The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CONYERS. Is this objection going to prevent them from ever having this patent? You mean this objection will preclude them from having a patent? Mr. KASTEN MEIER. No, I cannot accord the gentleman that great a power. Mr. CONYERS. Then I object. The CHAIRMAN. The objection is heard. Ms. Holtzman. Ms. HOLTZMAN. I very much appreciate the chairman's yielding to me. I had a question as to when a matter might be placed on the agenda. When we were discussing the issuance of subpenas, it occurred to me that there was a subpena that had not been considered by counsel. I did not offer an amendment at that time to include an additional one conversation because I wanted to discuss it and give counsel a chance to consider it and therefore was not able to raise it at the appropriate point in the agenda. But I would like the opportunity to do so if there is another meeting scheduled to consider, for example, the motions by Mr. Mezvinsky and Mr. Wiggins. I wonder if the chairman might give me some assurance about that? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair can merely state and the Chair does not at this time want to assure that such a meeting will be held. But I do want to state that if those matters are discussed, we will give the gentlelady an opportunity to discuss that matter as well. Ms. HOLTZMAN. I thank the chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Remember that the question of issuance of subpenas was an item that was placed on the agenda only after there had been a failure to comply with specific requests. That is the matter that I think has to be borne in mind. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman. Could I just say this? Mr. Kastenmeier, through our counsel, did consult with Mr. Hutchinson, with me, and with Mr. Railsback, the ranking member on the subcommittee, and all agreed that there would be no objection to bringing this up at this meeting. I wish to assure the gentleman from Wisconsin if he wishes to move for a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules in order to place this on the agenda, I would expect to support it and my colleagues would support it. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCLORY. Yes, I yield. Mr. KASTENMEIER. I appreciate that very much, but I do not think it is, insofar as there is objection, we can pursue it in due course. The patent will expire, we will revive it. This would have been timely, though not utterly essential. It is more appropriate that we do it this wav. Mr. McCLORY. It is extremely difficult because of the impeachment inquiry we are conducting to take care of other legislation, especially that which has urgency. So I think we should make accommodations where we can. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Will the gentleman vield? Mr. RAILSBACK. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCLORY. Yes. Mr. RAILSBACK. I want to support your suggestion and say the chairman did hold hearings. There were several of us present. We ap proved it. We approved of the whole procedure. It seems to me it is timely. I am no big devotee of the DAR, yet I can understand how important this is to them. I would just suggest I think you will have good support over here. It might be worthwhile putting it on. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCLORY. Yes, I yield to the gentleman. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Do we set it so that if the gentleman from Michigan wants to study the matter, if we consider it on Monday before we go into hearings, at least we will-would that be timely, and we could set up a meeting so we could consider that as well as other matters that maybe you want to consider? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to state that while I recognize that this matter is something that the gentleman from Wisconsin is interested in, nonetheless, I believe that considering that we have a lot of other important matters that are on the agenda or that may be on the agenda, I can hardly think it would be appropriate to schedule this in preference to other matters. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I did not mean in preference, but since we have had that discussion as to a possible meeting on Monday, this could certainly be considered. The CHAIRMAN. Well, perhaps after the gentleman from Wisconsin has discussed this further with the gentleman from Michigan, there may be some other opportunity, but I cannot at this time schedule a meeting for that purpose. Mr. McCLORY. I move we adjourn. The CHAIRMAN. The motion has been made to adjourn. The committee is adjourned. We will meet tomorrow morning in hearing at 10 o'clock. That is a closed hearing to hear Mr. St. Clair and questions will be asked only for purposes of clarification. [Whereupon, at 7:35 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, June 27, 1974.] IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY Executive Session THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1974 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:25 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Rodino (presiding), Donohue, Brooks, Kastenmeier, Edwards, Hungate, Conyers, Eilberg, Waldie, Flowers, Mann, Sarbanes, Seiberling, Danielson, Drinan, Rangel, Jordan, Thornton, Holtzman, Owens, Mezvinsky, Hutchinson, McClory, Smith, Sandman, Railsback, Wiggins, Dennis, Fish, Mayne, Hogan, Butler, Cohen, Lott, Froehlich, Moorhead, Maraziti, and Latta. Impeachment inquiry staff present: John Doar, special counsel; Albert E. Jenner, Jr., special counsel to the minority; Samuel Garrison III, deputy minority counsel; Bernard W. Nussbaum, senior associate special counsel; Evan A. Davis, counsel; Richard H. Gill, counsel; R. L. Smith McKeithen, counsel; James B. F. Oliphant, counsel: George Rayborn, counsel; Hillary D. Rodham, counsel; Gary W. Sutton, counsel; William A. White, counsel; Fred G. Folsom, tax consultant; Robert McGraw, investigator; Jonathan Flint, research assistant. Committee staff present: Jerome M. Zeifman, general counsel; Garner J. Cline, associate general counsel; and Franklin G. Polk, associate counsel. Also present: James D. St. Clair, special counsel to the President; John A. McCahill, assistant special counsel; and Malcolm J. Howard, assistant special counsel. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. This morning we are pleased to welcome Mr. St. Clair. Though he has been in this room and maintaining strict silence in observance of the rules, nonetheless, I want him to know that he is welcome in these Chambers. He is welcome as a distinguished member of the bar and of course, as President's counsel. Pursuant to the impeachment inquiry procedures that were adopted by the committee on May 2, 1974, after an initial presentation has been completed, the President's counsel would be invited to respond orally or in writing, as shall be determined by the committee. Mr. St. Clair is here this morning to present his response. Such response, as we know, shall be, in accordance with the resolution by Mr. Mann, in the manner of the initial presentation before the committee in accordance 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. In accordance with that resolution, Mr. St. Clair is here. I would like to state that Mr. St. Clair, I am sure, as a distinguished member of the bar, knows what the rules are, and we want him to know, too, that while we do have rules, nonetheless, in the interest of a fair inquiry, the Chair will, of course, interpret those rules in the best interest of the inquiry, as strictly as he possibly can but recognizing that there always has to be some liberal interpretation in order to make the response fair. I think that in that spirit, the committee welcomes Mr. St. Clair. I do want to state that Mr. St. Clair has indicated that while he has requested a time of 1 or 2 days to make this presentation, nonetheless, Mr. St. Clair expressed to me that he hoped he might be able to conclude his presentation, if it is at all possible, today. This is not restrictive. I do want Mr. St. Clair to know, however, that there may be interruptions. This is not, as he knows, any discourtesy to him, but we may have to go on to the Chambers in order to vote. I further want to state that as Mr. Doar and Mr. Jenner were directed to present this material in accordance with the rules, Mr. St. Clair's presentation, I am sure, will be in the same manner, and I would hope and I would urge that in the interest of according Mr. St. Clair I know everyone wants to a fair opportunity to make his response uninterrupted, questions that may be directed to Mr. St. Clair will be only clarifying questions. I would urge that we consider that they be clarifying questions and not in any way delay these proceedings. With that, Mr. St. Clair, I want to welcome you to this committee and in the best spirit of conducting this presentation, we await your presentation. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would like simply to join the chairman in welcoming Mr. St. Clair and assure him that we look forward with a great deal of interest and I am sure that his presentation will be helpful to the committee. I would like to ask one preliminary question. I have one volume here. How many volumes do you have, Mr. St. Clair? Mr. ST. CLAIR. Four, Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you. Mr. ST. CLAIR. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. St. Clair. Mr. ST. CLAIR. Members of the committee, first, may I introduce, in addition to Mr. McCahill, who has been with me for these several weeks, my associate, Mr. Malcolm J. Howard, sitting at my right. Mr. Howard comes from Greenville, N.C., graduated from West Point, and is also a graduate of Wake Forest Law School. He came to the White House 32 months ago as a staff assistant after having been assistant U.S. attorney in North Carolina. The chairman at my request has permitted Mr. Howard to be here and be of some assistance to me. |