89–008 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 111–487 

GRANTING THE AUTHORITY PROVIDED UNDER CLAUSE 4(c)(3) OF RULE X 

OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR FOR PURPOSES OF ITS INVESTIGATION INTO UNDERGROUND COAL MINING SAFETY 

MAY 19, 2010.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H. Res. 1363] 

The Committee on Rules, to whom was referred the resolution 

(H. Res. 1363) granting the authority provided under clause 4(c)(3) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives to the Committee on Education and Labor for purposes of its investigation 

into underground coal mining safety, having considered the same, 

report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that 

the resolution be agreed to. 

PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION

The purpose of H. Res. 1363 is to grant the authority provided 

under clause 4(c)(3) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives to the Committee on Education and Labor for purposes of its investigation into underground coal mining safety. 

SUMMARY OF THE RESOLUTION

H. Res. 1363 applies to the investigation by the Committee on 

Education and Labor into underground coal mine operator compliance with the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as 

amended, and into other related matters. 

Clause 4(c)(3) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, as applied to the Education and Labor Committee by H. Res. 

1363, would allow the Education and Labor Committee to adopt a 

rule authorizing and regulating the taking of depositions by a 

Member of or counsel to the committee, including by issuing a subpoena. Clause 4(c)(3) further states that a committee rule may proVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:07 May 20, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR487.XXX HR487

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 Hearing on Reducing the Growing Backlog of Contested Mine Safety Cases Before the U.S. 

House Comm. on Educ. & Labor, 111th Cong., 2d Sess. (Feb. 23, 2010) (statement of Joseph 

A. Main, Asst. Sec. of Labor for Mine Safety and Health). 2 Id. (statement of Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission). 

vide that a deponent be directed to subscribe to an oath or affirmation before a person authorized by law to administer oaths and affirmations. A committee rule shall ensure that the Members and 

staff of the committee are accorded equitable treatment with respect to notice of and a reasonable opportunity to participate in any 

proceedings thereunder. Finally, clause 4(c)(3) provides that deposition testimony retain the character of discovery until offered for admission into evidence before the committee, at which time any 

proper objection will be timely. 

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE INVESTIGATION

Recent incidents such as the August 2007 tragedy at the 

Crandall Canyon Mine near Huntington, Utah and the April 2010 

explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine in Raleigh County, West 

Virginia have demonstrated the urgency of improving safety conditions for miners. 

Among the problems being investigated by the Education and 

Labor Committee is the rapidly growing number of mine safety enforcement cases currently pending before the Federal Mine Safety 

and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC), an independent agency that provides administrative trial and appellate review of contested citations, penalties, and worker retaliation cases. As the result of stepped-up enforcement and tougher penalties after a spate 

of mine tragedies in 2005 and 2006, mine owners tripled the number of violations they appeal and are now litigating 67 percent of 

all penalties.1 The backlog of cases FMSHRC must review has 

jumped from 2,100 in 2006 to approximately 16,000 in February, 

2010.2

Because of this backlog, numerous mines that received safety citations, and might have otherwise been put on warning for possible 

addition to the Pattern of Violations (POV) list, have gone without 

such warning, pending final adjudication of their citations. It is 

possible that, had these mines received POV warnings, safety conditions would have improved significantly, as past experience indicates that mining companies make substantial improvements once 

warned of impending addition to the POV list. Upper Big Branch 

was one of the mines that, but for a lack of final adjudications on 

enough of its citations, would very likely have been warned or 

faced designation as having a Pattern of Violations. Several other 

mines owned by Massey Energy, Upper Big Branch’s owner, also 

are on a Department of Labor list of such mines. 

Summary of Congressional Investigation 

The Committee on Education and Labor has been engaging in 

oversight and investigatory activities concerning safety conditions 

at underground coal mines, the administration of the laws governing mine safety, and the mining industry’s compliance with the 

law. 

The Committee’s oversight activities in the summer of 2009 involved several months of conversations with stakeholders about the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
3 

3 Hearing on Reducing the Growing Backlog of Contested Mine Safety Cases Before the U.S. 

House Comm. on Educ. & Labor, 111th Cong., 2d Sess. (Feb. 23, 2010). 4McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); Morton Rosenberg, Congressional Research 

Serv., Investigative Oversight: An Introduction to the Law, Practice and Procedure of Congressional Inquiry (1995). 5McGrain, 273 U.S. at 175. 

6 Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule XI, 111th Cong. (2009). 

backlog at FMSHRC, the causes of the backlog, and what the consequences of such a backlog might be. 

On February 23, 2010, the Committee held an oversight hearing 

entitled ‘‘Reducing the Growing Backlog of Contested Mine Safety 

Cases.’’ 3 Witnesses included: (1) Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman of 

FMSHRC; (2) Joe Main, Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Mine 

Safety and Health Administration; (3) Cecil Roberts, President of 

the United Mine Workers of America; and, (4) Bruce Waltzman, 

Senior Vice President for Regulatory Affairs for the National Mining Association. 

Tragically, on April 5, 2010, an explosion at the Upper Big 

Branch Mine killed 29 coal miners. This disaster, the worst mine 

disaster in the United States since 1970, compelled the Committee 

to move from oversight activities into a broader investigation of underground mine safety. The Committee is investigating safety violations at mines generally, and specifically whether there are practices at the corporate level that are contributing to safety problems 

at the mine level. 

The Committee also has issued a document request to several of 

the companies involved in underground mining that had the most 

mines (or the largest number of employees working in mines) with 

large numbers of citations that have not yet been finally adjudicated, and the most mines on the Pattern of Violations list. Moving forward, the Committee will continue speaking with the full 

range of industry participants and stakeholders, and examining 

relevant documents. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE RESOLUTION

The Supreme Court and congressional scholars have recognized 

that, despite silence on the issue in the Constitution, Congress does 

have the authority to conduct investigations.4 As the Court explained: 

A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in 

the absence of information respecting the conditions which 

the legislation is intended to affect or change. . . . Experience has taught that mere requests for such information 

often are unavailing, and also that information which is 

volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some 

means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.5

In furtherance of this, the Rules of the House of Representatives, 

which establish and convey authority to the congressional committees, provide such committees with the general tools needed to exercise investigative power.6 More specifically, rule XI of the Rules 

of the House of Representatives provides that: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
4 

7 House Rule XI cl. 2(h)(2). 

8 Id. Cl. 2(k). 9 cl. 2(m)(1)(A). 10 Id. cl. 2(m)(1)(B). 11 H. Res. 369, 104th Cong. (1996). 12 H. Res. 167, 105th Cong. (1997). 13 H. Res. 507, 105th Cong. (1998). 

• Committees may set a quorum of no less than two Members for taking testimony and receiving evidence; 7

• Witnesses at committee hearings are afforded certain 

rights that balance the interests of committees in conducting 

oversight, including the right to counsel, the right to a copy of 

the committee and House rules, the right to petition to testify 

in executive session, the right to submit statements for the 

record, and the right to obtain a copy of their testimony; 8

• Committees are authorized to sit and act and hold hearings within the United States regardless of whether the House 

is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned; 9

• Committees may require, by subpoena or otherwise, the 

attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of 

books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents it deems necessary.10

Such tools, however, are not sufficient in all cases. In some investigations, not all subjects or people with information related to the 

investigation will agree to voluntary interviews; such individuals 

often need to be compelled to cooperate. It should be noted that 

some witnesses may refuse to cooperate with voluntary interviews 

merely to hide information, while others fear retribution from employers if they do cooperate. 

In these circumstances, the power to compel witnesses to testify 

can be an invaluable investigative tool. The primary method of 

compulsion contemplated by the Rules of the House is a subpoena 

for a hearing. In the course of some investigations, however, the 

nature of witness testimony, while significant, might not justify the 

cost and effort of calling the witness to appear at a committee hearing. For this reason, the House has, on occasion, granted special 

powers to standing committees and special committees so that they 

may conduct Member and staff depositions of witnesses. 

With respect to standing committees, in the 104th Congress, the 

Committee on Rules reported and the House adopted a resolution 

providing special authorities to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to obtain testimony on the White House Travel 

Office matter.11 The special authorities included permitting the 

staff of the Government Reform Committee to take depositions. 

In the 105th Congress, the Committee on Rules and the House 

adopted two resolutions that authorized committee staffs to take 

depositions. First, House Resolution 167 provided special investigative authorities to the Committee on Government Reform and 

Oversight regarding political fundraising improprieties.12 Second, 

House Resolution 507 authorized the Committee on Education and 

Workforce to take staff depositions in its investigation of the administration of labor laws and the International Brotherhood of 

Teamsters.13

The Committee on the Judiciary has been given Member and 

staff deposition authority several times in the last two Congresses. 

House Resolution 1448 in the 110th Congress and House ResoluVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:07 May 20, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR487.XXX HR487

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
5 

14 H. Res. 1448, 110th Cong. (2008); H. Res. 15, 111th Cong. (2009). 15 H. Res. 424, 111th Cong. (2009). 16 H. Res. 5, cl. 4(f), 111th Cong. (2009). 17 House Rule X cl. 4(c)(3). 18 H. Res. 836, 110th Cong. (2007). 19 As noted, the House also has passed resolutions that created special or select committees 

with staff deposition authority. For instance, in the 105th Congress, House Resolution 463 established a Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with 

the People’s Republic of China. H. Res. 463, 105th Cong. (1998). 20 In 2006, there were three serious mine accidents that killed 18 miners. H.R. Rep. No. 110– 

457, 110th Cong., 1st Sess. 20 (2007). Those disasters led to the passage of the MINER Act. 

Id. Nevertheless, just a little over one year after enactment of the MINER Act, the country witnessed another mine disaster. In fact, mining fatalities continue to occur at a rate more than 

seven times the average for all private industries, exceeding other dangerous occupations such 

as construction and trucking. Id. at 31. According to the latest information provided by MSHA, 

195 miners have died from January 1, 2007, through May 17, 2010. Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (2010), http://www.msha.gov/stats/charts/allstates.pdf. 

tion 15 in the 111th Congress granted deposition authority for the 

Committee’s inquiry into whether the House should impeach District Court Judge G. Thomas Porteus.14 House Resolution 424 in 

the 111th Congress granted the same authority for the Committee’s 

impeachment inquiry concerning District Judge Samuel B. Kent.15

House Resolution 5 in the 111th Congress gave the Committee authority for its Members or counsel to take depositions related to the 

investigation into the firing of certain U.S. Attorneys.16

Also in the 110th and 111th Congresses, the standing rules of 

the House have authorized the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (formerly known as the Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight) to take staff depositions for any investigation.17 The authority is not limited to specific investigations but instead is part of 

that committee’s broad mandate to oversee and investigate the operation of the Federal government. 

Finally, the Committee on Education and Labor received deposition authority in the 110th Congress for purposes of its 2007–2008 

investigation into the deaths of nine miners and rescue workers at 

the Crandall Canyon Mine near Huntington, Utah.18 These are just 

the most recent examples in which the House has permitted the 

staffs of standing committees to take depositions.19

It is this type of deposition authority that is proposed in H. Res. 

1363 to be granted to the Education and Labor Committee. At the 

outset, it should be noted that the authority suggested in H. Res. 

1363 is limited to the investigation of underground coal mining 

safety. The Committee on Rules believes that vigorous oversight is 

necessary to learn of any systemic problems in the industry so that 

solutions may be found to prevent future death and disability 

across the mining industry, the tragic importance of which is demonstrated by the recent Upper Big Branch Mine disaster.20

Deposition authority would be useful to the Education and Labor 

Committee in two ways. As indicated previously, it would serve as 

a means of compelling the assistance of recalcitrant witnesses 

whose testimony might not rise to the level of committee hearing 

subjects. In other cases, the deposition authority will allow for subsequent questioning of deposed witnesses at a committee hearing 

to be more focused and illuminating. 

The vehicle of a deposition also will allow Education and Labor 

Committee Members and counsel to probe efficiently the scope and 

basis for any deponent’s refusal to answer specific questions by the 

invocation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimiVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:07 May 20, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR487.XXX HR487

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
6 

21This is similar to a number of previous circumstances when standing committees were given 

deposition authority. The committees promulgated their own rules governing the specific exercise of the deposition power granted by the House resolutions and rules. H.R. Rep. No. 105– 

658, at 17, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (1998) (regarding staff deposition authority for the Committee 

on Education and Workforce); H.R. Rep. No. 105–139, at 33, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (1997) (regarding staff deposition authority for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight); 142 

Cong. Rec. H1963 (daily ed. Mar. 7, 1996) (regarding staff deposition authority for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight); H.R. Rep. No. 110–473, at 8, 110th Cong., 1st 

Sess. (2007) (regarding staff deposition authority for the Committee on Education and Labor). 

In general, these committee rules have governed deposition notice requirements, the rights of 

witnesses and their counsel, the rights of committee Members, the transcription of depositions, 

and the admission of deposition testimony into committee records. 

nation or any other privilege. Claims of privilege can often be more 

fully and efficiently addressed in a deposition rather than at a public hearing. 

The Education and Labor Committee’s recent experience with 

deposition authority has demonstrated such authority’s usefulness; 

the Committee indicates that deposition authority was important 

in conducting its successful investigation of the Crandall Canyon 

Mine disaster, which led to a criminal referral. Whether the Committee actually issued a subpoena for a deposition or not, witnesses’ knowledge that the Committee could issue such a subpoena 

may have caused reluctant witnesses to cooperate. It also may have 

given cover to witnesses who wanted to aid the investigation but 

were afraid to be viewed as disloyal to their employers or become 

blacklisted by the mining industry as whistleblowers. 

Finally, the deposition authority reflected in H. Res. 1363 contains significant protections for both Members of the Education and 

Labor Committee and potential deposition witnesses. For example, 

any Education and Labor Committee rule promulgating the authority must ensure that the minority Members and staff of the committee are accorded equitable treatment with respect to notice of 

and a reasonable opportunity to participate in any proceedings 

thereunder. Further, deposition testimony will retain the character 

of discovery until offered for admission into evidence before the 

committee, at which time any proper objection will be timely. 

It also should be noted that, when the Education and Labor 

Committee adopted its rules for the 111th Congress, it included a 

deposition procedure rule so that they would be able to expeditiously seek and exercise deposition authority in the event it were 

to become appropriate.21 Just as in the 110th Congress, the Education and Labor Committee’s deposition rule, the text of which is 

attached as an appendix to this report, includes many provisions 

to clarify the rights of Members and witnesses. For instance, the 

Chairman or majority staff will be required to consult with the 

Ranking Minority Member or minority staff no less than three days 

before any notice or subpoena for a deposition is issued. Upon completion of such consultation, all Members of the Committee will receive written notice that a notice or subpoena for a deposition will 

be issued. At the deposition, a witness may be accompanied by 

counsel to advise of his or her rights. Counsel for the entity employing the deponent also may attend if the scope of the deposition 

is expected to cover actions taken as part of the deponent’s employment. 

A deponent may decline to answer a question if needed to preserve a privilege. If a witness refuses to answer a question and objects, the Chairman may rule on such objection after the deposition 

has adjourned. If the Chairman overrules any objection and directs 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
7 

the witness to answer any questions to which privilege objections 

were lodged, such ruling must be filed with the clerk of the Committee and provided to the Committee Members and the deponent 

no less than three days before it is implemented. If a Committee 

Member appeals in writing the ruling of the Chairman, then the 

appeal will be preserved for Committee consideration. 

Any depositions will have to be transcribed stenographically and 

also may be electronically recorded. Majority and minority staff will 

receive copies of the deposition transcript at the same time. The 

electronic recording, however, will not supersede the certified written transcript. 

After receiving the initial transcript, majority staff will make it 

available to the deponent or deponent’s counsel. No later than ten 

business days thereafter, the deponent may suggest any technical 

or substantive changes. Any substantive changes, however, must be 

suggested by the deponent in writing to the Committee and will be 

included as an appendix to the transcript. Majority and minority 

staff will be provided with a copy of the final transcript at the 

same time. 

The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Education 

and Labor Committee will consult regarding the release of deposition transcripts or any electronic recordings. If either objects in 

writing to a proposed release of a deposition transcript or recording, the matter will be referred to the Education and Labor Committee for prompt resolution. 

In short, the grant of staff deposition authority is an invaluable 

and not unprecedented power for congressional committees to exercise their obligations to conduct oversight and to legislate. House 

Resolution 1363 proposes to grant to the Education and Labor 

Committee such authority as part of its investigation into the safety conditions in underground coal mines. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE RESOLUTION

Section 1 extends the investigative authority granted to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform under clause 4(c)(3) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives to the Committee on Education and Labor for purposes of its investigation 

into underground coal mine operator compliance with the Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended, and into other 

related matters. 

Clause 4(c)(3) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, as applied to the Education and Labor Committee by H. Res. 

1363, allows the Education and Labor Committee to adopt a rule 

authorizing and regulating the taking of depositions by a Member 

of or counsel to the committee, including by issuing a subpoena. 

Rule X further states that a committee rule may provide that a deponent be directed to subscribe to an oath or affirmation before a 

person authorized by law to administer oaths and affirmations. 

Any rule adopted by the Committee must ensure that the Members 

and staff of the committee are accorded equitable treatment with 

respect to notice of and a reasonable opportunity to participate in 

any proceedings thereunder. Finally, rule X provides that deposition testimony retain the character of discovery until offered for admission into evidence before the committee, at which time any 

proper objection will be timely. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
8 

Section 2 requires that, at the end of the second session of the 

111th Congress, the Chair of the Education and Labor Committee 

transmit to the Rules Committee a report detailing how the Education and Labor Committee has used the authority granted by the 

resolution. The report will indicate: (1) the total number of depositions taken; (2) the number of depositions taken pursuant to subpoenas; and, (3) the name of each deponent that the Committee has 

publicly identified by name as a deponent. The Committee on Rules 

intends that the term ‘‘publicly identified’’ be interpreted broadly, 

so that deponents would be considered to have been identified if 

the transcript or electronic record of their deposition were released, 

or if they were identified by name in a committee report, press release, in another official Committee publication, or at a committee 

hearing. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

H. Res. 1363 was introduced by Education and Labor Committee 

Chairman George Miller on May 18, 2010, and referred to the Committee on Rules. On May 19, 2010, the Committee on Rules held 

a hearing on H. Res. 1363 and received testimony from the Honorable George Miller, Chairman of the Committee on Education and 

Labor. 

On May 19, 2010, the Committee on Rules met on H. Res. 1363 

in open session and ordered the resolution favorably reported to the 

House by a non-record vote. 

ROLL CALL VOTES

No record votes were taken during consideration of H. Res. 1363. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

Statement of oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee 

In accordance with 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’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

body of this report. 

Congressional Budget Office cost estimate 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee states, with respect to H. 

Res. 1363, that the Director of the Congressional Budget Office did 

not submit a cost estimate and comparison under section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

Statement of general performance goals and objectives 

In accordance with clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the goal of H. Res. 1363 is to provide the 

authority necessary for the Committee on Education and Labor to 

conduct a full investigation into underground coal mine operator 

compliance with the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 

as amended, and into other related matters. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
(9) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

We share the Majority’s concerns regarding the recent mining accidents. The most recent event, which took the lives of 29 West Virginia miners in one of the worst accidents in the last 40 years, 

demonstrates the need for vigorous Congressional oversight. Without a thorough investigation and evaluation, Congress will be unable to objectively determine whether the executive branch agencies charged with protecting miners are performing their job, and 

whether changes are needed to ensure that those agencies fulfill 

their obligations to miners, their families, and the public. 

However, as we articulated in our views in the report to accompany H. Res. 836 in the 110th Congress (H. Rept. 110–473), we are 

troubled by the potential for abuse of staff deposition authority, 

and believe that it must only be granted sparingly, and with stringent oversight. It is essential that the ranking minority member always have the ability to meaningfully participate in the information gathering process, and have recourse when potential abuses 

occur. 

We are pleased that we have not received reports of abuses in 

the recent instances where this authority was granted to the Education and Labor Committee and the Committee on the Judiciary. 

We believe that the rule adopted by the Committee on Education 

and Labor should represent the minimum standard for the use of 

staff deposition authority, and that even further protections for the 

Minority could be included. 

We are encouraged by the inclusion of section 2 to this resolution. That section requires the Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor to report back to the Committee on Rules on his 

use of the authority granted by the resolution. This provision will 

enable us to evaluate the use of staff deposition authority in this 

case, and have a benchmark to compare for future requests. 

However, we are concerned that—outside of the context of judicial impeachment—the Committee on Education and Labor is the 

only committee to request and receive this authority under the current Majority. Other committees are able to maintain robust oversight and investigations without the use of staff deposition authority. For instance, the Committee on Energy and Commerce was 

able to pursue its recent investigation into the performance of Toyota and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration without the use of this authority. Similarly, the Financial Services 

Committee also conducted its investigations into the collapse of the 

financial markets with the regular authority granted to standing 

committees. Frankly, we are unsure why the Committee on Education and Labor continues to request this authority when other 

committees appear to be able to pursue vigorous and thorough investigations without it. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
10 

With that said, we will not oppose the granting of staff deposition authority in this instance. This resolution is narrowly tailored, 

and the rules of the Committee on Education provide a modicum 

of protection for both deponents and the Minority. 

DAVID DREIER. 

LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. 

PETE SESSIONS. 

VIRGINIA FOXX. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
(11) 

APPENDIX 

Text of Education and Labor Committee rule adopted on January 

21, 2009: 

RULE 10. DEPOSITION PROCEDURE

(a) In accordance with the Committee receiving authorization by 

the House of Representatives for the taking of depositions in furtherance of a Committee investigation, the Chair, upon consultation with the ranking minority member, may order the taking of 

depositions pursuant to notice or subpoena as contemplated by this 

rule. 

(b) The Chair or majority staff shall consult with the ranking minority member or minority staff no less than three business days 

before any notice or subpoena for a deposition is issued. After such 

consultation, all members shall receive written notice that a notice 

or subpoena for a deposition will be issued. 

(c) A notice or subpoena issued under this rule shall specify the 

date, time, and place of the deposition and the method or methods 

by which the deposition will be recorded. Prior to testifying, a deponent shall be provided with a copy of the Committee’s rules, the 

House Resolution authorizing the taking of the deposition, and 

Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

(d)(1) A deposition shall be conducted by one or more members 

or Committee counsel as designated by the Chair or ranking minority member. 

(2) A deposition shall be taken under oath or affirmation administered by a member or a person otherwise authorized to administer oaths and affirmations. 

(e) A deponent may be accompanied at a deposition by counsel 

to advise the deponent of the deponent’s rights. Only members and 

Committee counsel, however, may examine the deponent. No one 

may be present at a deposition other than members, Committee 

staff designated by the Chair or ranking minority member, such individuals as may be required to administer the oath or affirmation 

and transcribe or record the proceedings, the deponent, and the deponent’s counsel (including personal counsel and counsel for the entity employing the deponent if the scope of the deposition is expected to cover actions taken as part of the deponent’s employment). Observers or counsel for other persons or entities may not 

attend. 

(f)(1) Unless the majority, minority, and deponent agree otherwise, questions in a deposition shall be propounded in rounds, alternating between the majority and minority. A single round shall 

not exceed 60 minutes per side, unless the members or counsel conducting the deposition agree to a different length of questioning. In 

each round, a member or Committee counsel designated by the 

Chair shall ask questions first, and the member or Committee 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
12 

counsel designated by the ranking minority member shall ask 

questions second. 

(2) Any objection made during a deposition must be stated concisely and in a non-argumentative and non-suggestive manner. Deponent may refuse to answer a question only to preserve a privilege. When the deponent has objected and refused to answer a 

question to preserve a privilege, the Chair may rule on any such 

objection after the deposition has adjourned. If the Chair overrules 

any such objection and thereby orders a deponent to answer any 

question to which a privilege objection was lodged, such ruling 

shall be filed with the clerk of the Committee and shall be provided 

to members and the deponent no less than three days before the 

ruling is enforced at a reconvened deposition. If a member of the 

Committee appeals in writing the ruling of the Chair, the appeal 

shall be preserved for Committee consideration. A deponent who 

refuses to answer a question after being directed to answer by the 

Chair in writing may be subject to sanction, except that no sanctions may be imposed if the ruling of the Chair is reversed on appeal. In all cases, when deposition testimony for which an objection 

has been made is offered for admission in evidence before the Committee, all properly lodged objections then made shall be timely 

and shall be considered by the Committee prior to admission in evidence before the Committee. 

(g) Deposition testimony shall be transcribed by stenographic 

means and may also be video recorded. The clerk of the Committee 

shall receive the transcript and any video recording and promptly 

forward such to minority staff at the same time the clerk distributes such to other majority staff. 

(h) The individual administering the oath shall certify on the 

transcript that the deponent was duly sworn. The transcriber shall 

certify that the transcript is a true, verbatim record of the testimony, and the transcript and any exhibits shall be filed, as shall 

any video recording, with the clerk of the Committee. In no case 

shall any video recording be considered the official transcript of a 

deposition or otherwise supersede the certified written transcript. 

(i) After receiving the transcript, majority staff shall make available the transcript for review by the deponent or deponent’s counsel. No later than ten business days thereafter, the deponent may 

submit suggested changes to the Chair. Committee majority staff 

may direct the clerk of the Committee to note any typographical errors, including any requested by the deponent or minority staff, via 

an errata sheet appended to the transcript. Any proposed substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments to 

the deposition testimony must be submitted by the deponent as an 

affidavit that includes the deponent’s reasons therefore. Any substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments shall 

be included as an appendix to the transcript, a copy of which shall 

be promptly forwarded to minority staff. 

(j) The Chair and ranking minority member shall consult regarding the release of a deposition transcript or electronic recordings. 

If either objects in writing to a proposed release of a deposition 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
13 

transcript or electronic recording or a portion thereof, the matter 

shall be promptly referred to the Committee for resolution. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS