Mr. MCCLORY. Is it not true, counsel, that we have sent a letter to Judge Sirica requesting these tapes, and that he has refused to deliver them to us? This was a subject which was brought up by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel, who said he was going to vote to table because we should send a letter first. We have already sent the letter; have we not?

Mr. JENNER. Congressman McClory, we have sent several letters to Judge Sirica, and he has been extremely, he has been extremely cooperative, except with respect to this segment of that particular tape. And his sole ground, his sole ground is that he does not have jurisdiction or power to do it because of the limited mandate of the court of appeals, and that is his only ground.

But, every other request this committee has made of Judge Sirica, he has responded to the letters of the chairman and been very helpful to this committee.

Mr. McCLORY. The only authority could come from the President or the court of appeals?

Mr. JENNER. That is correct.

Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, in the limited time remaining, I will reiterate what I said before. Where the matter is impeachment, the normal doctrine of the separation of powers must fall, so if this needs to be adjudicated, then it should be adjudicated. But, I would urge upon counsel consideration of issuing subpenas to individuals other than the President of the United States where they might have information which would clarify some of the clarity issues before this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to lay on the table the motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. FROEHLICH. Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to lay on the table. All those in favor of the motion please say aye.

[Chorus of "ayes."]

The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed?

[Chorus of "noes."]

Mr. FROEHLICH. Rollcall.

The CHAIRMAN. The ayes appear to have it. A rollcall is demanded and the clerk will call the roll. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye; all those opposed, no. The clerk will call the roll.

The CLERK. Mr. Donohue.

Mr. DONOHUE. Ave.

The CLERK. Mr. Brooks.

Mr. BROOKS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Kastenmeier.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Edwards.

Mr. EDWARDS. Ave.

The CLERK. Mr. Hungate.

Mr. HUNGATE. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Conyers.
Mr. CONYERS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Eilberg.
Mr. EILBERG. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Waldie.
Mr. WALDIE. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Flowers.
Mr. FLOWERS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Mann.

Mr. MANN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. SARBANES. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Seiberling.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Danielson.
Mr. DANIELSON. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Drinan.
Mr. DRINAN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Rangel.

Mr. RANGEL. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Jordan.

Ms. JORDAN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Thornton.

Mr. THORNTON. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Holtzman.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Owens.

Mr. OWENS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Mezvinksy.

Mr. MEZVINSKY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Hutchinson.

Mr. McCLORY. Aye, by proxy.

The CLERK. Mr. McClory.
Mr. McCLORY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Sandman.

Mr. SANDMAN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Railsback.

Mr. RAILSBACK. NO.

The CLERK. Mr. Wiggins.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Wiggins.
Mr. WIGGINS. I vote no.
The CLERK. Mr. Dennis.
Mr. DENNIS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Fish.
Mr. FISH. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Mayne.
Mr. DENNIS. No, by proxy.
The CLERK. Mr. Hogan.
Mr. HOGAN. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Butler.

Mr. BUTLER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. COHEN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Lott.

no.

Mr. LOTT. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Froehlich.
Mr. FROEHLICH. NO.

The CLERK. Mr. Moorhead.

Mr. MOORHEAD. NO.

The CLERK. Mr. Maraziti.

Mr. MARAZITI. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Latta.

Mr. LATTA. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Rodino.

The CHAIRMAN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will report.

The CLERK. Twenty-three members have voted aye; 15 have voted

The CHAIRMAN. The motion is agreed to, and accordingly, it is laid on the table. I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Mann.

Mr. MANN. Mr. Chairman, I propose to offer a resolution covering the subject described in item 5 of the agenda with reference to the invitation to the President's counsel to respond to the initial evidentiary presentation. I think that copies of that resolution are on the desk of each member. If not, the clerk has some more to hand out. Before presenting the formal motion of resolution, I would like to make two or three explanatory remarks. Now that the committee has completed its initial evidentiary presentation, and I must say that the counsel and the staff are to be highly commended for the manner in which they organized this very complex material, and the objective manner in which it was presented to us.

As we know, from the outset this committee has been concerned with treating the President through his counsel fairly, and to give him an opportunity to particiapte in each stage of the proceding, and pursuant to that objective in the impeachment inquiry procedures which we have adopted, paragraph b(2), we provided the President's counsel shall be invited to respond to the presentation orally or in writing, as shall be determined by the committee.

Now, as you will see from the resolution, it is proposed that he make the same type of presentation as was made by the staff and committee counsel. The matters of additional witnesses, the matters of eventual brief or argument, will be reserved for later determination, both by the committee and with reference to the President's counsel. So with that explanation, Mr. Chairman, and pursuant to rule B-2 of the committee's procedures on the impeachment inquiry, I move the adoption of the following resolution.

Mr. MCCLORY. Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClory.

Mr. MCCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I have looked over the motion which is presented by the gentleman from South Carolina. It seems to be consistent with the rules adopted by the committee, and I would just like to ask counsel whether they have consulted with Mr. St. Clair and that he understands the method of presentation and what his reaction is.

41-018-75-pt. 3- -8

Mr. DOAR. Yes, Congressman McClory, I did consult with Mr. St. Clair, explained to him the nature of the response that the committee was considering adopting or authorizing him to make. He said that he thought that was a fair, satisfactory way to proceed and made no adverse comment whatsoever.

Mr. MANN. Will you also verify that he indicated that he can be ready by the time set in the resolution, which is 10 o'clock Thursday morning?

Mr. DOAR. I cannot verify positively. He said he would try to be ready by no later than 10 o'clock on Thursday, and if there was any difficulty, he would let me know. I have not heard from him.

Mr. MCCLORY. Could I ask counsel another question?

It is my understanding that this initial presentation to be made by counsel for the President will be the factual presentation similar to kinds you made, statements of information supported by evidentiary material, documentary material that is before the committee, and that with regard to the adversary type of presentation, that he will have a right to make, that will come at a later time. In other words, it will come at a time following the time that we entertain the testimony of witnesses before the committee. Is that correct as far as our procedure is concerned?

Mr. DOAR. Well, Congressman McClory, I told him that with respect to that matter, that was a matter that the committee would decide, that they were not deciding at this time. So I did not speak for the committee with respect to the type of response, adversary response that might be considered at a later time. I did indicate that the committee had that fact in mind, and we did discuss the response that he proposed to submit and the fact that he would have to extract certain material from that and divide it. And I told him finally that in support of his statements of information, he would be entitled to cite SSC testimony, testimony from other congressional bodies, documentary evidence, and affidavits. And he wrote that all down.

Mr. McCLORY. In other words, he would not be foreclosed from this other adversary type of presentation, but that would be reserved for a later time for decision by the committee.

Mr. DOAR. That is what I told him.

Mr. LOTT. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. MANN. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be well, even though members have copies before them, for the clerk to read the resolution for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the resolution.

The CLERK [reading]:

Resolved, that the President's counsel be invited to respond in writing to the committee's initial evidentiary presentation. Such response shall be in the manner of the initial presentation before the committee in accord with rule A and may consist of information and evidentiary material, other than the testimony of witnesses, believed by the President's counsel to be pertinent to the inquiry. Counsel for the President shall be afforded an opportunity to supplement his written response with an oral presentation before the committee. Such presentation shall be in executive session and shall commence no later than 10 a.m., Thursday, June 27, 1974.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kastenmeier.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I think, Mr. Chairman, the motion seems perfectly fair, but there is one question, one open-ended question. That is, and either the gentleman from South Carolina or counsel can answer it, it states that the oral presentation shall commence no later than 10 o'clock, Thursday, June 27. It sets no time of termination. Could we have an idea of how long, inasmuch as we are confronted with a time problem, Counsel St. Clair will require to make that oral presentation? Because after all, the original presentation was weeks. Could we not assume that he could conclude either Thursday or Friday, so that this week, he would have concluded his presentation?

Mr. DOAR. I do not know whether or not you could assume that, but my impression was that that was what he intended. The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Yes, I yield to my chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, will not counsel advise the committee of the discussion he had with Mr. St. Clair, wherein he indicated the amount of time he thought he would take?

Mr. DOAR. That is what I said, that he thought it would be 1 or 2 days.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. So that under ordinary circumstances, we could hope to conclude hearing his presentation by the end of this week? Mr. DOAR. That is correct.

Mr. LOTT. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. LOTT. First of all, I would like to commend the gentleman from South Carolina for drafting this motion. I think it is very fine.

I would like to emphasize, though, it is my impression that you do not wish to put any strict limitations on it, although as I understand, counsel for the President has indicated that this could probably be completed within 2 days. I would like you to comment on it.

Mr. MANN. That is why no limitation was put in the resolution. It was considered that a limitation might cause him to take longer than if we gave him a free hand?

Mr. LOTT. I thank the gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield further?

Mr. MANN. Yes.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I have the time, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to yield to you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Might I address this to the gentleman from South Carolina?

Is it contemplated within your motion, however, that the terms that are laid down in the impeachment inquiry procedures wherein counsel for the impeachment inquiry was confined to the presentation of information which was pertinent to the inquiry, that this be the same. policy that would be followed by counsel for the President, and that he would adhere strictly to those procedures?

Mr. MANN. Yes, Mr. Chairman; and that is what was intended by the language, that such response shall be in the manner of the initial presentation. The initial presentation being referred to is that as given by staff and counsel to this date.

Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dennis.