members will be bound during the presentation of the President's counsel in a similar manner that they were bound during the presentation of our counsel; that is, if we have questions to raise of the President's counsel, those questions must be for purposes of clarification only? Mr. MANN. Absolutely, and you may be prepared to add, "and also to the rules of confidentiality." Ms. JORDAN. Thank you. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to state also, and call attention of the members that while we are in the process of considering this resolution, and the Chair has no objection, but the Chair would like to point out that we are, of course, superseding, in a sense, a rule that is laid down in B-2, where President's counsel shall be invited to respond to the presentation orally or in writing. It is not contemplated that it be in both oral and written. So I think that the rule, the resolution goes beyond the rule and I hope that the members are aware of this. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Seiberling. Mr. SEIBERLING. There is one further point of clarification which you have partly clarified. Except as it is expressly set forth in the resolution, I understand it does not otherwise supersede the rules that we have been proceeding under so far. The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Mr. SEIBERLING. Correct. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina; all those in favor, please say aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed? [No response.] The CHAIRMAN. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. The gentleman wanted to be recognized. Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I resisted offering my amendment based on conversations that I had with the chairman and with counsel. My understanding is that the chairman felt that he had the power to make the judgments which my amendment would have called for and therefore, on that representation, I resisted offering my amendment. Mr. WALDIE. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. OWENS. Yes; I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. WALDIE. I was fascinated by the gentleman's amendment and was in agreement with it. That is why I do not understand why you did not offer it. I wonder if your amendment will be possible in fact through rulings of the Chair. Mr. OWENS. The amendment never was offered, I will say to the gentleman from California. because of representations made privately to me by the Chair to that effect. Mr. WALDIE. I do not want to intrude into a private conversation. What I am trying to find out is if the amendment can be implemented by rulings of the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. That is what I believe and I believe that had this amendment been offered, it might have appeared as an attempt to try to circumscribe the President's counsel in a manner that was not intended when our counsel made his presentation before the committee. But I think that it is within the purview and the jurisdiction of the chairman to be able to implement that amendment. Mr. WALDIE. I would hope so, because I do not think our counsel in any way was under similar-well, I hesitate to go any further because I do not know what your conversations were. So I will just not proceed. Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. I am somewhat troubled by the assurances you may have given to our colleague from Utah. If President's counsel in his presentation is going to be limited to evidence as that word is understood in the law, admissible evidence, as distinguished from the kind of presentation which our counsel has made, which has relied upon secondary evidence, hearsay, copies, almost no restraints whatsoever. I hope it is not your intention to limit President's counsel to the fine rules of evidence when we have not so limited our own counsel in presenting the case. The CHAIRMAN. No, the Chair merely was stating that the Chair did not intend to either enlarge upon the role of the counsel for the President nor to restrict him any more than the counsel for the committee was. Mr. WALDIE. Well, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield. Mr. WALDIE. In further pursuit of that information, if the counsel for the President were to argue in support of an evidentiary point edited transcripts as to which no original tapes have been submitted, though they are in possession of his client, would he be so permitted? Which was the thrust of Mr. Owens' amendment, as I understood it. The CHAIRMAN. I think the question will have to be one that will be considered at the time and we do know that the transcripts, if referred to, will be the edited transcripts and not beyond that. I think that the committee members are aware of that. Mr. WALDIE. Well, but as I understood Mr. Owens' proposal, it would be that Mr. St. Clair not be permitted to argue an evidentiary point from edited transcripts when the original tapes are in possession of the President and have been withheld by the President; that the best evidence is within the possession of his client and that he ought not to be able to profit from his client's wrongdoing in withholding that evidence from our subpena. I gathered that was the thrust of his amendment and was a very worthwhile thrust. Mr. OWENS. The gentleman from California is correct. The representation-I did not mean to indicate that the chairman had assured me that in all cases that would be his ruling, but the representation, I think, from the Chair would be that those matters could be and would be dealt with directly by the Chair as they become relevant and that certainly was, I think, the intent of the Chair. Mr. MARAZITI. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Maraziti. Mr. MARAZITI. A point of clarification. I can understand why we have not had a microphone at the desk of Mr. St. Clair because under the rules, he was not permitted to participate. But can I anticipate that there will be a microphone so that we will all have the benefit of what Mr. St. Clair has to say? The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned until 10:30 tomorrow morning. [Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 25, 1974.] IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY Business Meeting TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1974 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:50 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Rodino (presiding), Donohue, Brooks, Kastenmeier, Edwards, Hungate, Conyers, Eilberg, Waldie, Flowers, Mann, Sarbanes, Seiberling, Danielson, Drinan, Rangel, Jordan, Thornton, Holtzman, Owens, Mezvinsky, Hutchinson, McClory, Smith, Sandman, Railsback, Wiggins, Dennis, Fish, Mayne, Hogan, Butler, Cohen, Lott, Froehlich, Moorhead, Maraziti, and Latta. Impeachment inquiry staff present: John Doar, special counsel; Albert E. Jenner, Jr., special counsel to the minority; Samuel Garrison III, deputy minority counsel; Robert J. Trainor, counsel. Committee staff present: Jerome M. Zeifman, general counsel; Garner J. Cline, associate general counsel; and Franklin G. Polk, associate counsel. The CHAIRMAN. We will come to order and the photographers and other live media will please leave the room. I recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne. Mr. MAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a resolution at the desk which I would ask that the staff read. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will please read the resolution. Resolution by Mr. Mayne: Resolved that the committee staff prepare a subpena directed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives ordering him to make available to the staff for inspection and copying all records in his custody pertaining to campaign contributions received from the Trust of Political Education, Agricultural and Dairy Education Political Trust, and Trust for Special Political Agricultural Community Education during 1970, 1971, and prior to April 7, in 1972 by Members of the House who sponsored legislation during the spring of 1971 prior to March 25, to increase the milk support level to at least 85 percent of parity or who wrote, wired, or otherwise urged the Department of Agriculture or White House during the spring of 1971 prior to March 25, to so increase the milk support level. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa. Mr. MAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This resolution is made necessary by the fact that the Clerk of the House as I have been informed by the chairman-has refused to |