May I also observe, Mr. Chairman, for the consideration of the members of the committee, that the trial of the Ehrlichman plumbers case commences this morning and probably is now in course, and the selection of a jury before Judge Gesell, and that jury cannot be sequestered before some time tomorrow, and so that as of today there is a possibility of reference to grand jury material that Judge Gesell, as you will recall, afforded us with the professional representation made on behalf of this committee that we would not reveal any of that until Judge Gesell had sequestered that jury. And then Mr. Doar wishes to present in the course of the matter this morning, some conferences that we had with counsel for one of the witnesses, which frankly, we cannot reveal in open session. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Arkansas. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed, no. [Chorus of "noes."] The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is in doubt and a rollcall is demanded and the clerk will call the roll. All those in favor of the motion to close the session please say aye; all those opposed, no. The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Donohue. Mr. DONOHUE. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Kastenmeier. Mr. KASTENMEIER. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Edwards. Mr. EDWARDS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Hungate. The CLERK. Mr. Waldie. Mr. WALDIE. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Flowers. Mr. FLOWERS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Mann. Mr. MANN. Ave. The CLERK. Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. SARBANES. Ave. The CLERK. Mr. Seiberling. Mr. DANIELSON. No. The CLERK. Mr. Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Rangel. Mr. RANGEL. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Jordan. 41-018-75-pt. 3- 12 The CLERK. Mr. Thornton. The CLERK. Ms. Holtzman. The CLERK. Mr. Mezvinsky. Mr. MEZVINSKY. No. The CLERK. Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. McCLORY. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Railsback. The CLERK. Mr. Dennis. Mr. DENNIS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Fish. The CLERK. Mr. Mayne. Mr. MAYNE. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Butler. Mr. BUTLER. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Cohen. Mr. COHEN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Lott. Mr. LOTT. Ave. The CLERK. Mr. Froehlich. Mr. FROEHLICH. No. The CLERK. Mr. Moorhead. Mr. MOORHEAD. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Maraziti. Mr. MARAZITI. No. The CLERK. Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. No. The CLERK. Mr. Rodino. The CHAIRMAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will report the vote. The CLERK. Twenty-five members have voted aye, 13 members have voted no. The CHAIRMAN. And the motion is agreed to, and accordingly the committee will proceed in executive session, and other than staff, and committee members all others will please leave the room. [Short break.] [Whereupon the committee proceeded to executive session.] IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY Executive Session WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1974 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:25 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; Bernard W. Nussbaum, senior associate special counsel. Committee staff present: Jerome M. Zeifman, general counsel; Garner J. Cline, associate general counsel; and Franklin G. Polk, associate counsel. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas. Mr. THORNTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as I stated in the committee a few moments ago, I am prepared to offer the motion for the adoption of a resolution which is at the desk of the members. I would like to at this time to offer that resolution and urge its adoption by the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman have the clerk read the motion. The CLERK [reading]: Resolved that the committee call before it the following witnesses: Alexander Butterfield, Herbert Kalmbach, Henry Petersen, John Dean, Fred LaRue. The examination of such witnesses before the committee shall commence on July 2, 1974. The committee shall hear the testimony of these and any other witnesses within 7 full working days of hearings, concluding on July 12, 1974. Resolved further, that counsel are directed to interview the following individuals in advance of determination by the chairman and ranking minority member whether to call them before the full committee as witnesses: Charles Colson, John Mitchell, H. R. Haldeman, Paul O'Brien, William O. Bittman. (1629) The scope of the testimony expected of each witness before the committee shall be specified in writing as determined by the chairman and ranking minority member. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas. Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, we are now at the stage of proceed ings where it is necessary to call witnesses in order to fill in certain evidentiary gaps which may be developed during the process or may have become apparent during the process of our examination of some 7,000 pages of documents relating to the materials which have been presented by our staff. I think it is vital for us to recognize that we are at this time limited to the development of material which has not already been presented and that we should restrict ourselves from merely duplicating or repeating testimony which we have already reviewed, which has already been presented in sworn testimony before other bodies, and which would require nothing but the expenditure of additional time by this committee. Accordingly, the list of witnesses which I have proposed I have tried to outline specific areas of information on which these witnesses might be expected to bring to the committee information which it does. not have. First. Alexander Butterfield is in a position to testify as to the organization and the procedures of the White House itself, as to the flow of the chain of command from the President of the United States through his chief of staff, through other aides to give an indication of the habitual methods of performance of the White House, what information goes into the President and the nature of the information and directions which return from the President. We have had an outline by counsel of this chain of command, but we have not had any testimony to that effect, and Mr. Butterfield should be able to give a good presentation to our committee of this kind of information. With regard to Mr. Kalmbach Mr. LOTT. Would the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry? Mr. THORNTON. I will yield. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chairman, are we going to have an opportunity to discuss these as we go along, or do you intend for Mr. Thornton to go through his list here and discuss each one individually, or if we have any questions, for instance, about a particular witness. are we going to withhold that until he gets through or should we address questions as he goes along here? The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be more appropriate for Mr. Thornton to first present the basic reasons as to why he offers this motion. Mr. LOTT. Thank you for yielding. Mr. THORNTON. Respecting the material, I will attempt to materially shorten my discussion of the following witnesses in order that we may open up for specific discussion on any name mentioned. Mr. Kalmbach certainly is in a position to be familiar with a great deal of Internal Revenue Service information, and particular inquiry might be appropriate as to whether or not he has knowledge of the use of the Internal Revenue Service information with regard to depriving any American citizen of rights which he may have. Mr. Henry Petersen had a conversation with the President involving the scope of internal security, what elements were included in the definition of internal security. I am sure all members of the committee recall that conversation, and with particular reference to whether that related to the Ellsberg case. It is my view that Mr. Petersen should be called to develop further evidence on that question. With regard to Mr. Dean, I think it is important that we make an effort to establish the exact time of contact with Mr. LaRue with regard to the final payment of the attorney fee to Mr. Bittman, and the contacts made. The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield at that point? Mr. THORNTON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to advise the gentleman that while I appreciate what he is now saying, that the inclusion of Mr. Dean and Mr. LaRue on the list specifically was at the request of counsel for the President, Mr. St. Clair. And as you know, in a letter that was addressed to Mr. Doar by Mr. St. Clair, there are further individuals who Mr. St. Clair would like to have considered as potential witnesses. So, I think that this is a matter that the committee should be well aware of, that this is an effort to accommodate the counsel for the President, and this does not necessarily, I think, mean that the members of the committee all feel the same way as Mr. St. Clair as to the need to call some of these witnesses. Mr. THORNTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that clarification, because indeed, I was making an effort to express in my own words the reasons given by Mr. St. Clair in requesting that this witness be called. With regard to the request by the President's counsel, which does also include Mr. LaRue, and for a similar reason, it was my view that the response as a whole did not fully comply with the rules of this committee with regard to stating with clarity the specific information sought to be furnished by witnesses requested by the President's counsel and, indeed, was rather general and not stated in accordance with that rule. That is rule B-3 of our impeachment inquiry procedures which states that: Should the President's counsel wish the committee to receive additional testimony or other evidence, he shall be invited to submit written requests and precise summaries of what he would propose to show. And in the case of a witness, precisely and in detail what it is expected that the testimony of the witness would be, if called. On the basis of such requests and summaries, and of the record then before it, the committee shall determine whether the suggested evidence is necessary or desirable to a full and fair record in the inquiry. And the rule continues. It was my view, Mr. Chairman, that while the request might fail to specifically denote the area and the testimony expected of these witnesses, that in the instance of John Dean and Fred LaRue that I would propose to include those in the list of witnesses to be called by the committee. With regard to Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Haldeman, and Mr. Bittman, who are also requested to be included, it was my view that they should be listed for interview by our staff in order to determine whether or not information would be presented which would be necessary to our inquiry. That list also includes Mr. Charles Colson and Mr. Paul O'Brien. I think it is pretty widely known the nature of the informa |