[House Report 116-266]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 116-266
======================================================================
DIRECTING CERTAIN COMMITTEES TO CONTINUE THEIR ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS
AS PART OF THE EXISTING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INQUIRY INTO WHETHER
SUFFICIENT GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO EXERCISE
ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO IMPEACH DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
October 30, 2019.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. McGovern, from the Committee on Rules,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H. Res. 660]
The Committee on Rules to whom was referred the resolution
(H. Res. 660) directing certain committees to continue their
ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of
Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist
for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional
power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United
States of America, and for other purposes.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Committee Consideration.......................................... 10
Committee Votes.................................................. 10
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations................. 16
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 16
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 17
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 17
Changes in Existing House Rules Made by the Resolution, as
Reported....................................................... 20
Dissenting Views................................................. 21
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
This resolution directs certain committees to continue
their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of
Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist
for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional
power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United
States of America. The resolution lays out the procedure for
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to continue
their ongoing investigation in open hearings, authorizes the
release of deposition transcripts, and provides additional
procedures in furtherance of the impeachment inquiry, including
for the Committee on the Judiciary.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry
On September 24, 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that
the House of Representatives would continue with its
impeachment inquiry into President Donald J. Trump.\1\ In
exercise of its oversight and legislative authorities and under
the umbrella of the House's ongoing impeachment inquiry, the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), in
coordination with the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the
Committee on Oversight and Reform, has led a fact-finding
investigation of the President's use of the power and
instruments of the presidency and the federal government for
his personal political gain.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Speaker Nancy Pelosi, ``Pelosi Remarks Announcing Impeachment
Inquiry,'' September 24, 2019. (Online at: https://www.speaker.gov/
newsroom/92419-0).
\2\Speaker Nancy Pelosi, ``Dear Colleague on Work to Advance
Impeachment Inquiry During District Work Period,'' September 27, 2019.
(Online at: https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/92719-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The investigation conducted by these investigative
committees has focused on three interrelated lines of inquiry
regarding the President's conduct:
1. Did the President request that a foreign leader
and government initiate investigations to benefit the
President's personal political interests in the United
States, including an investigation related to the
President's political rival and potential opponent in
the 2020 U.S. presidential election?
2. Did the President--directly or through agents--
seek to use the power of the Office of the President
and other instruments of the federal government in
other ways to apply pressure on the head of state and
government of Ukraine to advance the President's
personal political interests, including by leveraging
an Oval Office meeting desired by the President of
Ukraine or by withholding U.S. military assistance to
Ukraine?
3. Did the President and his Administration seek to
obstruct, suppress or cover up information to conceal
from the Congress and the American people evidence
about the President's actions and conduct?
In deposing witnesses and examining documentary evidence,
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in coordination
with the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Oversight and
Reform, is assessing the extent to which President Trump
jeopardized U.S. national security by pressing Ukraine to
initiate politically-motivated investigations that could
interfere in U.S. domestic politics.
As part of the ongoing investigation into the President's
actions and conduct, the Committees have requested that the
White House and Executive Branch agencies and departments
produce pertinent documents and records. Due to non-cooperation
across the Executive Branch, the Committees served duly
authorized subpoenas on the White House, the Office of
Management and Budget, the Department of State, the Department
of Defense, and the Department of Energy. On October 8, 2019,
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone responded on behalf of
President Trump, citing among other arguments the lack of a
floor vote and other alleged due process considerations:
``President Trump cannot permit his Administration to
participate in this partisan inquiry under these
circumstances.''\3\ With the exception of the Department of
State, the other agencies and departments of the Executive
Branch, including the White House, have affirmatively informed
the Committees in writing that they would not comply after
being served with lawful subpoenas and that they would withhold
evidentiary documents and records from the investigative
committees involved in the impeachment inquiry. Although the
Department of State has not explicitly informed the Committees
that it intends not to comply with its subpoena, it has yet to
produce a single document or other record in willful defiance
of compulsory process. All subpoenas to the Executive Branch
remain in full force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to Speaker Pelosi
and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings, Oct. 8, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of an impeachment inquiry, the President and
his administration's refusal to comply with duly authorized
subpoenas, decision to withhold documentary evidence, and
attempts to block and discourage witnesses from testifying may
be considered as evidence of the President abusing the powers
of his office and may lead the committees to draw an adverse
inference against the President.
Evidence also suggests President Trump may have corruptly
abused the power of his office to obstruct duly authorized
federal law enforcement investigations into his conduct and
that of his associates. The day before President Trump's July
25, 2019, call with President Zelensky, Special Counsel Robert
S. Mueller, III testified before the multiple House
Committees.\4\ In his testimony and his Report,\5\ Mueller
described in detail the ``sweeping and systemic fashion'' in
which the 2016 presidential election was attacked by the
Russian government and its agents. The Special Counsel also
documented evidence strongly indicating that President Trump
engaged in a course of conduct designed to obstruct the Special
Counsel's investigation, including any investigation into the
President's conduct. Both personally and through his
subordinates, the President appears to have engaged in a plan
to remove the Special Counsel,\6\ limit the Special Counsel's
investigation and other federal investigations related to
Trump,\7\ discourage witness cooperation with federal
investigators,\8\ and provide false statements.\9\ The House
Judiciary Committee's investigation of these allegations as
part of its impeachment investigation remains ongoing.\10\ In
this investigation--as in others undertaken by the House
Judiciary Committee and other committees--the President and the
Executive Branch have refused to comply with duly authorized
subpoenas, have withheld documentary evidence, and have
attempted to block and discouraged witnesses from testifying,
all in manners that may be considered as evidence of the
President abusing the powers of his office and that may
substantiate an adverse evidentiary inference against the
President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\See Oversight of the Report on the Investigation Into Russian
Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election: Former Special Counsel
Robert S. Mueller, III: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
116th Cong. (July 24, 2019) (Mueller Judiciary Hearing).
\5\See Robert S. Mueller, III, Report On The Investigation Into
Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Vol 1 at p. 1
(March 2019) (Mueller Report).
\6\See e.g., Mueller Report Vol II at II.E.
\7\See e.g., Mueller Report Vol II at II.F.
\8\See e.g., Mueller Report Vol II at II.J-II.K.
\9\See e.g., Mueller Report Vol II at II.I.
\10\This point has recently been reaffirmed in litigation in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia regarding
grand jury materials relating to the Special Counsel's Report:
``Speaker Pelosi and the Committee have confirmed that an impeachment
inquiry is underway.'' Reply of the Committee on the Judiciary, In re:
Application of the Committee on the Judiciary For An Order Authorizing
The Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials, 1:19-gj-48 (D.D.C.), at
16. The District Court relied on that representation in its opinion
granting the Judiciary Committee's petition: ``The Speaker of the House
of Representatives has announced an official impeachment inquiry, and
the House Judiciary Committee (``HJC''), in exercising Congress's `sole
Power of Impeachment,' U.S. CONST. art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5, is reviewing
the evidence set out in the Mueller Report.'' Memorandum Opinion, In
re: Application of the Committee on the Judiciary For An Order
Authorizing The Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials, 1:19-gj-48
(D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2019), at 2; see also id. at 57, 62, 64-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The role of impeachment in our constitutional system
The impeachment power serves an extraordinarily important
role in the constitutional plan: it allows Congress to remove
from office a President who has committed ``Treason, Bribery,
or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.''\11\ Impeachment is
thus the most profound check on the Presidency and one of the
mightiest safeguards for constitutional democracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Justice Joseph Story wisely recognized, ``the power of
impeachment is not one expected in any government to be in
constant or frequent exercise.''\12\ But when faced with
credible evidence of extraordinary Presidential wrongdoing, it
is incumbent on the House of Representatives--which wields
``the sole Power of Impeachment,''\13\--to thoroughly
investigate and then determine whether to approve articles of
impeachment accusing the President of misconduct justifying his
removal from office. The House alone is vested with that
responsibility because it ``represent[s] the great body of the
people,'' and because the need for impeachment arises ``from
acts of great injury to the community.''\14\ Following approval
of such articles by the House, proceedings shift to the Senate,
which must hear evidence and argument and ultimately adjudicate
the case pursuant to its ``sole Power to try all
Impeachments.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States Sec. 749
(1833).
\13\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5.
\14\Jonathan Elliott (ed.), The Debates in the Several State
Conventions 113 (1863) (quoting Justice James Iredell).
\15\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 3, cl. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Framers of the Constitution provided for these
exceptional procedures because egregious misuse of the Nation's
highest office could be ``fatal to the republic.''\16\ They
appreciated that ``the Executive will have great opportunities
of abusing his power,''\17\ and sought to bury the abhorrent
maxim ``that the chief Magistrate could do [no] wrong.''\18\
Championing the adoption of an impeachment provision in the
Constitution, Madison therefore cautioned that a President
``might betray his trust to foreign powers,'' or ``pervert his
administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression.''\19\
Mason and William Davie, in turn, sharply highlighted the
threat that Presidents would pose if they could corrupt the
electoral process without fear of being removed from political
office for their wrongdoing.\20\ Subsequently, in the
Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton also emphasized
impeachment as a bulwark against foreign influence in our
domestic affairs.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Farrand, 2 The Records of the Federal Convention, at 66 (James
Madison).
\17\Id. at 67 (Edmund Randolph).
\18\Id. at 66 (Elbridge Gerry).
\19\Id. at 65-66.
\20\See id. at 65-65.
\21\Wright (ed.), The Federalist Papers, Federalist 68, at 444
(1961) (``Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable
obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These
most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have
been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but
chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant
in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a
creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the
convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most
provident and judicious attention.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, arguments about the importance of allowing
Presidential impeachment were not invented for the very first
time at the Constitutional Convention. Every delegate who
addressed the loaded subject of impeachment in Philadelphia had
personal experience with colonial or state impeachment
practice, which ensured their familiarity with the concept of
removing senior elected officials.\22\ That background caused
many Framers to recoil from the European notion that heads of
state could never be impeached. As Hamilton later explained,
the President would have no more resemblance to the British
king than to ``the Grand Seignior, to the khan of Tartary, to
the Man of the Seven Mountains, or to the governor of New
York.''\23\ As he reasoned in his essays advocating
ratification, whereas ``the person of the king of Great Britain
is sacred and inviolable,'' the American President could be
``impeached, tried, and upon conviction . . . removed from
office.''\24\ Through the Impeachment Clause, the Framers thus
confirmed that nobody--not even the President of the United
States of America--is above the law. Consistent with the
Framers' goals, the purpose of the impeachment power is not to
impose personal punishment on the President. Instead,
impeachment's ``function is primarily to maintain
constitutional government.''\25\ That is why the consequences
of conviction in the Senate are expressly limited by the plain
text of the Constitution to removal from office and potential
disqualification from future office holding.\26\ To the extent
the President has violated any criminal statutes, the
Constitution reserves criminal punishment for the ordinary
judicial processes of criminal law.\27\ Conviction on articles
of impeachment thus goes ``just far enough, and no further
than, to remove the threat posed to the Republic by an unfit
official.''\28\ This careful balance speaks to the Framers'
acknowledgment of impeachment's role in protecting the
democratic system, as well as their realization that criminal
punishment through the Judiciary serves a very different
purpose in American life than does impeachment and removal from
office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\See, e.g., Frank O. Bowman III, High Crimes & Misdemeanors 50-
112 (2019).
\23\Benjamin Wright (ed.), The Federalist Papers, Federalist 69, at
444 (1961).
\24\Id. at 445.
\25\House Committee on the Judiciary, Constitutional Grounds for
Presidential Impeachment 24 (1974).
\26\See Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 155 (3d ed.
2000).
\27\See U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 3, cl. 7.
\28\John O. McGinnis, Impeachment: The Structural Understanding, 67
Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 650, 650 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout the Nation's history, the House has undertaken
impeachment proceedings against only three Presidents. In 1868,
following sustained Presidential resistance to Congressional
Reconstruction, the House impeached President Andrew Johnson
for violating the Tenure of Office Act and calling Congress
into disrepute. In 1974, following the infamous Watergate
scandal, the House Committee on the Judiciary approved articles
of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon for
obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and obstruction of
Congress. (President Nixon resigned before those articles were
put to a vote by the full House.) Finally, in 1998, following
receipt of a report from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, the
House impeached President William J. Clinton for obstruction of
justice and perjury. Each of these impeachment proceedings
arose from Presidential conduct determined by a majority of the
House to involve serious wrongdoing that imperiled the rule of
law.
Ultimately, as Hamilton taught, the ``true spirit'' of
impeachment in the House is that it serves as a ``method of
NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public [officials].''\29\
Members of the House serve as ``inquisitors for the nation,''
investigating whether the President committed ``high Crimes and
Misdemeanors'' and, if appropriate, approving articles of
impeachment for adjudication in the Senate. This is a weighty
responsibility, and a grave one, but it is essential to
ensuring that the Constitution endures when the President
abuses power, betrays the nation, or corrupts our highest
office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\Wright (ed.), The Federalist Papers, Federalist 65, at 427
(1961).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The impeachment inquiry process
As described above, the Constitution vests the ``sole power
of impeachment'' in the House of Representatives and provides
the Senate ``the sole power to try all impeachments'' and
remove a federal officer, including the president, for certain
``high crimes and misdemeanors.''\30\ The purpose of an
impeachment inquiry is to gather evidence to determine whether
the president may have committed an impeachable offense, and
consequently whether the House should draft and adopt articles
of impeachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\U.S. Const. Art. I Sec. 2, cl. 5; id. Sec. 3, cl. 6; Art. II
Sec. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trump Administration has challenged this inquiry's
legitimacy. He has asserted that it is improper or
unconstitutional for the committees to conduct an impeachment
inquiry absent an authorizing vote of the full House.\31\ This
assertion has no basis in the text of the Constitution, House
rules, past precedent or any other authority. As noted above,
the House possess the ``sole power of impeachment.''
Furthermore, the Constitution provides that each ``House may
determine the Rules of its Proceedings.''\32\ As such, neither
the Constitution nor House rules requires that the full House
vote to authorize an inquiry. Indeed, a federal district judge
recently rejected the assertion that the House must have a full
vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry. The holding came in
response to the Judiciary Committee's petition for grand jury
material related to the Mueller investigation. The Court found
that the Trump Administration's argument ``has no textual
support in the U.S. Constitution, [or] the governing rules of
the House . . .''\33\ And further recognized that ``[e]ven in
cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has
never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment
inquiry.''\34\ This resolution, while not required, provides a
further framework for the House's ongoing impeachment inquiry
into the conduct of President Donald Trump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\Letter to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Adam Schiff, Chairman, H. Permanent Select. Comm. on Intelligence,
Eliot Engel, Chairman, H. Comm. on Foreign Affairs, Elijah Cummings,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Reform, from Pat Cipollone, Counsel
to the President, Oct. 8, 2019.
\32\U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 2.
\33\See Memorandum opinion granting the application, In re
Application of The Committee on The Judiciary, U.S. House of
Representatives, For An Order Authorizing the Release of Certain Grand
Jury Materials, Misc. No. 1:19-gj-00048-BAH (Oct. 30, 2019) at 49-55.
\34\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the framework provided by this resolution, HPSCI and
others will continue to conduct the fact-finding investigation
into the Ukraine matter and HPSCI will report to the Judiciary
Committee in connection with that matter. Both the Constitution
and the rules of the House permit congressional committees to
undertake such investigations regarding the conduct of the
President that may result in the adoption of articles of
impeachment.\35\ The Judiciary Committee, as a matter of
precedent, is responsible for considering and potentially
recommending articles of impeachment to the full House.
Articles of impeachment introduced in the House are by
parliamentary precedent referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.\36\ Whether by direct referral to the Committee or
referral following a vote, ``[a]ll impeachments to reach the
Senate since 1900 have been based on resolutions reported by
the Committee on the Judiciary.''\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\During the impeachment inquiry of President Richard Nixon,
inquiry staff organized and analyzed evidence provided by the Senate
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities and made requests
for various materials ``to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the
House Armed Services Committee, the Senate Subcommittee on
Administrative Practice and Procedure, the Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations, and the CIA.'' See Work of the
Impeachment Inquiry Staff as of March 1, Rept. Of the H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, 93rd Cong., (1974) at p. 2.
\36\Jefferson's Manual, H. Doc. 114-192 Sec. 605, at 321 (2017)
(``[R]esolutions . . . that directly call for the impeachment of an
officer have been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary[.]'').
\37\Charles W. Johnson et al., House Practice: A Guide to the
Rules, Precedents, and Practice of the House, Ch. 27 Sec. 6, at 615
(2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House's ongoing impeachment inquiry process--both
before and after enactment of the resolution--and the
additional framework provided by the resolution is commensurate
with the inquiry process followed in the cases of President
Nixon and President Clinton. The Nixon impeachment inquiry
proceeded out of public view for several months--starting in
October 1973.\38\ The House did not vote to authorize an
impeachment inquiry until February 6, 1974.\39\ From February
22 to May 9, 1974, only the Chairman, Ranking Member, and
inquiry staff had access to the material gathered by the
inquiry, to supervise and review the assembly of the evidence
prior to the presentation of the evidence to the whole
Committee.\40\ With regard to the Clinton impeachment inquiry,
the Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr transmitted his report to
the House of Representatives on September 9, 1998. Two days
later, the House adopted H. Res. 525 to allow the Judiciary
Committee to review the report behind closed doors before
releasing it to the public and ``to determine whether
sufficient grounds exist to recommend to the House that an
impeachment inquiry be commenced.''\41\ The House adopted a
resolution authorizing an inquiry nearly a month later on
October 8, 2019.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\Summary of the Activities of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
93rd Congress, 1st Session, 93rd Cong. (1974) at 1.
\39\H. Res. 803, 93rd Cong. (1974).
\40\Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United
States, Rept. of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong. (1974) at
pp. 8-9.
\41\H. Res. 525, 105th Cong. (1998).
\42\H. Res. 581, 105th Cong. (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current inquiry must differ from the previous two
presidential impeachment inquiries in one fundamental respect,
however: the House is conducting a significant portion of the
factual investigation itself as it relates to the Ukraine
matter. In impeachment inquiries of both President Nixon and
Clinton, the House relied upon an investigation conducted by
third-parties, such as the Watergate Special Prosecutor's
Office investigation and Senate Select Committee investigation
into President Nixon, and the Independent Counsel investigation
into President Clinton. With regard to the Ukraine matter, the
Department of Justice (under Attorney General William Barr)
declined to open an investigation after reviewing President
Trump's July 25, 2019, call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.
The Department issued a statement on September 25, 2019,
stating that the Department's Criminal Division ``reviewed the
official record of the call and determined, based on the facts
and applicable law, that there was no campaign finance
violation and that no further action was warranted.'' As a
result, the Department asserted that it had ``concluded the
matter.''\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\Department of Justice Press Statement, September 25, 2019 (as
sent to HPSCI). See e.g., Matt Zapotosky and Devlin Barrett, ``Justice
Dept. rejected investigation of Trump phone call just weeks after it
began examining the matter,'' The Washington Post, September 25, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where, as in the case of investigating the conduct of
President Trump, there is no such third-party to conduct the
investigation, the House, through its committees, must conduct
the initial fact-finding investigation with regards to the
Ukraine matter.
This resolution represents the next, public-facing phase of
that process.
Additionally, the Trump Administration has asserted that
the House has failed to provide the President with
``constitutionally mandated due process.''\44\ The initial
stages of an impeachment inquiry in the House are akin to those
preceding a prosecutorial charging decision. Under this
process, the House is responsible for collecting the evidence
and, rather than weighing the question of returning an
indictment, the Members of the House have the obligation to
decide whether to approve articles of impeachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\Letter to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Adam Schiff, Chairman, H. Permanent Select. Comm. on Intelligence,
Eliot Engel, Chairman, H. Comm. on Foreign Affairs, Elijah Cummings,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Reform, from Pat Cipollone, Counsel
to the President, Oct. 8, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously described, an impeachment inquiry is not a
criminal trial and should not be confused with one. The
president's liberty is not at stake and the constitutional
protections afforded a criminal defendant do not as a matter of
course apply. The constitutionally permitted consequences of
impeachment are limited to immediate removal from office and
potentially being barred from holding future federal office.
Moreover, it is the Senate that conducts the trial to determine
whether the conduct outlined in the articles warrant the
president's removal from office, which requires a \2/3\
majority vote. Indeed, given the nature of the ongoing
investigation into the Ukraine matter, President Trump has
received additional procedural protections. During closed door
depositions held by HPSCI and others related to the Ukraine
matter, minority members have been present and granted equal
time to question witnesses brought before the committees. This
is unlike the process in the preceding two presidential
impeachment inquiries, which relied significantly upon
information gathered by third-party investigators. Now, as we
enter the next phase of the investigation, this resolution
directs HPSCI to conduct open hearings and produce and transmit
a report of its factual findings to the Judiciary Committee,
which will consider and potentially refer articles of
impeachment based on those factual findings and all other
factual evidence before it.
Nonetheless, the Committee on the Judiciary has, during
certain stages of an impeachment inquiry, adopted procedures
governing the presentation of evidence that permit the
president to participate in the proceedings. It was only in May
1974 that the committee adopted procedures for the presentation
of evidence, which included additional procedural protections
for the President.\45\ Similarly, the House Judiciary Committee
authorized additional procedures for the presentation of
evidence, including procedural protections for the president on
October 5, 1998, nearly a month after it had received the
report of Independent Counsel Starr, and just before the
Committee began conducting public hearings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\See Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United
States, Rept. of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong. (1974) at
pp. 8-9. (``These procedures were consistent with four general
principles: First, the Committee would receive from the staff and
consider initially all reliable material which tended to establish the
facts in issue. At the time that the evidentiary proceedings began, the
Committee would give the President the opportunity to have his counsel
present and to receive such documents and materials as the staff
presented to the Committee Members for their consideration. Second,
during the presentation of this evidentiary material, whether in
executive or in open session subject to the rules of the House, the
Committee would give the President the opportunity to have his counsel
present and to hear the presentation. Third, at the end of this
presentation, the Committee would give the President the opportunity to
have his counsel make his position known, either orally or in writing,
with respect to the evidentiary material received by the Committee.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In keeping with this past practice, the resolution directs
the Judiciary Committee to provide procedural protections for
the president based on those provided during the Nixon and
Clinton inquiries in anticipation of the Committee receiving
the results of the ongoing investigations being conducted by
other committees of the House. These procedural protections
include: that the president and his counsel are invited to
attend all hearings; the ability for the president's counsel to
cross-examine witnesses and object to the admissibility of
testimony; and the ability of the president's counsel to make
presentations of evidence before the Judiciary Committee,
including the ability to call witnesses. The purpose of
providing these protections is to ensure that the president has
a fair opportunity to present evidence to the Judiciary
Committee if it must weigh whether to recommend articles of
impeachment against him to the full House.
The President and his administration's egregious failure to
comply with the lawful subpoenas and requests of the
investigating committees must of course be taken account of
when considering the President's opportunity to himself utilize
Congressional procedures to obtain and present witnesses and
documents. In construing the resolution, it is understood that
the opportunity conferred on the President by the Judiciary
Committee procedures, including through his counsel, to call
specific witnesses or pose particular questions to them may, in
the customary discretion of the chair, be predicated in whole
or in part on the President's determinations as to whether to
make witnesses available for testimony to, and to produce
documents requested by, the investigative committees directed
by H. Res. 660 as the committees continue their ongoing
investigations into whether sufficient grounds exist for the
House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power
to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of
America, and for other purposes. The available remedies within
the chair's discretion in such circumstances also include--but
are not limited to--drawing adverse evidentiary inferences on
questions of fact or finding that the President's unlawful
defiance of Congressional subpoenas constitutes obstruction of
the Congressional impeachment inquiry. In the exercise of this
discretion the chair shall, of course, account for any valid
and applicable legal constitutional, procedural, or
precedential considerations.
Additionally, the resolution provides additional rights to
the minority of the Judiciary Committee. The resolution grants
the minority the right to subpoena witnesses subject to a vote
of the committee. This subpoena power is based on the power
granted to the minority during both the Nixon and Clinton
impeachment inquiries.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Committee on Rules met on October 30, 2019, in open
session and ordered H. Res. 660 favorably reported to the House
by a record vote of 9 yeas and 4 nays, a quorum being present.
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes
on the motion to report the legislation and amendments thereto.
A motion by Mr. McGovern to report the resolution to the House
with a favorable recommendation was agreed to by a record vote
of 9 yeas and 4 nays, a quorum being present. The names of
Members voting for and against follow:
Rules Committee record vote No. 203
Date: October 30, 2019
Motion to order H. Res. 660 reported favorably to the
House. Agreed to: 9-4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings................................... Yea Mr. Cole......................... Nay
Mrs. Torres.................................... Yea Mr. Woodall...................... Nay
Mr. Perlmutter................................. Yea Mr. Burgess...................... Nay
Mr. Raskin..................................... Yea Mrs. Lesko....................... Nay
Ms. Scanlon.................................... Yea
Mr. Morelle.................................... Yea
Ms. Shalala.................................... Yea
Mr. DeSaulnier................................. Yea
Mr. McGovern, Chairman......................... Yea
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee also considered the following amendments on
which record votes were requested. The names of Members voting
for and against follow:
Rules Committee record vote No. 186
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 1) offered by Mr. Woodall to strike all
except Section 4. Defeated: 4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 187
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 2) offered by Mr. Burgess to strike the
Committees on Financial Services and Ways and Means from
Section 1. Defeated: 4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 188
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 3) offered by Mr. Burgess to add language
requiring the Committees on Financial Services and Ways and
Means to produce and make available to all members documents
detailing the nature and scope of their investigations.
Defeated:
4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 189
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 4) offered by Mr. Woodall to apply language
requiring the chair of the Committee on Rules to promulgate
additional procedures to allow for the participation of the
President and his counsel in proceedings in the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Oversight
and Reform, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Defeated: 4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 190
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 5) offered by Mr. Cole to add language
permitting the chair and ranking minority member to yield their
time to other members on the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence during the extended questioning time. Defeated:
4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 191
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 6) offered by Mrs. Lesko to allow the
minority to call at least an equal number of witnesses and to
authorize the ranking minority member to require as deemed
necessary, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and
testimony of any person and the production of records and other
materials. Defeated: 4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 192
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 7) offered by Mr. Cole to strike the section
requiring written justification from the ranking minority
member of the relevance of the testimony of each requested
witness to the investigation. Defeated: 4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 193
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 8) offered by Mr. Cole to require the chair
to provide the ranking minority member written justification of
the relevance of the testimony of each witness whose testimony
is requested or required. Defeated: 4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 194
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 9) offered by Mr. Woodall to add language
that provides the ranking minority members of the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on
the Judiciary with the authority to issue the same number of
subpoenas as their respective chairs. Defeated: 4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 195
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 10) offered by Mr. Cole to allow the ranking
minority member of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence the ability to issue subpoenas without the
concurrence of the chair. Defeated: 4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 196
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 11) offered by Mr. Cole to require the chair
to have the concurrence of the ranking minority member to issue
subpoenas and, if the ranking minority member does not concur,
the chair may put the question before the full committee.
Defeated:
4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 197
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 12) offered by Mrs. Lesko to require the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and any other
committee having custody of records or other materials relating
to the inquiry to transfer all such records or materials
including exculpatory materials to the Committee on the
Judiciary. Defeated:
4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 198
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 13) offered by Mrs. Lesko to allow the
ranking members of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and any other committees having custody of records
or other materials relating to the inquiry to also transfer
records and materials to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Defeated: 4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 199
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 14) offered by Mrs. Lesko to require the
concurrence of the relevant ranking minority member in order to
transfer records and other materials to the Committee on the
Judiciary. If the ranking minority member does not concur, the
chair shall have the right to refer to the committee for a
decision. Defeated: 4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 200
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 16) offered by Mr. Burgess to define
``employee'' as ``other than a consultant whose services are
procured in accordance with section 202(i) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4301(i))''. Defeated: 4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 201
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 17) offered by Mr. Woodall to ensure the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence holds more
than one open hearing. Defeated: 4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 202
Date: October 30, 2019
Amendment (no. 18) offered by Mr. Burgess to state that
nothing in this resolution may be construed to limit the right
of each Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner to have
access to committee records pursuant to clause 2(e)(2) of rule
XI. Defeated:
4-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hastings.................................... Nay Mr. Cole.......................... Yea
Mrs. Torres..................................... Nay Mr. Woodall....................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter.................................. Nay Mr. Burgess....................... Yea
Mr. Raskin...................................... Nay Mrs. Lesko........................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon..................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle..................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala..................................... Nay
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman.......................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1)
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee made oversight findings and recommendations that are
reflected in this report.
PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee establishes the
following performance related goals and objectives for this
legislation:
The resolution directs certain committees to continue their
ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of
Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist
for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional
power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United
States of America; authorizes public hearings and the
disclosure of deposition transcripts; and sets forth additional
procedures in furtherance of the impeachment inquiry. The
resolution moves the House's impeachment inquiry into the next
phase while providing rights to the minority, including
authorizing the ranking minority members of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence and the Judiciary Committee to
request subpoenas. In advancing the impeachment inquiry, the
resolution also provides for process rights for the President
and his counsel, rights that closely mirror those provided
during the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Resolved clause
The first section of the resolution directs the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence (``Select Committee'') and the
Committees on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, the
Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means to continue
their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House
inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House to
exercise its Constitutional power to impeach President Trump.
Section two--Open and transparent investigative proceedings by the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Section two provides procedures under which the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence may conduct themselves for the
purpose of continuing their ongoing investigation as part of
the existing House inquiry into whether sufficient grounds
exist for the House to exercise its Constitutional power to
impeach President Trump.
It directs the chair of the Select Committee to designate
one or more open hearings pursuant to the section and provides
a specific process for questioning witnesses in those hearings,
notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI. At the start of
questioning the chair announces how many minutes the chair and
ranking minority member are permitted to question the witness
during that round, longer than five minutes and up to 45
minutes per side. The time available for each period of
questioning must be equal for the chair and ranking minority
member. Only the chair and ranking minority member, or a Select
Committee employee\46\ if yielded to by the chair or ranking
member, may question witnesses during these periods. The chair
may announce additional rounds using the same process.
Following these extended questioning periods, the committee
will proceed with questioning by members of the committee under
the five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\The 116th Congress Committees' Congressional Handbook released
by the Committee on House Administration defines ``employee'' as ``an
individual appointed to a position of employment in the House of
Representatives by an authorized employing authority including
individuals receiving pay disbursed by the CAO and individuals in a
Leave Without Pay or furlough status.'' The Handbook further states,
``[a] consultant is to act as an independent contractor and is not an
employee of the Committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The section also provides that the ranking minority member
of the Select Committee may submit written requests for witness
testimony to the chair within 72 hours after notice is given
for the first open hearing held pursuant to these procedures.
The requested witness testimony must be relevant to the
investigation described in the first section and must be
accompanied by a detailed written justification of the
relevance of such testimony. This notice requirement will allow
for a full evaluation of minority witness requests.
The section authorizes the ranking minority member of the
Select Committee, in concurrence with the chair of the
committee, to require, as deemed necessary to the
investigation--by subpoena or otherwise--the attendance and
testimony of any person (including at the taking of a
deposition), the production of documents, and by interrogatory,
the furnishing of information. If the chair declines to concur
in a proposed action of the ranking minority member, the
ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the
committee for decision the question of whether such authority
shall be exercised and the chair shall convene the committee
promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice
requirements and good-cause exception for a committee meeting
under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI. Subpoenas and
interrogatories authorized by this section may be signed by the
ranking minority member and may be served by any person
designated by the ranking member. This language is based on
language found in the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiry
resolutions, H. Res. 581 (105th) and H. Res. 803 (93rd),
respectively, but is updated to conform with changes to
subpoena rules in the House (clause 2(m) of rule XI), which now
confer subpoena authority to committees and, by delegation, the
chair.
The section authorizes the chair of the Select Committee to
make transcripts of depositions conducted by the Select
Committee in furtherance of its investigation publicly
available in electronic form, with appropriate redactions for
classified and other sensitive information.
The section also directs the Select Committee to act
collegially to issue a report with its findings and any
recommendations, appending any appropriate information and
materials with respect to their investigation. The report must
be prepared in consultation with the chairs of the Committees
on Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform. The chair of the
Select Committee is directed to transmit the committee report
and appendices, along with any views filed pursuant to clause
2(l) of rule XI, to the Committee on the Judiciary and to make
the report publicly available in electronic form, with
appropriate redactions to any part of the report to protect
classified and other sensitive information.
Section three--Transmission of additional materials
Section three authorizes the chair of the Permanent Select
Committee, or the chair of any other committee, having custody
of records or other materials related to the House impeachment
inquiry referenced in the first section of the resolution, to
transfer such records or materials to the Judiciary Committee,
in consultation with the ranking minority member.
Section four--Impeachment inquiry procedures in the Committee on the
Judiciary
Section four provides for the procedures under which the
Judiciary Committee is authorized to conduct the impeachment
inquiry. The section authorizes the Committee to conduct
proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry pursuant to the
procedures, including those that allow for the participation of
the President and his counsel, issued by the chair of the
Committee on Rules and printed in the Congressional Record on
October 29, 2019.
The Judiciary Committee is also authorized to promulgate
additional procedures for hearings held pursuant to the
resolution as it deems necessary, provided that they are not
inconsistent with the procedures inserted in the Congressional
Record by the chair of the Committee on Rules on October 29,
2019, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of the House.
In identical language to the subpoena power referenced in
section two, the section also authorizes the ranking member of
the Judiciary Committee, in concurrence with the chair of the
committee, to require, as deemed necessary to the
investigation--by subpoena or otherwise--the attendance and
testimony of any person (including at the taking of a
deposition), the production of documents, and by interrogatory,
the furnishing of information. If the chair declines to concur
in a proposed action of the ranking minority member, the
ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the
committee for decision the question of whether such authority
shall be exercised and the chair shall convene the committee
promptly to render that decision, subject to notice
requirements and good-cause exception for a committee meeting
under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI. Subpoenas and
interrogatories authorized by this section may be signed by the
ranking minority member and may be served by any person
designated by the ranking member. Like the identical language
found in section two, it is based on subpoena language found in
the regulations promulgated to govern the procedures of the
Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, H. Res. 581 (105th)
and H. Res. 803 (93rd), respectively. The language has been
updated to conform with changes to subpoena rules in the House
(clause 2(m) of rule XI), which now confer subpoena authority
to committees and, by delegation, to the chair.
Section 4(c)(2) of the resolution provides that the chair
of the Judiciary Committee may schedule a meeting to consider a
subpoena or interrogatory request of the ranking minority
member which has been declined and referred to the Judiciary
Committee, in accordance with the committee meeting notice
requirements and good cause exception contained in House rule
XI. This provision supersedes the committee meeting notice
requirements contained in rule II of the Judiciary Committee's
Rules of Procedure. In addition, paragraph B.3 of the Judiciary
Committee Impeachment Inquiry Procedures (inserted into the
Congressional Record by the chair of the Committee on Rules on
October 29, 2019) permits the chair of the Judiciary Committee
to schedule a meeting to consider a request by the President's
counsel for the Judiciary Committee to receive additional
testimony or evidence in accordance with the committee meeting
notice requirements and good cause exception contained in House
rule XI, notwithstanding rule II of the Judiciary Committee's
Rules of Procedure. Paragraph E of the impeachment inquiry
procedures allows the chair to provide notice of other meetings
as well as hearings being held pursuant to such impeachment
inquiry procedures consistent with the House rule XI notice
requirements and good cause exceptions, in this case, so long
as there are at least twenty-four hours' notice of the same.
Again, this paragraph operates notwithstanding the committee
meeting notice requirements contained in rule II of the
Judiciary Committee's Rules of Procedure.
Finally, the section requires that the Judiciary Committee
report to the House such resolutions, articles of impeachment,
or other recommendations as it deems proper.
CHANGES IN EXISTING HOUSE RULES MADE BY THE RESOLUTION, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3(g) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that this
resolution does not propose to repeal or amend a standing rule
of the House.
DISSENTING VIEWS
We are disappointed that the Democratic Majority has
trampled on the rights of the minority and the integrity of the
legislative process in their haste to pass H. Res. 660 on the
House Floor. There is no practical reason why the legislative
process set forth in both the 93rd and 105th Congresses could
not have been the model used today. In fact, even the
Democratic Majority themselves have made no compelling argument
as to why this legislation was written behind closed doors and
only made available to members of the minority and the American
people a mere 24 hours prior to the Rules Committee marking up
the legislation. We also understand that the Majority plans to
schedule a floor vote on the resolution less than 24 hours
after conclusion of the Rules Committee markup. This haste has
no explanation outside of an unfortunately political context--
one that serves to validate the significant and grave concerns
of the minority as to the abandonment of transparency,
fairness, and bipartisanship that existed in prior Congresses
when similar grave matters were before this body.
While we are hesitant to assign motivations to the
majority, their lack of communication and coordination with the
minority leads us to question how H. Res. 660 is anything more
than the latest attempt to rationalize a deeply flawed process
structured to do one thing, and one thing alone: destroy the
credibility of a president. Due process and following the
evidence--characteristics of previous impeachment debates--is
non-existent in the current context. Rather, fairness and
transparency have been replaced by leaking of testimony,
pejorative statements, contradictory arguments, and political
gamesmanship. This somber truth should leave every member who
values this institution saddened by the new precedent being set
by the current majority.
In 1998, a current member of the House Democratic Caucus
said the following regarding the House's responsibility to
remain true to historical precedent when it comes to an issue
of such import to our nation as impeachment of a president:
Under our Constitution, the House of Representatives
has the sole power of impeachment. This is perhaps our
single most serious responsibility short of declaration
of war. Given the gravity and magnitude of this
undertaking, only a fair and bipartisan approach to
this question will ensure that truth is discovered,
honest judgments rendered and the constitutional
requirement observed. Our best yardstick is our
historical experience. We must compare the procedures
used today with what Congress did a generation ago when
a Republican President was investigated by a Democratic
House.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Rules, Hearing before the
Committee on Rules on H. Res. 525, 105th Cong., 2d Sess., September 10,
1998.
It is unfortunate that this majority has abandoned the
sentiments expressed by now-Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren and now
seeks to rewrite the history of their quest to delegitimize the
current president even at the expense of our institution and
the unity of our nation, and absent any meaningful evidence. H.
Res. 660 is little more than a last-minute effort to walk the
tightrope of appeasing the Democratic Majority's base while not
completely alienating members of their caucus who represent
more moderate areas of the country. And yet again, their
political efforts run counter to a process characterized by the
bipartisanship and thoughtfulness that existed in the two
previous impeachment inquiries. Procedural integrity and
historical consistency ensure that in even the most chaotic of
political times, the legislative branch is able to function,
and even more importantly, to govern. Not surprisingly, the
116th Congress has very few examples of the ability of the
majority to govern and we dare say, will have even fewer if H.
Res. 660 is passed by the House of Representatives.
We would be remiss if we did not note that sharing the text
of H. Res. 660 with the minority members of the Rules Committee
only 24 hours prior to the scheduled markup would be shocking
if it had not become so commonplace in the 116th Congress. We
are disappointed that such a grave and important topic as
impeachment of a president did not compel the majority to
prioritize deliberative discussion and robust debate over
political expediency.
The deficiencies in the manner in which this majority has
conducted oversight of this president and his administration
are significant. The substance of H. Res. 660, or lack thereof,
continues in this same unfortunate theme. While we offered a
number of amendments designed to restore some fairness and due
process to this partisan resolution, there are no amendments
that can undo the weeks of damage inflicted on this institution
by the politically charged and defective process that has led
us to consideration of H. Res. 660. However, in the interest of
governing, we did attempt to address some of the most egregious
violations of fairness in the resolution.
A key example of the failure of the Democratic Majority
relates to the treatment of the president's counsel. Committee
procedures during the 93rd and 105th Congresses included the
ability of the president's counsel to attend all hearings,
including those in executive session; question any witness
called before the Committee; submit written requests for
additional testimony and precise summaries of what he would
propose to show; and respond to evidence received and testimony
presented either orally or in writing, as determined by the
Committee. The president's counsel could also review all
evidence obtained in the course of the impeachment inquiry. H.
Res. 660 bifurcates the impeachment and only allows the
president's counsel to participate in Judiciary Committee
proceedings. Even then, the rights of the President's counsel
to participate are significantly limited to the discretion of
the Chair, including providing the Chair the right to limit the
scope and duration of any such questioning. It provides no
ability to participate in the ongoing investigation by the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI.) This
is particularly devoid of fairness as it is HPSCI's report and
findings of fact that will presumably be the basis for any
articles of impeachment brought by the Judiciary Committee, and
thus due process would demand that president's counsel be
permitted to participate in all impeachment related hearings
including those in the Intelligence Committee.
Another example deserving of particular emphasis relates to
the treatment of subpoena authority and the rights of the
minority. The 93rd and 105th Congresses authorized both the
chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee to
issue subpoenas, acting jointly or unilaterally. If either the
chairman or ranking member declined to act, the other had the
right to refer the decision to exercise subpoena authority in a
specific circumstance to the full Committee.
H. Res. 660 represents a departure from this equitable
arrangement and subjects the rights of the minority to the
whims of chairmen who have already shown themselves to be ill-
equipped to act in a manner befitting their positions. H. Res.
660 authorizes the chairs of HPSCI and the Judiciary Committee
to issue subpoenas and authorizes the ranking members of HPSCI
and the Judiciary Committee to issue subpoenas--but if, and
only if, they have the blessing of their chairman. Merely
paying lip service to due process, as H. Res. 660 does, is
beneath the dignity of this body and a disservice to the prior
congresses who took seriously their responsibility to design an
impeachment process that would elevate the debate and ensure
that the treatment of the minority is a reflection of their
equal standing under the Constitution. Additionally, H. Res.
660 does not allow either ranking member to check the authority
of their respective chairman to issue subpoenas.
To remedy the fatal flaws in H. Res. 660 would require both
a time machine and a Democratic Majority willing to accept
amendments offered by members of the minority. Unfortunately,
we have neither.
It also seems that the majority has abandoned their
previous views on the appropriate amount of floor debate on a
topic so important to the nation as impeachment. On October 8,
1998, the now-Chairman of the Judiciary Committee made comments
on the speed of debate that we urge the majority to heed:
The supreme insult to the American people, an hour of
debate on the House floor on whether to start, for the
third time in the American history, a formal
impeachment proceeding. We debated two resolutions to
name post offices yesterday for an hour and a half. An
hour debate on this momentous decision is an insult to
the American people and another sign that this is not
going to be fair.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Representative Nadler, speaking on H. Res. 581, 105th Cong., 2d
sess., Congressional Record 144 (October 8, 1998): H10018.
Surely the circumstances of today should compel more debate
on the House floor than a single hour. Particularly given the
fact that unlike previous impeachment contexts, the Rules
Committee did not hold a hearing on H. Res. 660 and did not
allow members to testify. In the words of Chairman Jerry
Nadler, this is ``another sign that this is not going to be
fair.''
We continue to caution the majority that the precedent
being set by their handling of this impeachment investigation
is a disservice to this institution and to the preservation of
the rights of the minority. We cannot support H. Res. 660 on
both procedural and substantive grounds and we note for the
record that our calls for due process and transparency are once
again ignored. We cannot help but remind our Democratic
colleagues of their own words, as they have demonstrated no
interest in our perspectives as it relates to conducting
constitutional and prudent oversight. As the then-Ranking
Member of the Ways and Means Committee stated during debate on
the House floor on September 11, 1998, during consideration of
a resolution reported by the Committee on Rules that provided
for a deliberative review by the Committee on the Judiciary of
a communication from an independent counsel, and for the
release thereof:
So the American people want to make certain that when
we judge the conduct of the President of the United
States, we judge him not by a political standard, not
by an individual standard, but a standard of fairness
that takes into consideration that he was not
appointed, he was not selected, he was elected as
President of these United States. As we get closer to
the November elections, in recognizing just by being
political animals, there will be a temptation for us to
allow our politics to get involved with our
constitutional responsibilities. It will be tragic if
this happens. But remember, as we judge the President
of the United States, the people of the United States
will also be judging us.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Representative Rangel, speaking on H. Res. 525, 105th Cong., 2d
sess., Congressional Record 144 (September 11, 1998): H7591.
It is unfortunate that the sentiments of the current
Majority Leader, spoken when the House last considered
impeachment of a president, no longer seem to be as
passionately held as they were at the time they were uttered.
We, however, find them to perfectly describe the decisions
being made by Democratic Leadership behind closed doors,
irrespective of the procedural integrity of the House of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representatives:
Our citizens expect fairness. America's
constitutional system is almost unique in its adherence
to due process, to giving citizens their right to be
heard. We should do no less for those whose conduct we
have the responsibility to oversee. This week, I tell
my friends, is not a harbinger of fairness to come.
Without notice, quickly, and to some, surprisingly,
with unique timing, theatrically, obviously designed
for television exposure, a report was delivered to this
House, creating, I suggest to you, more of a circus
atmosphere than a judicial, considered atmosphere.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Representative Hoyer, speaking on H. Res. 525, 105th Cong., 2d
sess., Congressional Record 144 (September 11, 1998): H7597.
We oppose H. Res. 660 and urge the House to return to the
deliberative and bipartisan model of impeachment inquiries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
established in the 93rd and 105th Congresses.
Tom Cole.
Rob Woodall.
Michael C. Burgess, M.D.
Debbie Lesko.
[all]