding that leads to a finding 
        of guilt. Although a legislative body does not have to 
        accord all the procedural rights that a court must 
        accord, it must grant notice and an opportunity for a 
        hearing. (Emphasis added.)
            ii. Committee must specifically determine whether a 
                    subpoenaed document is pertinent before voting a 
                    resolution of congressional contempt
    Federal courts have held that 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 requires a 
showing of pertinency. The United States Court of Appeals for 
the Third Circuit in the case of United States v. Orman, 207 
F.2d 148 (3rd Cir. 1953), explains the pertinency requirement 
in Section 192:

          * * * two separate elements must appear before 
        pertinency is established: (1) that the material sought 
        or answers requested related to a legislative purpose 
        which Congress could constitutionally entertain; and 
        (2) that such material or answers fell within the grant 
        of authority actually made by Congress to the 
        investigating committee * * * (id. at 153).The Supreme 
        Court in the case of Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 
        178 (1954), explains the manner in which the issue of 
        pertinency in 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 should be resolved. 
        Once a witness has objected to the pertinency of a 
        question, there is no 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 offense unless 
        the Chair will ``state for the record the subject under 
        inquiry and the manner in which the propounded 
        questions are pertinent thereto'' (Id. at 214-215).

    The mere fact that the committee was engaged in a 
legitimate investigation within the committee's jurisdiction 
does not make the specific subpoenas valid in every instance. 
As the Supreme Court stated in Gibson v. Florida Legislative 
Investigation Committee, 372 U.S. 539, 545 (1963) ``validation 
of the broad subject matter under investigation does not 
necessarily carry with it automatic and wholesale validation of 
all individual questions, subpoenas, and documents demands.'' 
Thus, before the committee can adopt a contempt resolution, the 
committee must resolve the specific issue of pertinency if that 
issue has been raised.
            iii. The Kissinger case
    One of the justifications used by Chairman Clinger for not 
holding a hearing prior to voting a contempt resolution is the 
contempt citation to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. 
In his opening statement Chairman Clinger stated:

          We are by no means rushing matters here. By way of 
        example, in a matter where Secretary of State Kissinger 
        was subpoenaed for documents pertaining to national 
        security, the Committee met two days after the return 
        date of the subpoena and voted Mr. Kissinger in 
        contempt despite his assertion of Executive Privilege.

    The Kissinger case can be distinguished from the contempt 
resolution against John Quinn on several scores. First, there 
is no indication that Secretary Kissinger ever raised an issue 
of the pertinency of the Select Committee's document request. 
Second, neither Secretary Kissinger nor any other Member of the 
Select Committee on Intelligence ever asked for a hearing to 
resolve the issue of executive privilege or pertinency. Third, 
the issue never went to the courts to determine if a hearing 
was required since the issue was resolved when Secretary 
Kissinger gave the Select Committee on Intelligence an oral 
briefing on the issue of the Reagan Administration's covert 
activities.

C. Committee never specifically overruled claims of executive privilege 
        as required by law

    In a letter to John Quinn dated May 7, 1996, Chairman 
Clinger, two days before the Committee had scheduled a meeting 
on the contempt resolution, invited John Quinn to submit a 
written statement to the Committee of any valid executive 
privilege claims:

          I invite you to submit a written statement of any 
        valid executive privilege claim which you wish to 
        present to the Committee as to why you should not be 
        held in contempt of Congress under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 
        and Sec. 194 for failure to produce properly subpoenaed 
        documents in your possession, custody and control.

    On May 9, 1996, John Quinn submitted the requested 
statement in the form of a letter to Chairman Clinger. In that 
letter, Mr. Quinn raised three major objections to the contempt 
resolution: (a) the Committee had not attempted to reach any 
accommodation with the Executive Branch; (b) the documents 
withheld from the Committee were not pertinent to the 
Committee's investigation; (c) the documents were subject to a 
claim of executive privilege.
    With regard to the issue of executive privilege, Mr. Quinn 
in the May 9 letter once again categorized the three types of 
documents at issue:

          1. Documents relating to ongoing grand jury 
        investigations by the Independent Counsel;
          2. Documents created in connection with Congressional 
        hearing(s) concerning the Travel Office matter; and
          3. Certain specific confidential internal White House 
        Counsel office documents including ``vetting'' notes, 
        staff meeting notes, certain other counsel notes, 
        memoranda which contain pure legal analysis, and 
        personnel records which are of the type that are 
        protected by Privacy Act.

    Chairman Clinger in his opening statement on the day of the 
hearing, never discussed the claims of executive privilege 
regarding White House documents relating to the grand jury 
investigation by the Independent Counsel and he never discussed 
the documents created in connection with Congressional hearings 
concerning the Travel Office matter. He only discussed internal 
White House Counsel office documents. On page 3 of Chairman 
Clinger's statement he said:

          I find it difficult to understand how documents 
        related to the White House Travel Office scandal 
        somehow arise to a ``substantial question of executive 
        privilege. Certainly disclosure of these documents 
        could not impair the national security or the conduct 
        of foreign relations. Nor will the performance of the 
        Executive Branch's constitutional duties be impaired by 
        the President keeping his own pledge of three years ago 
        to get to the bottom of this matter.

    This statement can be contrasted with Chairman Clinger's 
statement regarding the claims of attorney-client privilege 
made by David Watkins and Matthew Moore. On page 9 of Chairman 
Clinger's prepared statement he stated: ``Neither Mr. Watkins 
nor Mr. Moore have a valid attorney-client privilege claim for 
withholding any of these documents.'' While we believe that 
overruling this claim of privilege at a meeting to vote 
contempt is legally insufficient, at least the Chairman 
specifically ruled on the claim of attorney-client privilege. 
However, he never ruled on any of the privilege issues raised 
by Mr. Quinn.
    According to the court decisions discussed above, the 
Committee has a legal responsibility to rule on each claim of 
privilege. The Committee must specifically inform Mr. Quinn 
that his claims of privilege have been overruled. The Committee 
must then instruct Mr. Quinn that he must comply with the 
Committee's determination to overrule his claims of privilege 
and turn over all subpoenaed documents. However, the Committee 
never overruled Mr. Quinn's objections and never instructed him 
to comply with the Committee's determination.

D. The committee never considered the pertinency of documents withheld 
        by the White House

    Mr. Quinn in his letter to Chairman Clinger dated May 9, 
raised the issue of whether the subpoenaed documents are 
pertinent to the Committee's investigation. He stated on page 3 
of that letter:

          My letter stressed that ``the materials that the 
        Committee is demanding, and threatening contempt for 
        not producing, go far beyond events relating to the 
        Travel Office matter itself.'' I pointed out that ``in 
        so doing, the Committee presumes to ask for, among 
        other things, our internal preparation for 
        Congressional hearings you yourself have called, our 
        private communications with Members and staff of this 
        Committee, as well as our response to the [ongoing 
        investigation] of the Independent Counsel.''

    The Chairman did not even bother to discuss Mr. Quinn's 
pertinency objection. The Chairman certainly has never in any 
way overruled Mr. Quinn's objections.
    A careful review of Chairman Clinger's opening statement at 
the October 24, 1995 hearing on the Committee's White House 
Travel Office investigation makes it clear that Mr. Quinn has a 
reasonable claim that the information withheld by the White 
House is not pertinent to the Committee's investigation. In his 
opening statement the chairman defined the scope of the 
Committee's investigation:

          The committee is meeting today to hear testimony on 
        the firings of the entire staff at the White House 
        Travel Office in May 1993, and related events leading 
        up to their firings, the individuals prompting these 
        firings, the appropriateness of the actions taken, 
        possible conflicts or ethical violations that occurred, 
        the subsequent investigations of these maters, and the 
        levels of candor and cooperation by those involved in 
        both responding to the investigations and conducting 
        the investigations (TR. p. 3).

    It is difficult on its face to see how the three categories 
of documents withheld by the Administration are pertinent to 
the Committee's investigation as defined by the Chairman of the 
Committee. At a minimum, the Committee has a legal 
responsibility to consider the objection by the White House 
that the documents are not pertinent.
    As was the case with executive privilege, the Committee 
never held a hearing to specifically consider or rule on Mr. 
Quinn's claim that the requested documents were not pertinent 
to the Committee's investigation. Without such a hearing to 
consider and resolve the issue of pertinency, the contempt 
resolution is invalid. Moreover, since the Committee did not 
take the time to sort out whether any of Mr. Quinn's concerns 
were valid, if any of the Committee's demands are invalid, then 
there is no contempt. See United States v. McSurely, 473 F.2d 
1178, 1204 (D.C. Cir. 1972).

E. The contempt citation of Matthew Moore is deficient.

    In a February 27, 1996, letter to Barbara Bracher of the 
Majority Committee staff from William T. Hassler, attorney for 
Mr. Moore, Mr. Hassler explains that Mr. Moore has been asked 
by Mr. Watkins to assert a claim of attorney-client privilege 
for three documents. In that letter, Mr. Hassler explains that 
pending adjudication of a claim of confidentiality, a lawyer 
must respect the asserted claim of privilege, if there is a 
colorable basis for asserting the privilege. Mr. Hassler 
restated this argument in a letter dated May 8, 1996, to 
Chairman Clinger.
    Mr. Hassler argued that D.C. Bar Opinion No. 99 requires 
``an attorney to assert a claim of confidentiality pending 
adjudication of the claim even where the existence of the 
attorney/client relationship is in question.''
    The fact that Chairman Clinger declares the attorney-client 
privilege invalid does not resolve the matter. The Bar Opinion 
cited by Mr. Hassler goes on to say that ``the ethical 
obligation of the [attorney] is simply not to compromise his 
clients's position voluntarily, and that obligation continues 
until the relevant forum has resolved in the negative the 
question of the existence of the attorney/client 
relationship.'' Since Mr. Watkins may be facing criminal 
charges in the investigation of the Independent Counsel, it 
would appear that Mr. Moore could face ethical problems were he 
to disclose these documents prior to a determination by the 
courts. Mr. Moore is therefore being penalized not for any 
refusal to provide documents to the Committee, but rather for 
abiding by legal ethics which prohibit him from making the 
disclosure.
    The Chairman's prepared statement did not even bother to 
address the Bar Opinion cited by Mr. Hassler, nor does the 
draft Committee report. Moreover, as far as we can determine, 
Mr. Hassler's letter did not appear to have been disseminated 
by the Majority to Committee Members. Certainly there have been 
no hearings at which testimony was taken on any facts in 
dispute.
    The absence of any factual record or hearing suggests that 
the courts would be unlikely to give significant weight to the 
Chairman's ruling. Indeed, the question arises why a ruling by 
the Committee, with its partisan interest, should be given 
deference when the courts would have to make a second ruling in 
the Independent Counsel's investigation of Mr. Watkins. Mr. 
Moore is now left in the difficult position of balancing the 
vote of the Committee against the cannons of legal 
responsibility.

F. The contempt citation of David Watkins is deficient

    Mr. Watkins asserted attorney-client and attorney work 
product privileges over draft copies of David Watkins' November 
15, 1993 Memorandum For Counsel. In a letter to Chairman 
Clinger dated May 7, 1996, Robert Mathias, attorney for Mr. 
Watkins, provided the Committee with his legal and factual 
arguments in support of these privileges. On page three of Mr. 
Mathias' letter he states:

          Mr. Watkins retained Hogan & Hartson during the 
        summer of 1993 to represent him in connection with 
        certain matters including those relating to the White 
        House Travel Office firings. An attorney-client 
        relationship has existed between Mr. Watkins and Hogan 
        & Hartson since then.
          In September, 1993, after Mr. Watkins had retained 
        Hogan & Hartson, Mr. Watkins began to prepare a 
        privileged and confidential document which detailed his 
        responses to the various conclusions of the Internal 
        White House Travel Office Management Review. The final 
        version of that document is the November 15, 1993 
        Memorandum For Counsel signed by Mr. Watkins.
          Mr. Moore assisted in the preparation of the 
        Memorandum For Counsel in two ways. First, Mr. Moore 
        acted as a ``scribe'' for Mr. Watkins. Mr. Moore did 
        the actual typing of some of the drafts of the 
        document. Secondly, Mr. Watkins discussed with Mr. 
        Moore, a lawyer, how to prepare the Memorandum For 
        Counsel so that it would appropriately be considered 
        privileged and confidential. At the time the document 
        was prepared, Mr. Moore was an attorney on Mr. Watkins' 
        staff at the White House Office of Management and 
        Administration. The Memorandum For Counsel, however, 
        was not prepared as part of the business of that 
        office.
          In asking for Mr. Moore's assistance, Mr. Watkins had 
        the good faith belief that the Memorandum For Counsel 
        would be kept privileged and confidential and that Mr. 
        Moore's assistance, and status as an attorney, would 
        help preserve the privileged and confidential status of 
        the document. Indeed, every draft copy of the 
        Memorandum For Counsel contained, at the time of its 
        creation, the legend ``PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL.'' 
        Every copy, except the final version, bears the stamp 
        ``DRAFT.''

    Mr. Mathias goes on in his letter to cite extensive case 
law in support of Mr. Watkins' claim of attorney-client and 
attorney-work product privileges. For example, on page 5 of his 
letter to Chairman Clinger Mr. Mathias states:

          The determination regarding the existence of an 
        attorney-client relationship and privilege depends upon 
        the understanding and intention of the client. The 
        attorney-client privilege attaches to confidential 
        communications made to an individual in the genuine, 
        even if mistaken, belief that the individual is an 
        attorney. See Wylie v. Marley Co., 891 F.2d 1463, 1471 
        (10th Cir. 1989) (``The professional relationship for 
        purposes of the privilege hinges upon the belief that 
        one is consulting a lawyer and his intention to seek 
        legal advice.''); United States v. Mullen & Company, 
        776 F. Supp. 620, 621 (D. Mass. 1991); United States v. 
        Tyler, 745 F. Supp. 423, 424-24 (W.D. Mich. 1990) and 
        United States v. Boffa, 513 F. Supp. 517, 523 (D. Del. 
        1981).
          Mr. Watkins genuinely believed that Mr. Moore's 
        status as an attorney would help to preserve the 
        privileged and confidential nature of the Memorandum 
        For Counsel. Thus, even if one were to later conclude 
        that Mr. Moore was not acting as Mr. Watkins' personal 
        attorney during preparation of the Memorandum or 
        Counsel, the privilege still applies.

    As was the case with Matthew Moore, it does not appear that 
the Majority even disseminated Mr. Mathias' letter to the 
Members of the Committee. Chairman Clinger's prepared statement 
never discussed any arguments raised by Mr. Mathias. Therefore, 
the Committee Members approved a contempt resolution against 
David Watkins without the benefit of a hearing at which the 
facts of the case were presented concerning the relationship of 
Mr. Watkins and Mr. Moore. In addition, there was no hearing or 
briefing of the attorney-client and attorney-work product 
privileges being asserted by Mr. Watkins. Moreover, there 
appears to be little probative value in early drafts of an 
unsent memo, since changes could be construed to mean that Mr. 
Watkins had disavowed the earlier contents.
    Finally, it should be noted that Mr. Watkins appeared 
before the Committee and answered every question asked of him, 
which would indicate no intent to be in contempt of Congress.

G. Conclusion

    Thus, the Committee's contempt resolution is invalid for 
several reasons. First, the Committee never attempted to reach 
any accommodation with the Executive Branch. Second, the 
Committee failed to articulate a specific need for the 
documents withheld from the Committee. Third, the Committee 
never considered and overruled objections to the resolution 
made by the Administration regarding pertinency and executive 
privilege. Finally, the Committee never held a hearing to 
consider the factual and legal issues in dispute.
    These legal requirements are not optional. The Majority 
cannot simply disregard them because it does not suit their 
narrow political purposes. Our courts have determined that 
these fundamental protections are necessary to fairly 
accommodate the needs of the Executive, Legislative and 
Judicial Branches of our Government. These protections are also 
needed to shield the American people from an unchecked abuse of 
power.

                      AMENDMENTS TO THE RESOLUTION

    We offered two amendments in Committee and attempted to 
offer a third before a motion for the previous question was 
interposed by the Committee majority.
    (1) An amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
Rep. Waxman would have honored the requirements of law and 
precedent that a hearing be held prior to any House action to 
hold an individual in contempt. The Waxman amendment would have 
prevented the Speaker from certifying to the U.S. Attorney for 
the District of Columbia any report pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 
Sec. 192 and Sec. 194 until a hearing was held at which Messrs. 
Quinn, Watkins and Moore would have an opportunity to testify.
    A hearing would have helped remedy one of several 
potentially fatal defects in the Committee's process, if it 
wished to proceed further with the contempt resolution. In the 
most recent contempt actions taken by the House during the 
1980's, involving Secretary of the Interior James Watt (1982), 
EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch (1982), and Joseph and Ralph 
Bernstein (1986), each individual subsequently cited for 
contempt was given, and accepted, the opportunity to testify at 
a subcommittee hearing.
    The hearings provided an opportunity for the witnesses to 
explain their actions. It provided the committees an 
opportunity to decide whether an act of contempt--failure to 
answer questions, or to produce subpoenaed information--was 
committed in their presence, and buttressed their subsequent 
recommendations to the House to cite for contempt. Such a 
record is completely lacking in the current instance.
    The failure to hold a hearing deprived the House, the U.S. 
Attorney, and a court, of information essential to any rational 
determination of criminal intent. It also deprived the named 
individuals of due process of law, as well as of any 
opportunity to convince the Committee that its legitimate needs 
were, in fact, being met. A hearing would also have allowed the 
Committee to consider the President's concerns over his 
ability, and that of his successors, to receive advice from the 
White House Counsel and other sources. It might have precluded 
a claim of executive privilege.
    (2) A second amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
offered by Ranking Minority Member Cardiss Collins and was 
intended to address the Committee's concern over the public's 
right to know both the issues in the Travel Office 
investigation and how the inquiry was being conducted. The 
amendment was also intended to address issues of comity in the 
disclosure of information between the Executive and Legislative 
Branches which the Committee ignored in its rush to judgment.
    The Collins amendment would have required the Committee to 
produce the equivalent of what it was demanding from the White 
House--its own records and private communications related to 
the travel investigation, from May 19, 1993, to the present. 
The 1993 date was frequently cited by the Majority as the date 
of the beginning of Rep. Clinger's investigation of the Travel 
Office and has been erroneously used to assert that the White 
House has not complied ``for years'' with its requests for 
information. In fact, the Committee's requests for information 
began on May 30, 1995, and several follow-ups, followed by a 
subpoena on January 11, 1996. The White House has been 
continuously supplying information in response to all of these 
requests.
    The data requested to be disclosed by the Collins amendment 
would have included all committee records of communications 
related to the White House Travel Office matter, including all 
letters, memoranda, notes of meetings, phone logs, e-mails, 
computer entries, video or audio tapes, calendars, press 
releases, diaries, telephone message slips, notes, talking 
points, journal entries, opinions, analyses, summaries and 
disks embodying communications among Members or staff of the 
Committee and communications with the Independent Counsel or 
staff of the Independent Counsel. Communications with House 
Leadership staff, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and Billy 
Ray Dale, the former head of the Travel Office, would have been 
included.
    The purpose of the amendment was to require the same degree 
of disclosure by the Committee of materials that was being 
asked of the Executive Branch. At a minimum, such disclosure 
would have provided the public with detailed information about 
the manner in which the Committee was conducting its 
investigation. It might also have provided some guidance to the 
White House and other executive agencies, which were attempting 
to comply with broad and vague requests from the Committee, 
with some way to divine what the Committee's actual needs might 
be.
    A Member of the Majority made a point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the resolution, and the Chairman 
sustained that point of order.
    (3) Rep. Barrett of Wisconsin subsequently sought to offer 
an amendment to require that legal fees of any individual cited 
in the contempt resolution be paid by the government, in the 
event that the individual is not found guilty of criminal 
contempt. However, the Chairman would not recognize Mr. 
Barrett, even though under the practices and precedents of the 
House a Member of the Minority should have been recognized in 
turn. Instead, a Member of the Majority was recognized for a 
motion to move the previous question on the resolution, cutting 
off all debate and amendments. Its adoption by the Committee 
prevented the Barrett amendment from being considered.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE COMMITTEE'S ACTIONS: RESOLVING THE DISPUTE THROUGH 
                            CIVIL PROCEDURES

    Chairman Clinger made clear his true purpose in pressing 
the criminal contempt resolution and rejecting any suggestions 
that a civil contempt alternative be considered--to manufacture 
a confrontation between the branches for political purposes. If 
the Majority truly desires a resolution on the question of the 
disputed documents, the criminal contempt process will not 
achieve that end.
    Instead, in its determined and self-publicized pursuit of a 
constitutional crisis with the White House, the Majority has 
not only rejected the offer of an accommodation with the 
Executive, but has now also rejected the White House's 
alternative suggestion of seeking a civil enforcement 
alternative to resolve the dispute. The Majority simply 
declares that alternative unavailable.
    The House's power under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 to initiate a 
criminal contempt proceeding bears no relevant relationship to 
the issue of the White House's compliance with the Committee's 
subpoenas. Even in the unlikely event that the U.S. Attorney 
or, in the event of a referral, the Independent Counsel, were 
to prosecute the case in the Federal District Court for the 
District of Columbia, and in the even more unlikely 
circumstance that the House prevailed in court, victory would 
not provide the Committee with the documents demanded.
    Criminal contempt could only impose a jail term on the 
individuals cited in the resolution. This might indeed provide 
new political fodder for the Majority's escalating attacks on 
the President, the First Lady and the White House staff, which 
are certain to become more desperate as the November election 
draws closer. However, abuse of the criminal contempt statute 
for publicity serves only to weaken the Committee's oversight 
process and further demeans the institutional authority of the 
House in securing access to Executive Branch materials to which 
it may legitimately be entitled in the future.
    In choosing the route of criminal contempt, Chairman 
Clinger rejected several other potential options which might 
have provided a more direct route to the withheld documents.
    (a) Enacting a Civil Contempt Statute.
    The Senate possesses the authority, under 2 U.S.C. 
Sec. 288d, to bring a civil action in Federal court to compel 
witnesses to obey committee subpoenas, i.e. the court would 
order the documents provided. The House did not include itself 
within the ambit of the statute, but there is nothing to 
prevent it from doing so now. Victory in such a suit could 
bring the Committee what it claims to want--the subpoenaed 
documents.
    However, when this option was broached to Chairman Clinger 
by Counsel John Quinn and Mrs. Collins prior to the contempt 
hearing, Chairman Clinger, in a written response to Mrs. 
Collins, stated:

          Proposing to amend the U.S. Code, through separate 
        actions by the House, Senate, and the President, is 
        wholly unreasonable.

    Chairman Clinger provided no further arguments as to why 
this course was ``wholly unreasonable.'' In fact, presuming 
that Chairman Clinger and the President agreed to this action, 
it would have been a relatively simple and quick process to 
approve such legislation through the unanimous consent of the 
Members of both bodies.
    There is also precedent for congressional action 
authorizing a civil suit seeking enforcement of a specific 
congressional subpoena for Executive Branch documents, even on 
a ``one-shot'' basis. Public Law 93-190 was enacted 
specifically to allow the Senate Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities to bring suit to enforce its 
subpoenas against the Nixon Administration. The statute 
conferred jurisdiction on the Federal District Court for the 
District of Columbia to hear such cases. A similar statute 
authorizing the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to 
bring such a suit could be enacted quickly.
    (b) Civil Enforcement as an Alternative.
    Yet another potential route toward the committee's 
expressed goals is a civil suit brought under existing law. 
There has been no definitive decision that civil contempt 
action cannot be brought under 28 U.S.C. Sec. the ``federal 
question'' jurisdiction statute. Civil enforcement is not 
precluded in a situation where a House committee, with 
authorization by the full body, seeks a judicial determination 
of a claim of privilege by the Executive.
    Federal courts have in the past rejected congressional 
efforts at civil enforcement of actions against the Executive 
Branch on the grounds that the cases must allege a monetary 
controversy of at least $10,000. (Senate Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 366F. Supp. 51, 
1973). In the opinion, Judge Sirica, while dismissing the 
select committee's suit for lack of jurisdiction, noted:

          Where it desires to award jurisdiction over cases 
        involving important rights without regard to a monetary 
        valuation, the Congress is capable of excluding such 
        restrictions.

    However, the $10,000 requirement was subsequently repealed 
in 1980 (P.L. 96-486). In its report (H. Rpt. 96-1461), the 
House Judiciary Committee noted that use of a monetary limit 
``* * * ignores the fact that many important claims are 
incapable of economic valuation and it operates in total 
disregard of the importance, difficulty or far-reaching nature 
of the Federal claim at issue.''
    The Majority has misconstrued the decision in Senate Select 
Committee as somehow precluding jurisdiction on grounds other 
than the one jurisdictional requirement that the court found 
lacking. There is no textual support for such a position. The 
court did not find that Federal subject matter jurisdiction 
lacking for a civil enforcement action under section 1331; nor 
did the court find that such a dispute between the branches 
would necessarily present a ``political question'' that was 
inappropriate for the Federal Judiciary to decide.
    Quite the contrary, the D.C. Circuit indicated that absent 
the one jurisdictional defect, it was willing to entertain a 
civil action to resolve a conflict between a congressional 
subpoena for documents and a Presidential claim of executive 
privilege when the action was brought by a congressional 
committee. With the $10,000 requirement eliminated, there is no 
real or imagined statutory hurdle remaining that would prevent 
the Committee from proceeding to a civil resolution of this 
dispute.
    While perhaps untested, there appears to be no precedent 
establishing that civil contempt actions cannot be brought to 
resolve subpoena disputes between the House and the Executive. 
Therefore, there is no basis for those who would argue that 
civil contempt is not available, or that if pursued it would be 
thrown out by the courts as a political question.
    By rejecting suggestions that the Committee pursue civil 
contempt, Chairman Clinger made clear that the purpose of the 
resolution is not to obtain disputed documents but rather to 
gain political advantage. By choosing such a confrontational 
course of action, the Majority has gone a long way toward 
undercutting the very congressional institutional interests 
that it purports to uphold.
                                   Cardiss Collins.
                                   Henry A. Waxman.
                                   Tom Lantos.
                                   Robert E. Wise, Jr.
                                   Major R. Owens.
                                   Edolphus Towns.
                                   John M. Spratt, Jr.
                                   Louise McIntosh Slaughter.
                                   Paul E. Kanjorski.
                                   Gary A. Condit.
                                   Collin C. Peterson.
                                   Bernard Sanders.
                                   Karen L. Thurman.
                                   Carolyn B. Maloney.
                                   Thomas M. Barrett.
                                   Barbara-Rose Collins.
                                   Eleanor Holmes Norton.
                                   James P. Moran.
                                   Gene Green.
                                   Carrie P. Meek.
                                   Chaka Fattah.
                                   Bill K. Brewster.
                                   Tim Holden.
                                   Elijah E. Cummings.
           DISSENTING VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE CARRIE P. MEEK

    I come from an area where people do a lot of fishing, and I 
recognize a fishing expedition when I see one. This contempt 
resolution looks like a fishing expedition to me.
    This resolution is not a search for criminal activity by 
members of the White House staff. That search is being 
conducted by the Independent Counsel.
    This resolution is not a search for justice for the seven 
employees of the Travel Office who were fired in May 1993. The 
House voted three months ago, 350 to 43, to pay their legal 
expenses.
    One can only conclude that this resolution is a fishing 
expedition in search of a new headline. The Republican 
leadership doesn't like the current headlines about ``Extreme 
Republican Agenda Blocked by President Clinton.'' So it wants a 
new headline.
    The new headline that the Republican leadership is probably 
looking for is ``White House Coverup.'' But a more accurate 
headline is ``White House Counsel Risks Jail to Protect the 
Constitution.''
    In the 1950's people risked going to jail to protect their 
constitutional rights from the attempts by Senator McCarthy to 
probe their political beliefs. In the 1960's and 1970's people 
risked going to jail to protect the constitutional principle 
that African-Americans should be treated the same as whites. 
Now the Republican leadership threatens Mr. Quinn with jail 
because he seeks to protect the constitutional integrity of the 
Office of the President.
    This proceeding is a direct attack on the constitutional 
powers of the President. Article II section 2 of the 
Constitution authorizes the President to ``require the opinion, 
in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive 
departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their 
respective offices.'' How can the President get candid written 
opinions if Members of Congress are going to rummage through 
them, looking for a potentially embarrassing word or phrase?
    Would the Majority Committee staff be able to properly 
serve the Chairman of the Committee if every document they 
prepared were subject to scrutiny by the White House? The 
answer is clear. Yet the Majority seeks to impose a standard on 
the President that it is unwilling to impose on itself.
    I dissent.
                                                    Carrie P. Meek.