tried separately and was acquitted by a jury on February 4, 1983. On March 17, 1983, two United States District Judges filed a Complaint with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Complaint requested an investigation pursuant to the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.c. sec. 372(c), to determine whether Judge Hastings had engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. In response to this Complaint, the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit appointed an Investigating Committee which conducted an investigation and other proceedings over a threeyear period. During that inquiry, the Investigating Committee sought and obtained the same grand jury materials which the Committee is now seeking. See In re Petition to Inspect and Copy Grand Jury Materials, 735 F.2d 1261 (11th Cir.), cert. denied 469 U.S. 884 (1984), aff'g 576 F. Supp. 1275 (S.D. Fla. 1983).2 Following the completion of its investigation, the Investigating Committee, on August 4, 1986, submitted its Report and recommendations to the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit. On September 2, 1986, the Council adopted the Investigating Committee's Report and determined that "consideration of impeachment [of Judge Hastings] may be 2The Committee has been informed that the grand jury materials sought consist of approximately two file drawers of documents. In the course of his criminal prosecution Judge Hastings was granted access to substantial portions of the grand jury record pursuant to the Jencks Act and Fed. R. Crim. P. 16) discovery, including the testimony of each witness who testified for the government at Judge Hastings' trial. warranted." (A.6). On March 17, 1987, the Judicial Conference of the United States concurred in the determination of the Council and transmitted the Investigating Committee's Report and records to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. (A.6). The Investigating Committee's Report was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and an impeachment inquiry was initiated. The Committee has pending before it House Resolution 128, which was introduced on March 23, 1987 and which provides for the impeachment of Judge Hastings for high crimes and misdemeanors. (A.4). STANDARD OF REVIEW OF THE CONTENTIONS 1. With respect to Issue I, the standard of review is whether the District Court erred in holding, as a matter of law, that the Committee, when conducting an investigation pertaining to the impeachment of a civil officer, is entitled, pursuant to the House of Representatives' sole power of impeachment, to obtain the record of the grand jury which indicted that official. 2. With respect to Issue II, the initial standard of review is whether the District Court erred in holding, as a matter of law, that Fed.R.Crim.P.6(e)(3)(C)(i) applies to an investigation by the House of Representatives preliminary to an impeachment trial in the Senate. Second, assuming Rule 6 applies to such an investigation, the standard of review is whether the District Court abused its discretion under Rule 6 in ordering disclosure 3. With respect to Issue III, the initial standard of review is whether the District Court erred in holding, as a matter of law, that the inherent supervisory power of the District Court authorizes disclosure of a grand jury record. Second, assuming that such inherent authority exists, the standard of review is whether the District Court abused its discretion in ordering disclosure to the Committee. 4. With respect to Issue IV, the standard of review is whether the District Court abused its discretion in finding that the Committee's need for the grand jury record outweighed any need to maintain the secrecy of the record. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The court below correctly held that the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives is entitled to obtain grand jury records concerning the subject of an impeachment inquiry based upon three separate and independent grounds. First, a necessary and proper corollary to the fubstitution's vesting of the power to impeach solely in the B.se of Representatives is its right to obtain all relevant information, The Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution Cars ;icial interference in matters committed to the Congress, including an impeachment investigation. Accordingly, access to the grand jury records must be granted. Second, Fed. R. Crim.P. 6(e), which governs disclosure of grand jury materials, specifically encompasses disclosure which is "preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding." The Senate, when sitting in judgment in an impeachment trial, acts in a judicial capacity. The Committee's investigation preliminary to an impeachment and a trial in the Senate, therefore, is included within Rule 6(e). Third, whether or not Rule 6(e) specifically permits disclosure to the Committee, the District Court retains the inherent supervisory authority to order disclosure of grand jury records in the circumstances of this case. Where disclosure is ordered pursuant to either Rule 6(e) or the court's inherent supervisory authority, the court must be satisfied that the needs of the requesting party for access outweigh any interests in maintaining the secrecy of the records. Here, the District Court correctly balanced those interests. The arguments advanced by Judge Hastings in opposition to disclosure are without merit. The House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach; the Senate has the sole power to try an impeachment. The conditions and restraints which Judge Hastings seeks to have this Court impose upon the Committee before granting access to the grand jury record are unprecedented and would represent a gross breach of the doctrine of separation of powers. The executive and judicial branches previously had full access to the grand jury record. Judge Hastings, at the time of his criminal trial, received much of the material at issue herein. It is ironic and, indeed, intolerable, that the House of Representatives, charged by the Constitution with the sole power to impeach, is frustrated and delayed in its opportunity to review the grand jury record. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The instant appeal, from a final decision of the district court ordering disclosure of grand jury materials, presumably is taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1291. See State of Illinois v. F. E. Moran, Inc., 740 F.2d 533 (7th Cir. 1984). I. ARGUMENT THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE COMMITTEE ON THE REPRESENTATIVES, TO OBTAIN THE RECORD OF A GRAND JURY WHICH The Committee's authority to investigate is a corollary of the constitutional power vested solely in the House of Representatives to impeach civil officers of the United States. In aid of its investigation, the Committee can and should obtain any materials relevant to the inquiry, even by its independent power of compulsory process, if necessary. The Constitution specifies that the "House of Representatives shall . . . have the sole Power of Impeachment" and that the "Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Art. I, sections 2 and 3. The Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the right to employ the means |