Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

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]