to the committee when there is on that date certainly a recognition by the Chair of such as is disposed to offer those proposed articles. Thus far those are the proposed articles that are being considered.

Mr. WIGGINS. Well, only in the interest of fairness to everybody. I mean majority as well as minority members, we should advance intelligent views based upon something and the notion that it can be circulated at the beginning of the debate sounds to me as if we are going to erode the quality of the debate. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will do all in your power to at least put together what you feel the committee is going to discuss and have it available to the members for their consideration for the maximum period of time.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what the Chair is attempting to do andMr. WIGGINS. Well, go ahead indeed, Mr. Chairman, and get the mimeograph machine running.

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, I would make-I am not one of them drafting anything, I can assure you. I make the same request for substitutes.

I would like to know as much about all of them as I can.

The CHAIRMAN. No. The Chair recognizes what the gentleman from California is stating and I think it is valid that the committee should have before it in sufficient time that product which it would begin to work from and I think that that is tremendously important and the Chair hopes to be able to elicit from the members just that kind of a product. I hope that we can do that by no later than tomorrow. The Chair would hope to have them before the members at that time. Mr. BUTLER. Are we meeting on Wednesday?

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.

Mr. BUTLER. At 10 a.m.?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Chair has not yet set the time as to whether we meet at 10:30 or whether we meet later on in the afternoon. These are some of the things that the Chair is attempting to work out so that there will be that kind of product before the committee. I would hope to have it before them at least a day in advance.

Mr. HUNGATE. Do we meet tomorrow?

Mr. BUTLER. Are we meeting in some group to discuss this thing between now and tomorrow?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Chair has stated that it would hope to be able to meet with some of the members or those who are disposed to talk about this and discuss this as we did the other day when I think it was helpful to some of the members and the Chair is disposed to say that we could meet tomorrow, tomorrow morning, and try to work some of these things out in the formal briefing session because I don't think any formal meeting is going to accomplish anything other than

Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. No. The meeting on procedure won't be-I think it is only going to take a little time, but I would rather work it out and get together with the ranking minority member and see if we can do something about presenting the proposed rule of procedure. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, let us know when.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Seiberling.

Mr. SEIBERLING. When will we be meeting, then, tomorrow? Will we be meeting tomorrow?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would set a schedule of meeting tomorrow morning at 10:30.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, on that point

The CHAIRMAN. But not a meeting.

Mr. DENNIS. For what purpose?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DENNIS. Informal discussion? Is that it?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rangel.

Mr. RANGEL. When you say you are setting a meeting, I wonder if tomorrow it might not be possible for us to have a very informal work session here, not sitting up here but sitting down there, with staff, going over proposed theories and articles without a stenographer, just as lawyers trying to find out each others thoughts as we go through this. It doesn't mean that everyone's attendance would be required but I know many of us are searching to find that type of ground where we can get agreement and to find out other questions we may have with staff, and if we are going to have a stenographer reporting everything, I don't think we will have the same worth as if we just talked as a group of lawyers trying to find our way out of this maze. I think for all of us we would be better prepared-come the television cameras, something which I think as a group of lawyers we would at least like to know what areas we disagree on and what areas we don't. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair

Mr. BUTLER. That is what you had in mind with your 10:30 meeting tomorrow.

The CHAIRMAN. This was what I had in mind. It was the same informal type of briefing. The problem is attempting to arrange for the committee members that kind of a seating arrangement that could accommodate what you have just suggested.

Mr. RANGEL. Well, we won't need a stenographer, though, would we, for that type of meeting?

The CHAIRMAN. No. There would be no necessity for a stenographer. If the members would, I feel that that informal briefing session would be very helpful for the members and we would try to arrange it if it is at all possible so that instead of meeting up here, we are around the table. I don't know just how we are going to be accommodated, though, with microphones.

Mr. RANGEL. I don't know whether we need mikes, really.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Why can't we sit up here, Mr. Chairman, but just have an informal procedure?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will then meet informally tomorrow morning at 10:30 in a closed-that will be a closed briefing.

[Whereupon, at 7:05 p.m., the committee recessed, subject to call of the Chair.]

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

Committee Business

TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1974

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 5:20 p.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. (chairman) presiding.

Present: Representatives Rodino (presiding), Brooks, Kastenmeier, Edwards, Hungate, Conyers, Eilberg, Waldie, Flowers, Mann, Sarbanes, Seiberling, Danielson, Drinan, Rangel, Jordan, Thornton, Holtzman, Owens, Mezvinsky, Hutchinson, McClory, Smith, Sandman, Railsback, Dennis, Fish, Mayne, Hogan, Butler, Cohen, Lott, Froehlich, Moorhead, Maraziti, and Latta.

Impeachment inquiry staff present: John Doar, special counsel; Samuel Garrison III, special counsel to the minority; Albert E. Jenner, Jr., senior associate special counsel; Bernard W. Nussbaum, senior associate special counsel.

Committee staff present: Jerome M. Zeifman, general counsel; Garner J. Cline, associate general counsel; William P. Dixon, counsel; Franklin G. Polk, associate counsel; and Michael W. Blommer, associate counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. And the question before the committee today is the consideration of a resolution concerning the procedure that will take up the question of the possible impeachment or whether the committee will recommend articles of impeachment, and for that purpose I recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Flowers.

Mr. FLOWERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a resolution at the clerk's desk. I ask that it be read and copies distributed to all of the members.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the clerk please read the resolution.
The CLERK [reading]:

Resolved, That at a business meeting on July 24, 1974, the committee shall commence general debate on whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States. Such general debate shall consume no more than 10 hours, during which time no member shall be recognized for a period to exceed 15 minutes. At the conclusion of general debate, it shall be in order to consider a privileged motion to report to the House a resolution, together with articles of impeachment, impeaching the President of the United States. The proposed articles shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. Each proposed article,

and any additional article, shall be separately considered for amendment and, after all proposed articles are perfected, separately voted upon as amended for recommendation to the House. Members may be recognized for a period of 5 minutes to speak on each proposed article and on any amendment thereto, unless by motion debate is terminated thereon. At the conclusion of consideration of the articles for amendment and recommendation to the House, if any article has been agreed to, the privileged motion shall be considered as adopted and the chairman shall report to the House said resolution of impeachment, together with such articles as have been agreed to.

Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman, if I might explain several pertinent points of this?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FLOWERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe the basic resolution is easily understandable, and I would be very brief in my remarks.

First of all, this calls for the general debate period of no more than 10 hours during which time each member will be recognized for a period not to exceed 15 minutes. At the conclusion of the general debate, that is after each member has had up to 15 minutes, thereby taking no more than 10 hours at a maximum of the committee's time, it would be in order for the chairman to recognize someone to make a privileged motion to report to the House of Representatives a resolution, together with articles of impeachment.1 In other words, that would be the time, that the resolution, together with articles, would be laid on the clerk's desk, so to speak.

Then the various articles, if there are more than one, or any amendments to the various articles would be debated seriodum, that is one after another, in order, together with amendments thereto, for the purpose of perfecting the various articles.

And after all proposed articles are perfected, they will be separately voted upon as amended for recommendation to the House. And afterward, the important consideration here is that you would have not a vote on one article after debate of that article, and then debate following on another article and a vote on that. There would be perfecting amendments on each article, and then, so to speak, the article would be set aside until all such articles had been perfected, plus any additional articles that might not be a part of the original resolution, but which might be offered by way of amendment to the original resolution, and there would be a final vote at the conclusion of the perfecting process on all of the articles.

At any time during the amendment process, or at any time that an article was offered, the members would have the right to speak under the 5-minute rule, either to the article or to the amendment. It would not be necessary to use the process of moving a motion to strike the last word, but under this rule a member would have a right to speak to the article for 5 minutes, or to an amendment to the article and then after the final vote, if any articles were agreed upon, the resolution, together with such article or articles, would be reported to the House in the usual fashion.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. FLOWERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

1 See "Appendix VII.-Donohue Resolution and Articles of Impeachment", p. 2253.