The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

Summary: Under the U.S. Constitution, the House of Representatives has the power to formally charge a federal officer with wrongdoing, a process known as impeachment. The House impeaches an individual when a majority agrees to a House resolution containing explanations of the charges. The explanations in the resolution are referred to as "articles of impeachment." After the House agrees to impeach an officer, the role of the Senate is to conduct a trial to determine whether the charged individual should be removed from office. Removal requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

Summary: The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment.

Summary: Impeachment proceedings are usually initiated in the House when a Member submits a resolution through the hopper (in the same way that all House resolutions are submitted). A resolution calling for the impeachment of an officer will be referred to the Judiciary Committee; a resolution simply authorizing an investigation of an officer will be referred to the Rules Committee. In either case, the committee could then report a privileged resolution authorizing the investigation. In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.

Summary: Impeachment proceedings could also be initiated by a Member on the floor. A Member can offer an impeachment resolution as a "Question of the Privileges of the House." The House, when it considers a resolution called up this way, might immediately vote to refer it to the Judiciary Committee, leaving the resolution in the same status as if it had been submitted through the hopper. Alternatively, the House might vote to table the impeachment resolution. The House could also vote directly on the resolution, but in modern practice, it has not chosen to approve articles of impeachment called up in this fashion. Instead, the House has relied on the Judiciary Committee to first conduct an investigation, hold hearings, and report recommendations to the full House.

Summary: Committee consideration is therefore typically the second stage of the impeachment process. In recent decades, it has been more common than not that the Judiciary Committee used information provided from another outside investigation. The committee might create a task force or a subcommittee to review this material and collect any other information through subpoenas, depositions, and public hearings. Impeachment investigations are governed by the standing rules of the House that govern all committee investigations, the terms of the resolution authorizing the investigation, and perhaps additional rules adopted by the committee specifically for the inquiry.

Summary: If the committee determines that impeachment is warranted, it will mark up articles of impeachment using the same procedures followed for the markup of other legislation. If the Judiciary Committee reports a resolution impeaching a federal officer, that resolution qualifies for privileged consideration on the House floor; its consideration is the third stage of the impeachment process. The resolution can be called up at the direction of the committee and considered immediately under the hour rule in the House. If called up this way, amendments could be precluded if a majority voted to order the previous question. A motion to recommit, with or without instructions, is in order but is not subject to debate. Alternatively, the House might alter these procedures by unanimous consent to, for example, set a longer time for debate or to allow brief debate on a motion to recommit. A resolution reported from the Rules Committee could also be used to structure floor debate.

Summary: If the House approves the impeachment resolution, it will appoint managers to present and argue its case against the federal officer in front of the Senate.

The U.S. Constitution establishes a two-step process for the House and Senate to remove federal officialsâincluding the President, Vice President, judges, and other civil officersâfor "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Under the Constitution, the House alone has the power to formally chargeâthat is, impeachâa federal official. A House majority can accomplish this by adopting articles of impeachment, which are effectively written accusations (similar to an indictment in ordinary criminal proceedings). The Senate alone has the power to try an impeachment and render a verdict regarding whether the individual should be removed from office and possibly barred from holding future office. Two-thirds of Senators voting must agree to convict and remove an official from office. The Senate could also separately decide to disqualify an officer from holding future federal office. Disqualification requires only a majority vote.

The procedures the House has developed for accomplishing this constitutional responsibility are described below. The House has used this process mostly to impeach federal judges, although the House has also impeached two Presidents and one Cabinet official. The Senate has voted to remove eight of these officials, and all of them were federal judges.

The summary of the rules and procedures the House might use to impeach a federal official presented here is drawn from published sources of congressional rules and precedents, as well as the public record of past impeachment proceedings. It relies as well upon in-depth research conducted by Betsy Palmer and Susan Navarro Smelcer, formerly of CRS, on the practice in both chambers with respect to the impeachment of federal judges. This report provides an overview of the procedures and should not be treated or cited as an authority on congressional proceedings. Consultation with the Parliamentarian of the House is always advised regarding the possible application of rules and precedents.

For more information on impeachment, including a discussion of which federal officers are subject to impeachment and possible grounds for impeachment, see CRS Report R44260, Impeachment and Removal , by Jared P. Cole and Todd Garvey.

The impeachment process may be initiated as the result of various actions and events, including the receipt and referral of information from an outside source, investigations by congressional committees under their general authority, or the introduction of articles of impeachment in the form of a House resolution.

Regardless of what might instigate an inquiry into whether impeachment is warranted, there are normally three formal stages of congressional action. First, an impeachment inquiry is authorized, and this is most often accomplished through the adoption of a simple resolution (H.Res.___) directing the Judiciary Committee to investigate an official. Second, the committee conducts its investigation, prepares articles of impeachment, and reports them to the House. Third, the full House considers the articles of impeachment and, if they are adopted, appoints managers from the committee to present the articles in the Senate. As discussed in detail below, the House relies upon many of its usual procedures to consider the resolution explicitly initiating an investigation, conduct the investigation, and consider the articles of impeachment.

A Member can initiate an impeachment process by drafting a simple resolution and placing it in the House hopper, the way all simple resolutions are submitted to the House. If the resolution directly calls for an impeachment, it will be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. If it instead calls for an investigation of an official by a standing committee or proposes the creation of a special committee for that purpose, the resolution will be referred to the Committee on Rules, which has jurisdiction over the authorization of committee investigations. No special procedures restrict when such a resolution can be submitted, although historically they have been submitted relatively infrequently.

Raising a Question of the Privileges of the House

A resolution calling for an impeachment can also be offered on the floor by any Member as a question of the privileges of the House instead of being submitted through the hopper. To do so, a Member gives notice of his or her intent to call up such a resolution. The Speaker must then schedule a time to consider the resolution within two legislative days. (The majority and the minority leader do not need to give notice; if either leader raises a qualifying question of privileges of the House on the floor, it is considered immediately.) The full House could dispose of an impeachment resolution raised in this fashion in any number of ways, including by referring it to the Judiciary Committee instead of by voting on the resolution directly. The House could also agree to a motion to table the resolution and thereby dispose of it permanently and adversely.

Impeachment has been attempted using this method in recent years, but none of the attempts has resulted in approval of articles of impeachment. In cases in which an official has been impeached, the House has always chosen to conduct an investigation first. A resolution offered from the floor that proposed a committee investigation, instead of directly impeaching an officer, would not give rise to a proper question of the privileges of the House.

Material related to the conduct of a federal official might reach the House and be referred to committee prior to the adoption of a resolution directing a committee to conduct an investigation. Historically, this has included petitions and materials from citizens. In addition, standing committees, under their general investigatory authority, can seek information and research charges against officers prior to the approval of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.

With respect to federal judges, the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 established a process within the judicial branch for responding to complaints about judges. Findings from those investigations could result in the Judicial Conference of the United States informing the House that the impeachment of a judge may be warranted. A letter reporting that the Judicial Conference had reached such a determination would be referred to the Judiciary Committee. Recent impeachments of federal judges were initiated by resolutions submitted after (or near the time of) the receipt of such a determination from the Judicial Conference.

In the last presidential impeachment, a communication from the independent counsel appointed to investigate President Bill Clinton was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary pursuant to an original resolution reported by the Rules Committee. The resolution also directed the Judiciary Committee to review the information from the independent counsel "to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be commenced." The House, in this case, later adopted a resolution reported by the Judiciary Committee to authorize an investigation by the committee.

Authorization of Committee Investigation

If a resolution authorizing an impeachment investigation was introduced through the hopper and referred to the Rules Committee, that committee would then choose whether to report the resolution to the full House for consideration. If reported, the resolution would be privileged, which means a Member could call it up on the floor, though only at the direction of the Rules Committee. The resolution would then be considered under the hour rule, a method of considering legislation in the House that permits Members to speak for up to an hourâbut also allows a numerical majority to vote to end debate and limit the opportunity for amendment. Specifically, the Member who called up the resolution would be recognized for one hour. Debate on the resolution would likely last for that hour or even less, because a majority in the House could agree to order the previous question on the resolution. When the House votes to order the previous question, it ends debate and any opportunity for amendment. A motion to recommit the resolution with or without instructions could be offered after the previous question was ordered, but it would not be debatable. The House could also, however, choose to consider the resolution under any of its other regular processes, including suspension of the rules (requiring a two-thirds vote for passage), a rule from the Rules Committee (requiring only a majority vote), or unanimous consent.

The two most recent resolutions adopted by the House to authorize an impeachment investigation were taken up by unanimous consent at the request of the Rules Committee chair. Rather than convene a committee meeting to order the resolutions reported with a quorum present, the chair asked unanimous consent that the House discharge the Rules Committee and agree to the resolution. Both of these resolutions concerned federal judges, and they were agreed to without debate.

In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United Statesâpowers that were previously granted through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation. In two of the three recent cases, the House agreed to separate resolutions to allow committee counsel to take affidavits and depositions.

If the House does approve an authorizing resolution, then in addition to the Rules Committee, the Judiciary Committee can report an original resolution authorizing an impeachment investigation if impeachment resolutions have been referred to the committee. In the case of the most recent authorization of a presidential impeachment inquiry, the Judiciary Committee reported such a resolution, and the full House debated it. As mentioned above, pursuant to a resolution agreed to by the House, the Judiciary Committee reviewed material submitted by an independent counsel appointed to investigate President Bill Clinton. The Judiciary Committee then reported a resolution ( H.Res. 581 , 105 th Congress) authorizing an investigation into whether sufficient grounds existed for the impeachment of the President. The resolution was privileged for immediate consideration. The chair of the Judiciary Committee called up the resolution and asked unanimous consent that instead of being recognized for the normal one hour, his time be extended to two hours, half of which he would yield to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for purposes of debate only. After debate under the terms of this unanimous consent agreement, the House ordered the previous question on the resolution by voice vote, ending further debate of the resolution. A minority-party Representative offered a motion to recommit, and, pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement, the motion was debated for 10 minutes before being defeated on a roll call vote. As noted, absent this unanimous consent agreement, the motion to recommit would not have been debatable. The resolution was then agreed to by a record vote, 258-176.

In the 93 rd Congress (1973-1974), multiple resolutions to impeach President Richard M. Nixon were introduced and referred to the Judiciary Committee. The committee began an examination of the charges against the President under its general investigatory authority. The House also approved a resolution, reported by the House Rules Committee, providing additional investigation authority that did not specifically mention impeachment. In late 1973, the House agreed to another resolution that provided for additional expenses of the committee, and floor debate and the report from the Committee on House Administration indicate that the funds were intended in part for the impeachment inquiry. On February 1, 1974, the Judiciary Committee reported an original resolution ( H.Res. 803 ; H.Rept. 93-774) mandating an investigation to determine whether the House should impeach President Nixon and continuing the availability of funds. On February 6, 1974, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee called up the resolution as a question of privilege. It was debated under the hour rule, with the chairman yielding time to other Members for purposes of debate only. The Judiciary Committee chair moved the previous question before any other Member was recognized to control time under the hour rule, and the House ordered the previous question 342-70. The resolution authorizing the investigation was then agreed to, 410-4.

The standing rules of the House that affect committee investigations apply as well to impeachment investigations by the Judiciary Committee. A resolution authorizing an impeachment investigation might place additional limitations, or grant additional authorities, to the committee. In addition, the committee itself might adopt rules specific to an impeachment inquiry. It has not been unusual for the Judiciary Committee to authorize subcommittees or to create task forces to conduct impeachment investigations, and in that case the full committee would establish the authority of the subcommittee or task force.

Under House Rule XI, committees have the authority to subpoena persons or written records, conduct hearings, and incur expenses (including travel expenses) in connection with investigations. Rule XI, clause 2(h)(2), requires two committee members to take testimony or receive evidence. In past impeachment proceedings, the House has agreed to resolutions authorizing committee staff to take depositions without Members present, and the Judiciary Committee has agreed to internal guidelines for the mode and conduct of depositions. In the 116 th Congress, pursuant to H.Res. 6 , the chairs of all standing committees (except the Rules Committee) as well as the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence may order the taking of depositions by committee counsel. In modern practice, the federal official under investigation is generally allowed certain rights, including the right to be represented by counsel.

If a committee were to conduct hearings, these proceedings would generally be governed by House and committee rules (and any specific rules agreed to in the authorizing resolution). Under House Rule XI, notice of hearings must be provided one week in advance, and members of the committee are guaranteed the right to question witnesses under the five-minute rule.

Hearings are generally public, but they could be closed pursuant to regular House rules that allow the committee to agree, by holding a vote in public session with a majority of the committee present, to close a hearing for three specific reasons: the evidence or testimony would endanger national security, compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to "defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness." Again, the resolution authorizing an impeachment investigation could alter these procedures.

The Judiciary Committee conducted multiple public hearings in connection with the impeachment of federal judges in 2009. The committee had created a task force to investigate whether two federal judges should be impeached. The task force conducted hearings during which they heard from a variety of witnesses, including law professors with expertise on impeachable offenses, individuals with information about the crimes the judges were accused of committing, and task force attorneys who reported on the status of the investigation.

In 1998, the Judiciary Committee held four hearings in connection with the impeachment of President Clinton. The committee received testimony from 19 experts on the history of impeachment at one hearing and from the independent counsel at another. Various witnessed testified at a third hearing on the consequences of perjury and related crimes. Over two days of hearing in early December 1998, at the request of the Administration, the committee also heard testimony from White House counsel.

In recent decades, it has been more common than not that a congressional committee used information provided from another outside investigation. In four of the five judicial impeachment investigations undertaken by the Judiciary Committee since 1980, "the accused judge had either been subject to a federal criminal trial or pled guilty to a federal criminal charge prior to the initiation of impeachment proceedings in the House." In the case of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, as mentioned above, the results of an independent counsel investigation alleging impeachable offenses were submitted to the House and referred to the Judiciary Committee.

A committee charged with investigating impeachable offences might, after conducting its investigation and reviewing any evidence submitted from other investigations, meet to consider articles of impeachment, and such a meeting is referred to as a markup. The articles of impeachment are in the form of a simple resolution (H.Res.___). The procedures for considering and reporting out an impeachment resolution are the same as those used for other legislation. Notice must generally be given of the proposed meeting, and the text of the articles of impeachment must generally be available 24 hours in advance of the meeting, although House Rule XI, clause 2 (g)(3)(B), provides some exceptions to these requirements. Members of the committee could expect an opportunity to offer amendments to the articles of impeachment, which would be debated under the five-minute rule. Importantly, a majority of the committee must be physically present at the time of the vote to report. Alternatively, after an investigation, the committee might also choose to report a recommendation that impeachment was not warranted.

In the case of the two most recent presidential impeachments, the Judiciary Committee held a public, televised markup of the impeachment articles for several days. A motion to recommend a resolution to impeach President Nixon was considered by the Judiciary Committee for six days at the end of July 1974. The committee agreed to special procedures for the markup, such as a 10-hour period for "general debate," and each article of impeachment was considered separately for amendment. The resolution included two articles of impeachment, which were both agreed to, as amended. A third article of impeachment was proposed as an amendment and agreed to, and two additional articles offered as amendments were rejected. The President resigned before the committee reported an impeachment resolution to the full House.

In 1998, the Judiciary Committee considered articles impeaching President Clinton for three days in December under procedures modelled after those used in 1974. A unanimous consent agreement provided that the four articles of impeachment included in the chairman's draft resolution would be debated, amended, and voted on separately. Each member of the committee was allotted 10 minutes for an opening statement. The committee considered and agreed to an amendment to Article I and an amendment to Article IV. All four articles were agreed to, and a resolution ( H.Res. 611 , 105 th Congress) was reported to the House. A written report was prepared and several Members submitted additional, minority, and dissenting views, a right protected under House Rule XI, clause 2(l), if notice of intent is given at the time a committee approves a matter.

Member Access to Information Prior to Full House Consideration

Under House Rule XI, clause 2(e), committee records are the property of the House, and all Members can have access to them. The committee may, however, place reasonable restrictions on where, when, and how Members might access the records. In addition, access to committee investigatory material might be limited, at least for a time, while the committee determines if it qualifies as a committee record under House Rule XI, and, if so, if release is prohibited pursuant to other House rules. A committee might also take actions to protect the confidentiality of investigative materials.

The primary mechanism by which an investigating committee can and has chosen to limit access to inquiry information is through the use of executiveâor closedâsession. Under House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(1), a committee can operate in executive session by majority vote, a quorum being present, to restrict attendance at a business session to only committee members or others authorized by the committee. Similarly, a committee can receive evidence or testimony as if in executive session, which, under Rule XI, clause 2(k)(7), may only be released through authorization by the committee. Even when access to information received in executive session is granted to Members, the material may be subject by the committee to further conditions under which it may be viewed. In addition, the copying, releasing, or taking notes on materials received in executive session is strictly prohibited without permission of the committee. Executive sessions were periodically used during the inquiries into Presidents Nixon and Clinton.

Further restrictions on access to information can be adopted by the House or the investigating committee. As previously mentioned, the Judiciary Committee adopted special procedures by unanimous consent in 1974 that, among other provisions, limited access to information to select individuals within the committee and laid out rules for staff. As a precursor to the formal impeachment inquiry of President Clinton, the House agreed to H.Res. 525 during the 105 th Congress directing the Judiciary Committee to review the independent counsel's report to Congress to determine if impeachment proceedings were warranted. Section 4 of the resolution limited access to executive session material to the Judiciary Committee and employees designated by the chairman and ranking memberâa more strict requirement than called for under House Rule XI. Notably, the resolution also made 445 pages of the independent counsel's report immediately available to the public and set a deadline by which the rest of the report would be released from its executive session status based on recommendations by the committee. Prior to the adoption of H.Res. 525 , House leadership reportedly discussed at length the issue of access to the independent counsel report by the public, the President, and Members of the House.

Consideration of Articles of Impeachment on the House Floor

Although floor consideration of an impeachment resolution largely resembles floor consideration of legislation, there is one difference regarding disorderly language: Under regular House procedures, it is not in order to use language that is personally offensive toward the President, which would include accusations that the President committed a crime or allusions to unethical behavior. During consideration of an impeachment resolution, however, remarks in debate can refer to the alleged misconduct of the President that is under consideration by the House. Members should still abstain from other language "personally offensive" to the President.

Articles of impeachment reported by the Judiciary Committee are privileged for immediate consideration on the House floor. The chair of the committee (or a designee) could call up the resolution containing the articles at any time other business is not pending, and the resolution would be considered immediately under the hour rule. Under this procedure, a majority of the House controls the length of debate and can prevent amendment. After some debate, the majority could vote to order the previous question, which, as mentioned above, brings the House to an immediate vote on the main question: whether to agree to the impeachment resolution, in this case. Passage is by simple majority vote.

A motion to recommit the impeachment resolution, with or without instructions, would be in order after the previous question was ordered but before the vote on the resolution. This motion, however, would not be subject to debate. As is always the case, any instructions in the motion to recommit must be germane to the resolution.

In the two most recent instances in which the House considered an impeachment resolution of a federal judge, the resolution was called up as privileged and debated for an hour, and no Member offered a motion to recommit. In both cases, a Member demanded a division of the resolution, which allowed the House to vote separately on each article of impeachment.

When the House considered a resolution ( H.Res. 611 , 105 th Congress) to impeach President Clinton, the reported resolution was called up as a question of privilege. A unanimous consent request propounded by the majority floor manager that provided for four hours of debate on the resolution, equally divided, and 10 minutes of debate on a motion to recommit was objected to. The House then considered the resolution for several hours, as no Member moved the previous question, until another unanimous consent agreement was propounded and agreed to. This agreement allowed debate to continue until 10 p.m. that night and provided for an additional hour of debate the next day, a Saturday. It further provided that if a motion to recommit with instructions was offered, it would be debatable for 10 minutes.

On the second day of consideration, after the previous question was ordered, a Member moved to recommit the impeachment resolution with instructions. The instructions proposed an amendment to censure the President. The Speaker, however, ruled that the amendment in the instructions was not germane. The House sustained the ruling of the Speaker by voting to table an appeal. A Member demanded a division of the resolution, and the House agreed to two of the four articles of impeachment under consideration.

In the case of the Nixon impeachment proceedings, the full House never acted on a resolution of impeachment. As noted, President Nixon resigned before the Judiciary Committee reported its recommendation that the President be impeached. The House approved a resolution using the suspension of the rules procedure acknowledging that the Judiciary Committee had approved articles of impeachment, commending the members of the Judiciary Committee for their work, and providing for the printing of its report.

Rather than considering an impeachment resolution under the hour rule, the House could also choose to consider an impeachment resolution under the terms of a resolution reported by the Rules Committee (a special rule). This process would operate in the same two-step way it does for major legislation in the House. The House would first debate the Rules Committee-reported resolution setting the terms for consideration of the impeachment resolution. The rule from the Rules Committee could provide for a particular length of debate, structure any amendment process, and potentially structure voting to allow each article to be voted on separately. It could preclude motions that would otherwise be in order under the hour rule, such as a motion to table the resolution. After the House agreed to the rule, it would then consider the impeachment resolution under the terms established by that rule.

Finally, consideration and debate of an impeachment resolution could be governed by a unanimous consent agreement. The House might take up the resolution by unanimous consent or call it up as a question of privilege and change the terms of its consideration by unanimous consent, such as was described above in the case of the Clinton impeachment resolution. A unanimous consent agreement can structure consideration just like a special rule, but it is agreed to without a vote and usually with little or no floor debate. The major difference is that, procedurally, it is necessary for all Representatives to support a unanimous consent agreement, while only a simple majority is necessary to agree to a special rule. The fact that the same terms for consideration could be established through a rule can influence unanimous consent agreements.

Offered on the Floor as a Question of the Privileges of the House

As described in an earlier section of this report, any Member of the House could also offer on the floor a resolution containing articles of impeachment as a "question of the privileges of the House." Taking this action will not necessarily result in a direct vote on the articles of impeachment or even debate of the articles, because the House could choose instead to take a different action on the resolution, such as to refer it to the Judiciary Committee.

To raise a question of the privileges of the House, a Member would take the following steps:

Draft a resolution containing articles of impeachment. Consult with the Office of the House Parliamentarian to ensure that the resolution qualifies as a question of the privileges of the House. On the House floor, rise to give notice of intent to offer a question of the privileges of the House. The Member giving notice reads the draft resolution in full on the floor. (The majority and minority leader do not need to give notice; a question of the privileges of the House raised by either leader would be considered immediately.) The Speaker is required to schedule consideration of the question of the privileges of the House within two legislative days. At a time scheduled by the Speaker, rise to offer the resolution as a question of the privileges of the House. The Speaker will rule as to whether the resolution constitutes a proper question of the privileges of the House. If it does, the resolution will be assigned a number and will be pending before the House for consideration.

A question of the privileges of the House is considered under the hour rule. Often, the House votes to dispose of such resolutions by referring them to committee or by tabling them. The House could also order the previous question to end debate on the resolution and then vote directly on it. However, the House has never impeached an officer without a committee investigation.

Appointment and Role of House Managers in the Senate Trial

After the House has agreed to articles of impeachment, it then appoints Members to serve as managers in the Senate trial. In recent practice, the House has appointed managers by agreeing to a House resolution. The House also, by resolution, informs the Senate that it has adopted articles of impeachment and authorizes the managers to conduct the trial in the Senate. The House could agree to separate resolutions or, as has been the case with recent impeachments, to a single resolution accomplishing each of these purposes. Such resolutions are privileged, and sometimes they have been taken up and agreed to by unanimous consent.

After the Senate receives the resolution(s) from the House, the Senate informs the House when the managers can present the articles of impeachment to the Senate. At the appointed time, the House managers read the resolution authorizing their appointment and the resolution containing the articles of impeachment on the Senate floor and then leave until the Senate invites them back for the trial. At the trial, the House managers, who might be assisted by outside counsel, present evidence against the accused and could be expected to respond to the defense presented by the accused (or his or her counsel) or to questions submitted in writing by Senators.

A full description of Senate procedures in an impeachment trial is beyond the scope of this report. The Senate has a special set of rulesâagreed to in the 19 th centuryâthat provide some guidance for impeachment trial proceedings. However, in modern practice the Senate has agreed to alternative or supplemental procedures both for judicial impeachment trials and the impeachment trial of President Clinton.

The 19 th -century impeachment trial rules seemingly require a series of actions by the Senate upon the receipt of articles of impeachment from the House. The Senate, however, just like the House, can set aside its rules by, for example, agreeing to a simple resolution. Under the regular rules of the Senate that govern consideration of legislation, such a resolution would not be subject to any debate restrictions. As a result, in that circumstance, a cloture process, requiring the support of three-fifths of the Senate, would be necessary to reach a vote on the resolution. Once the Senate has convened as a Court of Impeachment, however, the impeachment trial rules, not the regular rules of the Senate, will apply. The Senate impeachment trial rules and related precedents restrict debate on many resolutions and motions. The debate restrictions could allow a simple majority to determine some procedures for responding to articles of impeachment sent from the House.


The TIGER/BUILD Program at 10 Years: An Overview

Summary: The Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program is a discretionary program providing grants to surface transportation projects on a competitive basis, with recipients selected by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). It originated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5 ), where it was called "national infrastructure investment" (as it has been in subsequent appropriations acts); in FY2018 the program was renamed the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) program.

Summary: Although the program's stated purpose is to fund projects of national, regional, and metropolitan area significance, in practice its funding has gone more toward projects of regional and metropolitan-area significance. In large part this is a function of congressional intent, as Congress has directed that the funds be distributed equitably across geographic areas, between rural and urban areas, and among transportation modes, and has set relatively low minimum grant thresholds (currently $5 million for urban projects, $1 million for rural projects). The average grant size has been in the $10 million to $15 million range; such sums are only a small portion of the funding requirements for projects of national significance.

Summary: The TIGER/BUILD program is not a statutory program. Congress has continued the program by providing funding for it each year in the annual DOT appropriations act. It is a popular program in part because for most of its existence it has been one of a few transportation grant programs that offer regional and local governments the opportunity to apply directly to the federal government for funding, and one of a few that offer states additional funding beyond their annual highway and public transportation formula funding. The program is heavily oversubscribed; over the 10-year period FY2009-F2018, the amount of funding applied for totaled around 24 times the amount of money available for grants.

Summary: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that, while DOT has selection criteria for the TIGER grant program, it has sometimes awarded grants to lower-ranked projects while bypassing higher-ranked projects without explaining why it did so, raising questions about the integrity of the selection process. DOT has responded that while its project rankings are based on transportation-related criteria, such as safety and economic impact, it must sometimes select lower-ranking projects over higher-ranking ones to comply with other selection criteria established by Congress, such as geographic balance and a balance between rural and urban awards.

Summary: Although Congress established the parameters of the program, since the grantees are selected by DOT the Administration controls the grant process. The Obama Administration distributed grants relatively evenly across modes and population areas. The Trump Administration has prioritized grants to road projects in rural areas; in the FY2018 round, 69% of the grant funds went to rural areas. DOT also announced that it would favor projects that provided new nonfederal sources of revenue ("better utilizing investments to leverage development"). Congress subsequently rejected that initiative, directing DOT not to favor projects that provided additional revenue or even projects that requested a low federal share. Congress also capped the share of funding that can go to rural areas in response to the Administration's tilt toward awarding grants to rural areas.

Summary: DOT has published two reports on the topic of the performance of projects that received TIGER grants. The reports note that measuring the performance of the array of projects in several modes eligible for TIGER grants is challenging. DOT has required grantees to develop performance plans and measures for each project, beginning before the construction of the project and continuing for years. The reports themselves largely consist of case studies of several projects.

The Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program is a discretionary program providing grants to projects of national, regional, or metropolitan-area significance in various surface transportation modes on a competitive basis, with recipients selected by the federal Department of Transportation (DOT). It originated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5 ), where it was called "national infrastructure investment" (as it has been in subsequent appropriations acts). Beginning with the FY2018 round of grants, DOT renamed the program the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) program.

Unless otherwise noted, all dollar amounts in this report are expressed in 2019 dollars to adjust for inflation over the life of the program, and all percentages are calculated on that basis. These figures therefore do not correspond to DOT data, which in general are not adjusted for inflation.

The TIGER program began in the depths of the 2007-2009 recession as a way to both improve transportation infrastructure and stimulate economic activity. For much of its existence it was virtually the only significant discretionary surface transportation grant program, and virtually the only program that allowed local communities to apply for and receive highway funding directly from the federal government rather than through their state's department of transportation, which might have different priorities than the community.

One of President Obama's first acts after taking office in January 2009 was to propose an economic stimulus bill. Congress passed ARRA after roughly a month of intense debate. The bill provided over $700 billion to stimulate the economy, mostly through reductions in taxes. It authorized $43 billion for transportation infrastructure, including $1.5 billion for a discretionary grant program to make capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure, which Congress labeled "national infrastructure investment." In implementing this new program, DOT retitled it Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery, although the annual DOT appropriations act continues to refer to it as national infrastructure investment.

The program initially had two goals: to make investments that would improve the condition of the nation's surface transportation infrastructure, and to do so quickly to provide immediate stimulus to the economy. Thus ARRA required DOT to give priority to projects that were expected to be completed by February 17, 2012, three years after the legislation was enacted. Since it took nearly a year for DOT to set up an office to manage the program, solicit applications, review them, and select which projects to award, the process favored projects that could be completed within two years. The initial awards were announced on February 17, 2010.

In that first round, DOT received 1,497 applications requesting $72.5 billion. It awarded 51 grants totaling $1.69 billion. See Table 3 for details about annual applications and awards.

During the early 2000s, transportation authorization and appropriations bills included growing numbers of earmarks directing discretionary grants to specific projects. In response to criticism of this practice, in 2011 the Republican conferences in both the House and the Senate prohibited Members from requesting earmarks. In his State of the Union Address on January 25, 2011, President Obama vowed to veto any legislation containing earmarks.

In the 2012 surface transportation reauthorization legislation, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141 ), Congress reduced opportunities for earmarking by abolishing most of DOT's discretionary grant programs, providing virtually all federal surface transportation funding to recipients based on formulas. The TIGER grant program, which has been funded in the annual DOT appropriations acts and was not included in MAP-21, became one of the few remaining discretionary transportation grant programs.

The Obama Administration did not support continuing the program in its FY2010 and FY2011 budgets, but requested funding in FY2012 and following years. A pattern emerged in which the Republican majority in the House of Representatives proposed cutting funding or eliminating it altogether, the Senate supported the program, and the program ultimately received funding in each year's appropriations legislation. Since the Democratic Party regained the House majority in the 2018 midterm election, the House has supported sizable increases in the program ( Table 1 ).

Evolution of the Program's Grant Criteria

Since Congress has continued the TIGER/BUILD program on an annual basis, the annual DOT appropriations act gives Congress the opportunity to adjust the criteria for the program each year. Some criteria, such as a requirement that DOT must ensure an equitable distribution of grant funds geographically and between urban and rural areas, have been the same since the first year. Other criteria, such as the minimum and maximum grant size, have changed frequently. In general, the trend has been toward distributing the funding to a larger number of grantees (through such measures as lowering the maximum grant size). Table A-1 summarizes the changes in many of the program's grant criteria over the past decade.

Merit Criteria: Considerations Beyond Economic Stimulus

Born in the anxious days of early 2009, when there was genuine concern about the state of the U.S. economy, the initial focus of the TIGER/BUILD grant program was twofold: to make grants to surface transportation projects that would improve the nation's transportation infrastructure and that would be able to spend the money quickly in order to stimulate the economy. Other considerations included the likelihood of on-time completion and the benefits of the project compared to the costs.

In subsequent years, as the economy began to recover, DOT added additional merit criteria to its project selection, as shown in Table 2 .These criteria were determined administratively, and have not been specified in appropriations legislation providing funds for the program.

Some of these criteria can conflict with each other in specific instances. For example, a project could reduce congestion-related emissions on a roadway by supporting alternatives (e.g., transit improvements) or by altering the roadway to reduce congestion (e.g., adding lanes, adjusting traffic signal timing, reshaping intersections). The first option might also reduce dependence on oil, whereas the second might increase dependence on oil while reducing emissions and improving the efficiency of the movement of goods and people. How DOT reconciles such conflicts has not been disclosed.

Beginning with the first round of awards in FY2009, each annual grant announcement has noted that the amount of funding applied for has greatly exceeded the amount of funding available through the program (see Table 3 ). After the relatively large first-year appropriation, in succeeding years the amount provided was around one-third of the first year of funding. The total amount applied for also dropped significantly after the first year. The reasons for the decline in funding may include the opposition of the House of Representatives to funding the program (see Table 1 ), the general limitations on the amounts provided in appropriations bills, and the competition for that funding among the proponents and constituencies of different programs.

One possible reason for the dramatic decline in the amount applied for from FY2016 to FY2017 was the reduction in the maximum grant size that Congress decreed for FY2017 (and succeeding years), from a maximum of $100 million in FY2016 to $25 million in FY2017. Of the $9.8 billion applied for in FY2016, $3.8 billion was represented by a total of 87 applications that exceeded $25 million (nominal) and thus exceeded the maximum limit for FY2017. The combination of that lowered cap on grant amounts, combined with the introduction of several new discretionary transportation grant programs beginning in FY2017, may explain part of the decline in the amount applied for in FY2017. The amount applied for rose in FY2018, when the amount of funding available tripled.

Congressional Directives for Distribution of Grants

One of the directives Congress gave DOT regarding the distribution of TIGER/BUILD grants was that DOT "shall ensure an equitable geographic distribution." Beyond using the term "equitable," the only other legislative guidance on this point is the limitation on the amount of the program funding that can be awarded to projects in a single state. That limit ranged from a high of 25% to a single state during the FY2010-FY2015 rounds to a low of 10% during the FY2017-FY2019 rounds.

There have been a total of 553 grants awarded over the period FY2009-FY2018. Every state and most territories have received at least one grant; America Samoa and the Northern Marianas Islands have not received a grant. California has received the most funding, 6.9% of the total over that period; that is considerably less than California's share of the total U.S. population (12.1%). Of the top 10 states by share of grant funding received, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida also received smaller shares of funding than their shares of the nation's population, while Illinois, Washington, Massachusetts, and Missouri received larger shares of funding than their shares of the population (see Table 4 ).

It would be difficult for DOT to match the funding awarded to each state's share of the nation's population, since projects are not distributed proportionally among the states on the bases of cost, merit, and number.

Another congressional directive, in place since the second year of the program, is that DOT "shall ensure an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and rural areas." DOT has responded to this directive in different ways over time.

In the first year (FY2009) of the program, 7% of the funding went to projects in rural areas. Since then, Congress has directed that a specific minimum share of the grant funding go to projects located in rural areas. That share has typically been around 20% to 30% (see Table 5 and Figure 1 ).

The definition of rural and urban areas used by the TIGER/BUILD Grant program has varied from that used by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau defines urban areas as both

Urbanized Areas of 50,000 or more people;

Urban Clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people.

Rural areas are defined as those areas not included within an urban area.

By this definition, 81% of the U.S. population lived in urban areas and 19% in rural areas over the 2011-2015 period.

For most of its history, the TIGER/BUILD program has defined urban areas as areas located in an Urbanized Area, and rural areas as everything else. Urban Clusters as defined by the Census Bureau were thus considered rural areas for purposes of the program. By this definition, roughly 70% of the U.S. population lived in urban areas and 30% in rural areas in 2015. During the period FY2009-FY2016, the proportion of TIGER/BUILD grant funding awarded to projects in rural areas as defined by the program, measured in 2019 dollars, was around 21%.

In the program's 2017 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), the new Trump Administration announced that it would give special consideration to projects in rural areas. No rationale for this special consideration has been given, but one is implied in the observation that "While only 19 percent of the nation's population lives in rural areas, 51 percent of all traffic fatalities occurred on rural roads (2014)."

In announcing the FY2017 round of awards, the Secretary of Transportation noted that "an effort was made to re-balance the under-investment in rural communitiesâto address overlooked needs." This assertion that there had been under-investment in the transportation needs of rural communities was reiterated in the FY2018 NOFO; that assertion is not included in the FY2019 NOFO, but that document reiterates that special consideration will be given to project applications from rural areas.

Under this new policy, the proportion of program funding requested for rural areas rose from 35% in the FY2016 round to 44% in the FY2017 round, and the share of program funding awarded to rural areas rose from 21% to 65% (see Table 5 ). Another factor that may have influenced this shift is that although the amount of grant funding available in the FY2017 round ($500 million) was the same as in the previous couple of rounds, the number of applications and amount of funding applied for dropped significantly in FY2017, particularly from urban areas (see Table 6 ). Why that happened is not clear. The current surface transportation authorization act (MAP-21), which was enacted in December 2015, created several new discretionary grant programs for surface transportation; that, combined with the new lowered cap of $25 million on maximum TIGER/BUILD grant sizes that took effect in FY2017, may have led sponsors of more expensive projects, which are often located in urban areas, to seek funding from the new grant programs rather than from the TIGER/BUILD program.

The Administration's stated rationales for prioritizing funding for projects in rural areas are open to question. While 71% of the nation's roads are in rural areas, they account for only 30% of total vehicle miles traveled, and over the period FY2009-FY2015, 37% of federal highway funding went to rural roads. Rural roads are on average in better condition than urban roads; in 2012 93% of the vehicle miles traveled on rural roads were on roads with pavement conditions rated as acceptable or good, compared with 78% of the vehicle miles traveled on urban roads.

The Administration's claim that safety factors justify directing two-thirds of BUILD grants to rural areas is only partially supported by available data. While a disproportionate share of highway deaths occurs on rural roads, that proportion has been trending downward, declining from around 60% in the early 2000s to 46% in 2017. The number of traffic fatalities in rural areas declined by 18% from 2008-2017, while the number of fatalities in urban areas increased by 17% over the same period. Moreover, road conditions are only one factor among the reasons why the share of highway fatalities in rural areas exceeds the share of population in those areas. Other factors include driver behavior (e.g., higher typical speeds, lower rates of seat belt use, and higher driver fatigue rates), typically longer travel times for emergency medical care, and vehicle condition.

In the FY2019 DOT appropriations act, Congress made two changes that may constrain the Administration's discretion to steer funding toward projects in rural areas: limiting the share of program funding that can go to rural areas to 50%, and changing the definitions of urban and rural areas used in the BUILD program. Urban areas would be defined as areas "located within (or on the boundary of) a Census-designated urbanized area that had a population greater than 200,000 in the 2010 Census." Areas outside that are considered rural. By this definition, roughly 60% of the U.S. population lived in urban areas, and roughly 40% in rural areas, in 2015. Thus, some areas that in previous rounds of applications would have been considered urban areas would now be considered rural for the purposes of the BUILD program. How this change will affect the distribution of funds in FY2019 and subsequent years is unclear.

Since the second year of the program, Congress has directed DOT to ensure that the program makes "investment in a variety of transportation modes." A unique feature of the BUILD grant program is its flexibility: any surface transportation infrastructure is eligible for funding. Throughout most of the program's life, this flexibility has been reflected in the grants awarded; while road projects received more funding than projects in other modes, other modes collectively received two-thirds of the total program funding (see Table 7 ). This situation changed beginning with the FY2017 round of grants; for FY2017-FY2018, road projects received over two-thirds of the funding awarded, with the remainder divided among four other modes, one of whichâbicycle-pedestrian projectsâreceiving no funding at all.

Distribution Requirements Versus Economic Impact in GrantÂ Awards

From the first round of funding through FY2017, Congress directed that grants be made for projects that will have a significant impact on the nation, a metropolitan area, or a region. Surface transportation projects that are likely to have a significant impact on the nation, or even a multistate region, are typically quite expensive; for example, Amtrak's Hudson River Tunnel Project, to replace the deteriorating tunnels that carry Amtrak and commuter trains under the Hudson River between New Jersey and New York, is estimated to cost over $11 billion.

Given the relatively modest amounts of funding available for TIGER/BUILD grants each year and Congress's directive that grant funding be awarded equitably across the nation, between rural and urban areas, and among surface transportation modes, the amount of money any single project is likely to receive limits the ability of the TIGER/BUILD program to provide more than a small share of the funding needed to complete projects that could have a significant impact on the nation. The largest single grant awarded during the FY2009-FY2018 period was for $118.5 million, and that was for a project that spanned two states (see Table 8 ). Three grants have been awarded for more than $100 million; of the 553 grants awarded, few have been for more than $50 million. Of the 10 largest grants awarded, nine were awarded in the first year of the program, when available funding was far larger than in any subsequent year (see Table 8 ). Even though the maximum grant size permitted was $200 million from FY2010 to FY2015 and $100 million in FY2016, the largest grant awarded since FY2010 has been $25 million.

The first year of grants also saw the largest average grant size, $33 million; in subsequent rounds of funding, the average size of grants in each round has fluctuated between $9 million and $17 million (see Table 9 ). In addition to the lower limit on the maximum grant amount, one factor that may have led to the decrease in the average size of grants after the first year was that the total amount of TIGER/BUILD grant funding available in each year until FY2018 was less than half the amount in FY2009, so DOT may have chosen to make smaller grants in order to distribute the available funding widely.

In a 2014 review of the program, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that while DOT had selection criteria for the TIGER grant program, it had sometimes awarded grants to lower-ranked projects while bypassing higher-ranked projects without explaining why it did so, raising questions about the integrity of the selection process. DOT responded that while its project rankings were based on transportation-related criteria, such as safety and economic impact, sometimes it had to select lower-ranking projects over higher-ranking ones to comply with other selection criteria established by Congress, such as geographic balance and a balance between rural and urban awards.

Attempt to Increase the Program's Funding Leverage

In FY2018, the Notice of Funding Opportunity soliciting grant applications noted two changes to the program under the Trump Administration: the program was renamed the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD), and the practical reflection of that name change was a statement that DOT would give priority to grant applicants that provided new, nonfederal revenue for projects for which they were seeking BUILD funding. "New revenue" was defined as "revenue that is not included in current and projected funding levels and results from specific actions taken to increase transportation infrastructure investment." Examples given in the notice included sales or gas tax increases, tolling, tax-increment financing, and asset recycling. Borrowing (issuing bonds) did not count as a new revenue source. DOT would not consider any source of revenue that had been authorized prior to January 1, 2015, as new revenue.

The Administration presented this new stance as a way of increasing the leverage of federal funding to raise more revenue from other sources. Critics charged that the policy penalized states and localities that had already acted to raise more revenue for transportation projects. Critics also noted the irony of the Administration encouraging states and localities to provide additional revenue for transportation investment when Congress had been unable to increase the federal excise tax on motor fuel, the primary source of federal surface transportation revenues, since 1993. Critics also noted that favoring projects involving additional revenue from new sources posed a particular challenge for rural areas, as the number of residents who might pay a new sales tax or highway toll is by definition relatively low.

Despite that concern, in the FY2018 round of awards, projects in rural areas received a higher proportion of the program's funding than ever before in the history of the program: 69% (see Table 5 ). The information about the projects receiving grants is not sufficiently detailed to show how much additional nonfederal revenue was raised in connection to the projects. In the FY2019 DOT Appropriations Act, Congress directed DOT not to use an applicant's ability to generate nonfederal revenue as a selection criterion in approving future BUILD grants.

In 2016 and 2018 DOT published reports measuring the performance of projects that received TIGER grants. The reports state that, given the array of projects that can receive TIGER grants, measuring their performance is challenging and, for the same reason, valuable. DOT has required grantees to develop performance plans and measures for each project, beginning before the construction of the project and continuing for years after the project is completed. The sponsor of each project is responsible for setting up performance measures it considers relevant to its project. There is no requirement for comparability of the measures across projects.

The DOT reports do not summarize the projects and their benefits. Rather, each presents a number of case studies of individual projects, including the performance measures chosen by each grantee.

Appendix. TIGER/BUILD Grant Program Criteria, FY2009-FY2019