Former presidents and vice presidents would not be able to unilaterally shield their records from the public, according to legislation the House passed by a veto-proof majority Wednesday.

The measure (HR 1255), part of a multi-bill effort to uncloak some of the government’s secrets, passed by a vote of 333-93.

The bipartisan passage came despite the threat of a veto from the White House, which has sought to keep certain records of President Bush’s father, former President and Vice President George Bush, out of the public domain.

The bill would overturn the current president’s executive order, issued in 2001, that allows former presidents, former vice presidents and their heirs to keep specific records sealed.

“It is important that we distinguish between the nation’s interest . . . [and] a former president’s interest,” William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., said on the House floor. “We need to achieve that critical balance between the president’s constitutional privilege and the public’s right to know.”

The House also passed legislation that would require the disclosure of the identities of big-dollar donors to presidential library funds.

Under the measure (HR 1254), such organizations would have to file quarterly reports during the president’s term and for four years thereafter, detailing the donors who gave $200 or more during the quarter.

The National Archives and Records Administration would be mandated to make the reports available to the public through a free online database.

“There’s nothing wrong with contributing to presidential libraries, but at the present time, contributions to presidential libraries can be of any amount, from any source, and they need not be disclosed,” said Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “This is a loophole that calls for abuse, whether it’s real or perceived.”

Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said the intention of the bill is to make sure that “in a period of time that the president of the United States is raising money for their library, that in no time will their actions or public actions be influenced by those who are willing to support their library.”

John J. “Jimmy” Duncan Jr., R-Tenn., said he has tried to pass similar bills since the 106th Congress, inspired by what he considered questionable donations to President Bill Clinton’s library foundation.

“I introduced this under a Democratic president. I re-introduced it in the 107th Congress under a Republican president,” he said. “We’re back here . . . to pass this bill this time to bring . . . some openness, some transparency, to shed some light on these contributions and on what would be real potential for abuse under either [a] Democratic or Republican president in the future.”

The House passed that bill, 390-34.

A third bill (HR 1309), aimed at making it more difficult for the administration to deny or delay the release of information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), passed, 308-117.

The legislation requires agencies to respond to FOIA requests within 20 business days and establish a publicly available tracking system for requests.

Those who are denied requests by an agency and subsequently win a court judgment would be eligible to recover legal fees from the agency.

Of interest to bloggers is a provision that would not bar independent journalists from obtaining fee waivers solely because they lack an institutional affiliation with a recognized news media organization. To have the often-substantial fees waived, bloggers and other unaffiliated journalists would only have to prove they have had work published.

The White House lodged several objections to the bill but did not threaten to veto it.

“Several of the bill’s provisions would impose substantial administrative and financial burdens on the executive branch,” the Office of Management and Budget wrote in a statement of administration policy. “These provisions could result in slower, not faster, agency processing of FOIA requests, and the personnel and funds needed to implement them would have to come from existing agency resources.”

The measure would cost $63 million over 10 years in direct spending and result in the loss of $10 million in fees over that time period, according to the Congressional Budget Office.