Transcripts For CSPAN3 Nixon Impeachment Hearing Evening Session Part 2 20140807

House and tried and found guilty by the senate. And he only needed to be found guilty on one article of impeachment to be thrown out of office. Richmond nixon, seeing the writing on the wall, he was a very gifted, in many ways, a gifted odds maker in political games. He saw the writing on the wall and he decides to resign before he is actually thrown out of office. He announcing resignation on august 8th one 1974 and leaves office at noon on august 9th, 1974, 40 years ago this august. Timothy who served as the director in your california, now the director of library at new york university. Thank you for your perspective on the events of 40 years ago. And up next, more from the debate before the House Judiciary Committee on july 29th, 1974, including the vote on article ii, the abuse of power against Richard Nixon on cspan 3, american tv. The gentleman from california. Recognized for five minutes. I would like to speak about article ii which i suggest is an expression of our deep devotion to the constitution, and above all, to the first ten amendments, known as the bill of rights. Article ii is our rededication to and our reaffirmation of the bill of rights and the principal that no officer of our government from the most lowly to the highest can violate with impunity, though fundamental Constitutional Rights guaranteed every american citizen. In 1787 when the 14 colonies were considering the ratification. Three states voted to ratify only on condition if the ratification contains a recommendation that the bill of rights be added. These men remembered well that they are their parents had planned from the kingdoms of europe to seek individual freedom in the new world. They had just finished winning a war to ensure this independence and freedom, and they were not about to substitute a new federal government for the hold tyranny without safeguards designed to protect their individual rights as human beings from the encroachment of the new government. So it was that the First Congress of 1789 enacted the bill of rights to the first ten amendments of the constitution. Jefferson urged the adoption and said, let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against any government on earth. Why do i review this history this late at night in the consideration of article ii . It is, of course, because article ii charges president nixon with intentional violations of the constitution. Chiefly amendments 1, 4, 5, and 6. Freedom of speech and of the press. In direct president nixon authorized or permitted illegal wiretapping and other surveillance of individuals. Including reporters and the use of this information so gained for political reprisals and defamation. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to the people to be secure in their homes. Their houses, their papers. Against unreasonable searches and seizures, president nixon established a special Investigative Unit within the white house to engage in searches and seizures without legal warrants and the unit committed a burglary in the state of california. The fifth amendment guaranteed to all equal protection of the laws. In direct contra vengs of this amendment, president nixon indebts you for tax harassment of political opponents. The fifth and sixth amendments guarantee a fair trial. In all criminal prosecutions. In direct of these amendments, president nixon and his subed or nants leaked information unfavor to believe a criminal defendant with withheld information necessary for his defense and during the trial, even offered the judge a high government position. No proposition could be more profoundly subversive of the constitution that the notion that any public official, the president or a policeman possessing a possesses a kind of honor to think the Public Interest or to use the more popular term, given such easy currency, the National Security warrants it. That notion is the essential postulate of every tyranny it is indeed the very definition of dictatorship. For it is simply a system under which one man is empowered to do whatever he deems needful for the whole community. We look now beyond the walls of this Committee Room to every citizen, rich or poor, white or black, brown, oriel low. This article ii is the only meaningful way to protect your Constitutional Rights. Your right to speak what is in your mind without fear of reprisal or other harassment and your right to hear and read what others would say to you. Your right to be secure in your home and your office against government wiretappings and burglaries, your right to equal treatment under law without fear or favor from the government. Your right, if legal difficult distance should immesh you to a fair trial. Your right to be let alone to pursue life, liberty, and happiness of all levels of government from the president down. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, i thank, thank you for yielding. It had been my intention, mr. Chairman to be use my five minutes to discuss the historical meaning because i think frankly this committee has not shown the degree of scholarship that the house has the right to expect from us with respect to that clause. And its probable misapplication to article ii. But ill reserve that to a later time and probably will include it in the report when we go to the house. I want to take this moment to just lay out a few facts, becau becausen even though they are really without substance. Its been said that the president nixon attempted to subearth but in somehow improperly interfering with a federal judge. Now we know were talking about the matt burn incident and the ellisburg trial out in california. Its relatively a short story. Everybody knows that the nomination of pat grey was in trouble and the president was going to have to nominate a new director for the fbi. The president thought the advice of his attorney general as to whom that nominee ought to be and the attorney general suggested two names. He suggested matt burns, a judge in california, and he suggested Henry Peterson. Given that, mr. Earlington who was agenting as the president s agent sought to inquire whether or not judge burns of interested. And this is what he said to judge burns, judge, he said, i have been asked by the president to call you. I have been asked to discuss with you a federal appointment which is not judicial in character. I do not know whether this is an appropriate time to have a conversation like this because i do not know what the present situation in your trial is. Given that, judge burns said, i see no reason why we couldnt talk right away. Therefore they thereafter they met. They walked out on the bluff, away from the Office Complex in said the judge as follows. I am sensitive to the fact that youre not trying an important lawsuit. I propose that we walk out towards the bluff, if at any point a subject arises that you feel in any way impinges upon your ability to fairly try the case, you turn around and walk away from me, and i said before, this is not something that needs to be discussed right now. We can talk about it later. And the judge said, fine. Lets proceed on that bases. Then they walked out on the bluff, offer was made to be director of the fbi. Judge burns saw no inpropriety, he didnt report it to the judiciary committee. As a result of that conversation, the president came out during the conversation and he said as follows. That i have not been following your case very closely, it appears that it may take as long to get the case tried as it took me to end the war in vietnam. Now thats all he said. These sweeping statements that the president was trying to prejudice the trial are unsupported by that sort of record, and we ought to be more careful in our language. That allegation, at least, ladies and gentlemen, has no substance to it whatsoever. U. S. Attorney . Whatever i got. Ill yield to my friend from a minute and 15. I may just say in this short time remaining that i think we ought to keep in mind, i could go over the surveillance again, the plumbers again, is it suggested that theres a law broken because of the creation of the plumbers . No ones told me what the law was. Is it suggested that because a unit is created and said it would take legal action to do certain things that you are there shall automatically responsible, if it takes illegal action. Perfectly obvious that the president knew nothing about the break in out in california because of his remarks when it came to his attention. Its perfectly obvious he knew nothing about it and he said again in the record, i told all of these fellas to obey the law and theres no evidence to the contrary. Weve talked before about impeding the investigation. That came under article i, and i said then and i say now its a debatable question whether he legitimately felt that there might be a cia involvement, or didnt legitimately feel it, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution. And finally, what we need to remember is, were not accusing the president because of his general model character or moral or immoral or what our personal opinion of him may be. We got to find evidence or proof of a high crime or misdemeanor. And if we try to impeach him for anythingless, then were not anything less, then were not doing our duty and violating our oath. Time for the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, i am not seeking recognition at this time. Gentleman from new jersey, mr. Sandman. I dont seek recognition at this the time. Id like to at another time, mr. Chairman, but not at this time. Gentleman from, gentleman from pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, id like to say a few words concern iing two, i think the subject has not been completely covered. I think all the members of the committee agree now that the president did authorize the taps in addition to that, i refer to the letter which the president wrote on july 12th to senator fullbright, chairman of Foreign Relations which he says the ordered the use of the investigative procedures possible, including wiretaps. The surveillance including wiretapping of certain specific individuals. Theres no question that the president assumes that responsibility. Yet it wasnt always that way. Little over a year ago, february 73. The white house learned of the forthcoming Time Magazine story disclosing the existence of wiretaps and white house employees. John dean learned of the files investigated the time story by contacting the fbi director. Each confirmed the existence of the wiretaps and he said he delivered the files. He told dean he had the files, but the right to have press secretary ronald denied a stayed. At the time on february 26th stated to the white house, spokesman denied that anyone at the white house that authorized or approved any taps on white house employees or newsmen. On february 28th, dean reported to the president on a times story and his meeting about the wiretaps. Dean told the president that the white house was stone walling totally. From the wiretap story and the president said oh absolutely. To which i say how interesting. Now mr. Chairman, i am one of those who believes that the standard involved for impeachment does not involve criminalalty. Nevertheless, i finded in this paragraph many evidences of criminality on the part of the president and his men. And i just like to refer to a few of them. 1969, general alexander higg ordered the fbi on the highest authority not to maintain records initiated under the president s 19d 69 authorization. Not to maintain records. This information is contained in a memo from William Sullivan, assistant director of the fbi. Yet are the general recordkeeping statues set recordkeeping. Which must be maintained and provide rules for the disposal. Section 3105 specifically requires all Government Employees to be familiar with the fact that records can not be alienated except for the manner described in title 44 of the u. S. Code. Additionally there are other provisions. Special provision was 1998 directing the fbi to preserve its records. Except where authorized by law. Also a fell noi willingly and remove or intend to do so or with intent to do so taking and carry away any record receiving the other things. With any Public Officer denied of states. Must be assumed that higg knew it was illegal not to maintain records of the wiretaps and must be assumed that the only two men who could order him to give such directions to the fbi. Head of the National Security council and the president of the United States also knew that this was illegal. July 1971, William Sullivan informed robert, head of the Security Division and he was afraid that hoover would use them as blackmail in order to keep knicksen from removing him from the top job at the fbi. To discuss the existence of the records. These conversations, the president ordered him to get the files from sullivan to bring him to the white house. This order is a violation of the recordkeeping statutes in title 44. He got the files involved and delivered them to the oval office and the white house. When he was interviewed about this episode by the fbi, he was asked did you give the bag to mr. Nixon, and he replied i cannot answer that question. And must be assumed that he was protecting the president at this point because if he in fact gave them to a third party he would be shielding that person, leading the entrance that the president had received them. He has testified that following delivery by him the president ordered him to pick up the documents and he kept them in his own office. When they were removed and placed in the files with other president ial papers. The affect of the president s orders in this matter was again a violation of the sections of title 44. The chairman says that this is a very strong photograph. A very important charge in the impeachment of the president of the United States. Time has expired. Recognize the gentleman from illinois. Yes, ill be happy to yield two and a half minutesen to my colleague minutes to my colleague from illinois. Thank you mr. Chairman, thank you mr. Millsback. I certainly want to agree with the views expressed by some of my colleagues that the original intent of the special unit or the plumbers was to try to seal up leaks, but i also would like to call attention to the fact that in july, 1971, just a few weeks after the plumbers were set up, the break in of dr. Fieldings office was recognized by the president in his personal notes. Made while in conference with the president. There wasnt any eps nauj or National Security questions involved at all. And this, this, the effort to draw in the cia and the fbi were resisted of course by the head of the cia and the head of the fbi. You know some years later, as a matter of fact, in april, 1973 when Henry Peterson, in charge of criminal investigation for the department of justice, was investigating the whole subject of water gate and the coverup. Brought to the president s attention, this dr. Fieldings office breakin, the president in the taped conversation that we had here before the Committee Said to Henry Peterson, i know all about that. Thats National Security. You see the real facts are that while the plumbers may have started out as a legitimate valid organization. It was assumed the converted by hunt and lidie and the whole group there. Into something quite different. And something that the president knew about. It was wrong. And it seems to me that thats why this belongs in this part of our impeachment proceedings, why its appropriately put in article ii which relates to the question as to whether or not the president was indeed taking care to see the faithful execution of the laws. And thats why i think its appropriate, appropriately there as well as some of the other photographs that we have. Which question the president s obligation. Whether he was fulfilling his obligation. And its something that we should send to the house of representatives to have considered there. In my opinion, theres clear and convincing evidence with respect to each of these photographs that they were photographers that paragraphs that they were wrong. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, mr. Wiigens has asked for 30 second because he thinks there was an error made. Im sure it was unintentional err error. The fielding breakin occurred in september 1971. Yes. It didnt occur prior to that. Theres not a word in the notes in july 1971 indicating prior knowledge of any breakin. No, its not ellisburg breakin, in july 1971, the theft was regarded as not being a question involving National Security. If i said breakin, i didnt mean that. Of the pentagon papers with regard mr. Chairman, if i have any remaining time, id like to yield it to the gentleman from maine, mr. Cone. Gentleman has a minute and 50 seconds remaining. Mr. Chairman, could i inquire as to whether that time is yielded to me when i speak my own five minutes. He has a 1 50 second remaining and time if he desires. Five minutes . Can i take it consecutively . Without objection. Thank you mr. Chairman. The gentleman has 6 50. Theres a word thats been used here for the past few days, and im con trained to call upon myself to repeat it. Amazing. Isnt it amazing . And i find it amazing that the fine lawyers on this committee have somehow overlooked the concept of an attempted wrongful act. All weve heard about the irss well what happens . It wasnt accomplished. It failed. Remind me something of the words weve seen in the transcripts. A dry hole. Id like to direct ab couple of questions to the staff now and ask you about the criminal penalties involved under this section. I assume its a crime for anyone, any officer or employee of the United States to breach the confidentiality of the income tax returns of the citizens of this country and i further assume that under title xviii, the president and subordnances fall underneath the definition of the employee of the United States. Is that correct . Congressman cone, section 7112 of the criminal code provides expressly that attempts to interfere, attempts to obtain information with respect to income and irs materials shall be fined not more than 5,000 imprisoned not more than three years and subplemted by section 7113 which makes unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States to devul j any of the contents and be fined ,000 or imprisonment more than one year. And if the offense by an employee of the United States shall be dismissed from office. I assume for purposes of this, were talking about people who attempt to use it for improperness. To attempt. Am i correct, mr. Jenner, that its not necessary to have a specific act carried out as such. The actual accomplishment of the act. Would it be sufficient if the president were to direct or ask or inquire of john dean to obtain certain information would not the act itself or the attempt come in the direction to mr. Dean . As a matter of law . The direction would be an attempt. It would not be necessary to have that particular direction completed in order to be a viels, would there . Thats correct. Thank you. Id also like to correct some comments to statements made by the gentleman from california, because i found those statements also rather amazing. Because on the one hand where the gentleman from california pointed out that Henry Peterson recommended matt burn at fbi director, in response to a question that i asked mr. Peterson during our questioning of witnesses. I asked him whether or not he felt that the fbi, that matt burns should be contacted while hes sitting as a judge on the case of the ellisburg matter. To which he replied no. He indicated that matt burns should not be contacted during the course of that trial. And the answer is quite clear, so why not, and i asked him why not, and he said in response to my question, wouldnt this be a mistrial. Some of us felt that it would. I happen to think as of matter of law that there would be a mistrial declared upon such a disclosure. I think that the act in contacting a presiding judge on a case of that magnitude, and i find a little bit amazing once again for him to say that didnt know what the present situation in the ellisburg matter. This is the major case of the decade prior to our deliberations on watergate if youll go back a few years but he didnt know what was going on at that time. And there was no impropriety in a conversation. I happen to feel that the position of a judge is one of the most delicate in our entire system because he has to remain an absolute and screw up louse neutrality. And that is destroyed as a matter in my opinion when the chief executive threw his subed or nants off of the offering the position to the judge of an fbi directorship. If the council for the defendant or the defendant himself in such a case offered the presiding judge or even a juror, a job with his firm upon the completion of the case, that man would be held in contempt or be in jail. I just simply want to conclude to my own remarks, and i know what the gentleman to california might say, this may procollude a judge from receiving a higher position. There was never any publication of it. Never any nomination or word leaked out that they were considering the judge. As a matter of fact it was covertly carried out a second meeting in a park near san clemente. But it seems to me that of all the allegations of dealing with the Internal Revenue service, the fbi, the investigation of daniel shore, the fabricated statement about what would happen, wed hire mr. Shore as an consultant for the fbi or the white house. Seems to me what were really saying here that all of these activities, they raise the same spector of an american goolag. I think when the chief executive of the country starts to investigate private citizens who criticize his policies or authorizes his subed or nants to do such things, i think the rattle of the chains that would bind up our constitutional freedoms can be heard. And its against this rat that will we should awake and say no. And ill yield to the gentleman from california. I only wish to comment with respect to your theory that a mistrial was prominent because of the judge burns. He was a participate in that contact and he didnt agree with you. He didnt declare a mistrial. He should know, it was his case. He didnt think anything was impropered to that at all. The judge disagreed. Time has expired. Gentleman from texas, mr. Brooks is recognized. Mr. Chairman, there could be no satisfaction in impeaching a president of the United States. But to remove our body politic any president whose action threaten top destroy our system. The checks and balances System Incorporated in our constitution places this responsibility on the congress. And the future strength of our democratic form of government requires us to exercise this power at this time. Under mr. Nixon, the constitution, and the laws of the United States have been so abused so distorted, so ignored, and so converted to personal use that continued respect and support for our system of law. And equality before that law demands that he who has so abused this process be removed from office. We must demonstrate to future generations of america that no man, even be he president , can put himself above the law. Now mr. Chairman, mr. M people mr. Chairman, many people voted for nixon, most republicans and a lot of democrats. I did not. But those who did have h no way of knowing that the man in whom they had placed their trust would so abuse it. No one who voted for Richard Nixon need be ashamed of that vote for no one could have known what was happening or what was to occur. Weve been disappointed in him, and i know that the vast majority of people who supported him do not condone the way he abused that power. Mr. Chairman, to permit such behavior, to go unanswered can only have the affect of destroying the American Peoples faith in our constitutional form of government. I yield the balance of my time. The gentleman from new york, mr. Fisher is recognized. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in the way article i concerns obstruction of justice, article ii as i understand it is based on abuse of power, or expressed in the negative, the constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. We heard some, quite a lot of discourse on this subject this morning. And frankly i found it to be quite legalistic. Now obviously to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as they mandate to the president doesnt mean he personally executes all the laws, but what does it mean . I cant help but believe but this constitutional requirement is plain and understandable. Now i would like to pose some suggestions and some questions to you, mr. Jenner, to see if we cant work out in every day language just what this constitutional responsibility upon which this article rests means. Would you say that included in, in this responsibility is a duty on the president not to mislead his subordinates. Not to put in motion a cost of action by perhaps some loose language, such as to order something to be done indicating you dont care how its to be done . Yes, sir, mr. Congressman. Would you say that in addition there is a duty incumbent on the president to police his lieutenants . To see that they are operating within proper bound . I think thats inherent in the clause. Would you further say that the president would have a duty to be alert to what is going on, such of a duty as president nixon manifests in his daily careful reading of summery of the news that was brought to him . I think thats a clear thrust of the clause. And finally, and maybe not finally if you care to add more, but the this is a fourth thought ill put forward. That the president would have a duty to find out what is going on in those agencies of government set up by the congress and the people such as the department of justice, the fbi, and the cia, and furthermore, a duty to disclose to them any information that he has knowing of their interests in that information . The last mr. Fish is quite clear and inherent into the duty to take care. First that you mention is likewise included in the president s obligation. To learn what is happening with, at least in the executive agencies and the executive institutions. You will recall there was a good deal of testimony with respect to the president s carefully screening the new summery he received at 8 10 every morning when he was in washington, and they were delivered to him when he was at san clemente and key biscayne according to the testimony. He read those and wrote notes on them. And those news reports necessarily because they cover tv, the print media, magazines would necessarily distilled by experts would bring to him what was occurring daytoday throughout the country an alert to him. Alert him to things that object which he should require with respect to executive agencies and his staff as well. Can you think of anything else in addition to these four that would constitute the responsibility to take care that the laws are faithfully executed . The main one i think is an obligation on the part of the president and expectation of the people with respect to the president is that he would police his mediaimmediate subordinates. Not only the direct directions, but the chief of staff and others as to whether those directions had been carried out. I thank you. Yes, ill be glad to yield. I thank my friend from new york for yielding. I simply want to the comment very briefly first that i dont understand that a piece of conversation to the effect of things are going to change, which was what happened on september 15th is in any sense of the word an attempt. If john dean is concerned, i think hed be in serious danger about an attempt, but i dont think the president would. Secondly time for the gentleman of new york has expired. The gentleman from california is reck nighed recognized. Mr. Chairman, the past few days, i think have been enormously important days for the constitution of the United States. Whatever the ultimate result of these proceedings. Whether the president be impeached or whether he be not impeached. The constitution has been strengthened and it has peculiarly be strengthened by commencing the process of bringing into check an executive, a president who had abused his constitutionally limited powers to an extraordinary degree. Article ii of these proposed articles of impeachment is in my view of the heart of this process by passage and adoption of this article we not only tell this president we will no longer tolerate her personal excesses of power, but indeed we tell any future president that the constitution is a limiting document. That it must particularly eliminate power where it is concentrated most executively. The presidency. Not many president s and two few members of congress i fear have understood this lesson. I personally believe that few president ss have misunderstood it as grossly as this president , but in fact all president s have sought to grasp and accumulate power at the expension of the other institutions of government. I suppose it was inevitable that a time would come with the constant accumulation of power would have to be checked and curved and done so in a matter clearly understood not only at a president in office, but by president s yet to come. That duty falls first on this committee. We have begun to draw that line, we have begun the long overdo and the overdue and the painful process of curbing the excesses of power in the executive branch. We will forward that process, mr. Chairman, significantly by adopting article ii tonight, i yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman from iowa is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. First i want to agree with the gentleman from maine, mr. Cohen, that the approach to judge burn about possible employment as the new head of the fbi was certainly, highly improper. And to discuss with any judge in the progress of a trial, particularly the trifle major importance such as this trial of major importance such as this, possible promotion, if it was a promotion just seems to me so obviously inappropriate that i am surprised and disappointed that this was done. By a representative of the president , conversation which the president himself participated very briefly, not dealing with the actual subject of the appointment, but im also disappointed that judge burn would entertain such an approach in any degree. He did not, of course, declare a mistrial on that ground. He declared a mistrial when the government disclosed that there had been this invasion of dr. Fieldings rights by the breakin. This information was furnished voluntarily, all be it reluctantly by the president after it became known to him upon the advice of council, i believe the assistant attorney general and the solicitor general dean griswold, although it was not technically required that they felt that it was better under all the sucker to reveal this and it was reported in a mistrial declared. Now i just want to emphasize in the time remaining to me that theres absolutely no question on the evidence in this case, aside from some of the argument that there were serious National Security problems in connection with these leaks. The president carrying out his duty to uphold the defense and National Security of the country was determined to stop. These leaks effected the war in vietnam where they effected our troops, they effected our attempts to negotiate the end of the war in vietnam. They effected the saul talks, they affected guam, they affected various negotiations and relationships with the russians. And to emphasize that this was a legitimate concern of the president , i just wanted to read from a couple of quotations from dr. Kissinger referring to these leaks in the, and these appeared in the president ial presentation booked forward tab 23 b. And i quote, dr. Kissinger referring to the damaging nature of these various leaks and disclosure upon our countrys interest. And i quote Henry Kissinger. Each of these disclosures was of the most extreme gravity. As presentations of the governments thinking on these key issues, they provided the soviet union with extensive insight as to our approach to the salt negotiations and severely compromised our assessments of the soviet unions missile testing and our apparent inability to accurately assess their exact capabilities. The disclosure of the soviets first strike capability would prove a useful signal to the soviet union as to then intelligent system. It would also prematurely reveal the intelligence basis on which we were developing the impending strategic arms talks. And with regard to the negotiations on guam, on page 86, dr. Kissinger stated, and i quote, the consequences of of this disclosure attributed to well placed informants in terms of compromising negotiating tactics, prejudicesing the governments interests, and complicated our relations with japan where obvious and clearly preempted any opportunity where you might have had for obtaining a favorable outcome during our associations with the japanese, end quote. Now the president of the United States had a duty to act, and he did act. He may not have done the most effective thing, clearly this plumbers unit went astray. They became lawbreakers. They were caught in a miserable crime out there in california, but theres absolutely no evidence that the president knew anything about the planning of that in advance. I respectfully submit that the president did try his, according to his best judgment, to protect the National Security of this country. And the mere fact that he didnt do it perfectly and got a Inexperienced Group in there who certainly botched the job and were a great discredit to our country in every respect, that does not mean that he was guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor for which he should be impeached. And that is the only basis, seems to me under the constitution under which we can find him impeachable. I yield back the balance of my time. I yield my remaining time to ohio, if i may. The gentleman from ohio is out of the time from the gentleman of iowa expired. The gentleman from new jersey, mr. Sandman is recognized. Mr. Chairman. I dont propose to take up the five minutes. And i hope that we can wind this thing up as quickly as possible. And as gracefully as possible. It is nothing that i can do im sure thats going to change the outcome of the vote, but i would like the opportunity to capsule where we stand in my judgment. What i think we should be thinking about. Now at the outset, i dont think im the most naive person in the world, but i like to believe that every man thats ever been president of the United States had to be a good man and he had to be a great man or this great country would have never voted for him to be want leader of this country. It may be a surprise to some in this room, but the president i was extremely fond of, i had the good fortune to know as everybody in the room did was not a republican. It was lyndon johnson. And i thought it was a horrible thing during the bobby baker talks that some people thought, well maybe we ought to try to impeach al b. J. , it was wrong, i hoped it never start and it didnt. Now anybody who feels this way and i kind of think the country feels this way. They would like to believe their president is a pretty good man. And to do otherwise or approve to them otherwise it would take a tremendous amount of proof to do that, and it should. Tremendous. You cant do this loosely. And this is important. The whole world is watching this proceeding. And what we do, we better do right because the effect of it is going to make a precedent for a thousand years. Thats the importance of the question that i see. And because of this, it disturbed me when i try to think of some of the problems involved, the ellisburg breakin and what not. I think maybe were a little bit mixed up, and maybe we ought to sit down for a moment and review where we are. I was on a program one time on long island. I walked in the room with a very famous man, good democrat, senator musky. He got a pretty good hand, im sure no one in the audience knew me, but what applause there was, i say they did it because of him. And then behind senator musky, by about three or four minutes walked in daniel ellsbury. One of the panelists on our program, and believe it or not, the stadium shook. And i wondered why. Why did that happen . Here is a man who confiscated secret documents and against the law of the nation, he dispersed these documents. I thought this was wrong. And i couldnt understand why this fella came in there like a hero, but he is. This is a strange thing happening in this country. And now as a result of that, a mistrial was declared in that case, and a man who was as surely guilty as guilty can be was never declared guilty, never penalized, and instead, we now talked about impeaching the president of the United States. I think that our thinking is a little fuzzy here. And maybe we ought to sit down and look over that once again and make sure were doing the right thing. Is it more popular to give away secret documents than it is to protect the security of a great nation . I dont think so. And i would like to believe in the absence of extremely heavy proof that what the chief executive did he did for a good purpose. And this is why i have the strong feelings and the direction that i have and thats why ive argued the way i have in this proceeding. I dont take my obligation here anymore lightly than any other person. And i believe that what were doing here, were acting as a judiciary in a sense. Were judging whether or not the president of the United States should be replaced. Were judging the rights that he has as an individual as well as a president. And it is not in line with what at least i learned in the 20 years that i went to school that he has any less rights than any other american. And no one can ever make me believe that due process still isnt the law of this land and its always going to be the law of this land. And for these reasons i think we has to not make an inference against the president of the United States if anything we have to make an inference that what he did he did in the best interest of the country. This is what id rather believe. For this reason time. Even though its not going to be a popular position that i take, i know that. Im convinced its the right one, but at least i hope it is. And only time will tell. Time has expired. The gentleman from massachusetts, mr. Donohue. Thank you. You know the debate on this article, article i of last evening seems to have been developed into the proposition that unless the president personally or individually authorized the activities set forth in articles i and ii, the charges set for therein have not been sustained. Now let us look at the federal papers for a little guidance. And the statement made by james madison. One of the main architects and framers of our constitution. He went on to say, i think it absolutely necessary that the president should have the power of removing from office. It will make him in a peculiar manner responsible for their conduct. And if he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity crimes and misdemeanors against the United States, he will be subject to impeachment. And he goes on to say, or if he neglects to superintend their conduct, so as to check their excesses, herbal like wise be subject to impeachment. And madison went on to say, on the constitutionality of that declaration, i have no doubt. Now the question is, did president nixon, a recognized, sophistica sophisticated, astute public offici official, who has been described by his deputy assistants mr. Butterfield as a stickler for detail and a person who made all decisions know of these operations that were being directed by trusted, loyal members of his official white house family . This member believes that he did. You know, on the day in 1789, when the constitution was adopted, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a lady, what kind of government have you given us . And mr. Franklin replied, a republic, madame. If you can keep it. I believe that we will keep our republic, and that the process that we are engaged in during these proceedings will help us. Recognize the gentleman from maryland, mr. Hogan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Id like it return to a thought which my asteamed ranking minority member offered to us this morning. He reminded us that a few years ago the country was being torn apart by groups of people who were going, bombing College Campuses and burglarizing draft board and rotc facilities and destroying the work of scholars and engaging in all sorts of lawless activity because they disagreed with the vietnam war. They disagreed with the draft. They disagreed with the positions of the nixon administration. And they felt that because their cause was just, they could commit these crimes, they felt they were above the law. Most of them had long hair and beards and dressed as nonconformists and desecrated the flag. Inside the white house at the same time, there was another group of men who wore well tailored business suits, close cropped hair, no beard, and wore flag pins in their lapel, they disagreed with all of these other people, they thought that the cause was just, they believe that the vietnam war was justified, they supported this administration. But they felt that because their cause was just, they too were above the law. And for several months weve had a chronicle of all the legalities of the crimes theyve committed under that assumption. Now obviously both groups of people were wrong. Were wrong. Both should be held accountable for the violations of law. What were debating today is whether or not the president of the United States lived up to his constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws and the duties of his office. Weve talked a lot about this all day. Id like to read for you verbatim the only that every president of the United States is required to take under article ii of the constitution. The president must state and swear, i do solemnly swear that i will faithfully execute the office of the president of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. What weve been debating today is whether or not he has lived up to that oath. 600 years ago, the british house of commons impeached the early sovic for high crimes and misdemeano misdemeanors. Thats the first reference in all of history to this term that has become so familiar if not fully comprehensible to all of us on this committee. The wrong doings against which the high crimes and misdemeanors charge was made at that time involved some form of corruption of office or misuse of office. Offenses that inflicted some great injury on the state. Now based as it was on hundreds of years of british precedents. Our Founding Fathers who established this country used this same term, high crimes and misdemeanors, clearing intending not as a catch all phrase with which to threaten president s an confound lawyers and scholars apr and members of judiciary committees but as a broad widely recognized standard of impeachable conduct. The abuse of power by those in high office then constituted what was essentially the first Impeachable Offense in what is still today the touch stone of our debate. As the consistent abuse of power holds greater danger for the republic than does a single criminal act, its a much more serious offense and a far more serious charge than the one that this committee has already approved. Now, has the president faithly ex executed the laws . Title 18, section 4 of the United States code says whoever having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony conceals and does not as soon as possible make known to some judge or other person in civil or military authority in the United States shall be fined not more than 500 or imprisoned not more than three years or both. Thats under prison of felony. Time of the gentleman from maryland has expired. I recognize the gentleman from alabama from flowers. Thank you mr. Chairman. I shall be very brief. I listened with much interest to my dear friend. He is my dear friend mr. New jersey mr. Sand man and i find that i agree with almost everything he said accept the way he put some of the things together. I cant quite do it that way for myself. I do not differ with him that he has the right to look at it the way he does. I respect him and i knows i respect him. And well be together on Something Else maybe later this week or next week. You know mr. Chairman, i think that this article of impeachment is perhaps more important than article i as some others have said. As i see it article i could perhaps be included as a subparagraph or subheading under article ii. There are some things in this article that i dont feel as strongly about as i do others but overall i believe it to be a strong case that is made out by this article ii. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. If this president failed to assert that affirmative duty to make care that the laws be faithfully executed. If he has failed to resist even the transgressions of these laws before his eyes and ears. If he has violated the so called sensitive agencies of our government and i believe he has and these sense titive agenciese both necessary and also precarious in this system and this president has abused his public trust and he ought to be impeached with the same reluctance that i had mr. Chairman. I find that i must also support this article of impeachment. Recognize the gentleman from virginia mr. Butler. Recognition at this time mr. Chairman. Recognize the gentleman from South Carolina mr. Mann. Thank you mr. Chairman. You know we know charlie sand man and we appreciate him. Im going to refer to him too. Charlie was talking about elsberg got the applause and i joined in most of you in feeling that except for certain mistakes, mr. Elsberg should have not been at that place at that time but he was evidence of our system because our system looks out for the underdog. Our system looks out for the right of individuals. The little man. In the history of america is the history of the protection of the rights of the individual citizen. Look at every decision of our Supreme Court and whether we like it or not. Whether they are freeing a rapist or murderer. They are interpreting the constitution of the United States and its laws to protect that individual from the power of his government. Youve heard a lot about our system and its really sin yno m synonymous with the phrase, the rule of law. In this article ii we find this language in this regard of the rule of law. You know there was one man in this government that i have to mention. Hes been mentioned by others. Its been tough for me to hold back on him. Johnny walters, practiced law upstairs above my office in the two Story Building where he and i practiced law back in the middle 60s. When i came to the congress and left him in greenville, South Carolina, he wasnt far behind me as he came to washington to serve in the department of justice and then as commission of the Internal Revenue service. Mike walters respected the rule of law. You know americans revere their president and rightly they should because they know that by his oath he is supposed to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution to enforce the bill of rights which is their heritage. Your rights and mine whether democrat or republican, rich or poor. That he will see that the laws are faithfully executed and that the individual liberties of each other is protected whether president or paper. Now this committee has spent ten weeks reviewing the evidence its not fair to you to in these sessions pull the tidbits out on one side or the other. Theres no way that you can bring yourself in the position that we are with the knowledge of the facts that we have, i wish you could. As your representatives, we are charged with determining that truth and although weve laid something on the table during these past three or four days and having sat here during these three or four days, i had people ask questions about what the evidence was, i have been wondering whether they were here with me because its on that evidence that each of us is making our decision. As we seek a way to escape that decision, we cant escape that still small voice. So as thomas paine wrote, those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must like men undergo the fatigue of supporting it. In this situation as we looked at how the office of the presidency has been served by an individual, i share the remarks of George Danielson that it doesnt the presidency that is in jeopardy from us. We would strive to strengthen and protect the presidency but if there be no accountability, another president will feel free to do as he chooses but the next time there may be no watchman in the night. Time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from mississippi, mr. Lo it,tt. Thank you. I would first ask my colleague from South Carolina whose the underdog now . All right, sir. I am fully aware. That Many American people consider the president is being attacked and abused by Sinister Forces in this country, by the left wing press or by the democrats. I can assure this gentleman that it matters not to me his party or his position. He is subject to the rule of law and to justice as in my role under my oath, he will get it be he president or paper. I appreciate it from the gentleman and i too share that feeling. I think that knowing in my background, i think he knows that this is not a matter of partisanship with me either. It is a very serious matter. Were setting a precedent for the future of whether or not a president because hes unpopular, because of some acts of his age, even mistakes or parts of several cases will a president be impeached. Now, several people here tonight refer to the gentleman by the time of butterfield who came in and testified. Id like to refer to some of his testimony. In one area he testified everything im saying to you incidentally is judgment. Yes, i dont claim to have precise knowledge. When i asked him questions about his position sitting right there in the middle of the white house right next to the oval office, i said in view of your situation, your location there, and what has subsequently occurred and the fact that you were staying abreast of what was going on, did you have any knowledge of the water gate cover up . No, he did not. But he was sitting there right next to what was going on right next to the president. I asked him did you know about the plumbers. He did not. What weve got here in article ii is a catch all accusation. It lumps together five separate charges with a connecting link of only certain common phrases. The purpose in my opinion is put together several partial cases with the hope the results would be one whole case. Grouping these different charges together in one article represents a clear attempt to accumulate guilty votes. It would be completely improper under any theory of criminal proceeding in subparagraph one of article ii the president is accused of trying to improperly use irs. In subparagraph three hes accused of water gate cover up and other unlawful activities that were subsequently specified. Theres no connection between them. Its clear why catch all approval has been adopted and why this approach is being used. A congressman who believes the president should be removed from office while interfering with the fbi may at his vote to the total even though he does not believe the president aprovprov the break in of the offices of dr. Fieldings. Let me quote the words of senator austin in the impeachment trial against judge riter in 1936. Again, i think we must consider the overall impact of what were doing here is going to have on our country for years to come. The gentleman from maryland mr. Sarvanes is recognized. Thank you mr. Imperative tha american appreciating the abuses of power discussed here today those weve reviewed in the course of this consideration of this article placed in jeopardy our free society and endangered your liberties and your Constitutional Rights. That in the course of that effort, there was also an effort to twist the proper functions of Government Agencies so that rather such agencies, those institutions being your servants, serving you, there was a grave danger that those agencies would become your oppreo oppresso oppressors. Stop and think for a moment if you will what it means if the agencies of government are not administered in an even handed manner. If people elected to Public Office rather than considering it a public trust believe that they are entitled to use the power of government, not to serve the people but to maintain themselves in personal power, its extraordinary to assert as has been asserted on occasion during the course of our discussion that because bad things in the end did not happen, those who sought to make those bad things happen should not be held responsible. Stop and think for a moment. Those bad things did not happen not because those at the top did not seek to make them happen but because dedicated and committed people from various places in government refused to be bent and twisted to improper purposes. The commissioners of Internal Revenue would not allow in the end that agency to be used in a discriminatory fashion against the American People. The fbi director would not exceed to the houston plan which for a brief period was approved by the president of the United States and which provided for covert mail covers which provided for surreptitious entry all of which j. Edgar hoover ascented to. It was hoover in the end who went to the president and insisted this plan not be implemented. What happened then . They went outside of the agencies of government unable to bend the agencies to the purpose, they decided to go outside of government and develop their own establishment. That is what the plumbers was. It was not a legitimately constituted agency. It was a regular ad hawk group etablished to carry out certain activities. How was it paid for . In part, it was paid for through money raised privately. We spoke earlier of how a private person was contacted to b be brought to the white house in order to carry out a break in in a doctors office. That money was returned to the private person who provided it in the following manner. Mr. Colson called up the poe attorney for one of the milk producer cooperatives and asked him to have the cooperative make a contribution to a Political Committee called of all things, People United for good government. That 5,000 contribution was made by the milk cooperative to that Political Committee. That check was cashed. The man who provided the original money in order to carry out the break in went to the Political Committee and recovered his 5,000. Now stop and think of that. You have an irregular group not part of an established Law Enforcement agency and its activities are being funded through money raised privately. Think of the implications of that for all americans. Mr. Chairman, i submit we came parlously close to losing our basic freedoms. It is for that reason that we must act affirmatively here tonight. This is a long step forward in restoring the health of our constitutional aal system. We do it mr. Chairman prur surs to that constitution and with a sense of responsibility and a powerful belief in america and in the decency and the honesty of her people. Time of the gentleman has expired. Recognize the gentleman from wisconsin mr. Fraley. My concern over the extended use of the wire taps and abuses of the irs have been fully developed here this evening and today i therefore yield to the gentleman from ohio mr. Leto. The gentleman from ohio is recognized. Without objection has been awarded to the gentleman. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman if we had not at all in these weeks of in depth study on the evidentiary material, i frankly would have a hard time making a judgment on this article. I think this is probably attributed to the fact that i believe in the history of the congress there hasnt been a committee that is studied so intently for such a long period of time and given sauuch attention. I dont believe weve ever had a committee in the congress had a has better attendance even behind closed doors at committee sessions. I want to commend you mr. Chairman for the attention that youve given and the direction that youve given to this. Certainly there are disagreements. I think by now theres one thing in which we can all agree, however, that is there are many areas in disagreement. Our vote depends on which interpretation we place upon them. If we choose to view the president in a bad light, we can do that. If we choose to view him in a good light, theres ample evidence to permit us to do that. Weve also learned this afternoon that the majority on this committee wishes to hold a president impeachable for actions of subordinates under paragraph subparagraph one and two even though he had no knowledge of the actions of said subordinat subordinates. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee and fellow americans, this bothers me tremendously. Ill be happy to yield. Thank you. Youre not suggesting that on subparagraph one relating to the irs on september 15th there was no conversation between john dean and the president at which time john dean has testified there was an extensive discussion about the irs audits. I have direct reference to the refusal of this committee to adopt a wiginn amendment. Mr. Chairman as i said, this bothers me tremendously not only for now but for the future. What we do here will be written down as a precedent to be used in the future. Im not particularly concerned about the president of the present occupant of the white house im most deeply concerned about the office of the president of the United States. Where that office will be not ten years from now or 20 years from now but in generations to come because i highly revere that office. Its the most respected office in all of the world. Its the most powerful. Nobody can defy the fact that every nation on the face of this globe looks to the oval office of the president of the United States. What were saying here is that we can impeach a president for actions of his subordinates without his knowledge. What can that do to the office of the president in the future when you can impeach the actions of a subordinate without his knowledge. As members of committee know there are approximately 3,900 employees at the executive office of the president. There are 2600,0,000 not counting the military. Could somebody down the line interpret our actions here that he would have to be held accountable for any and all of these actions even though he had no knowledge of them because they were under his jurisdiction under his administration and technically they are. I think we must proceed with utmost caution that we weaken that we weaken that office that we hold so dear. Let me direct my attention for a few moments that we have to another area that concerns me because weve touched upon it so lightly. In fact, i heard somebody say and im sure he said it in jest something about a bug aboo. And i have reference to National Security. National security. What are we talking about . Were talking about protecting the lives and security of 220 million americans. Thats what were talking about. So lets not talk about it lightly. I happen to be one who since ive been in the congress of the United States who has supported a Strong National defense. We cant be second. Weve got to be strong and were talking about National Defense as a bug aboo issue. I think not. The president of the United States was concerned about leaks right after he took office. Now, lets take a look at what he was talking about. Where were these leaks coming from . Were they coming from somebodys bridge club or out of some nonsensitive agency of the government . We know better than that. They were coming from no other place than the National Security console. Who sits on the National Security console . Staff members . The president of the United States. The secretary of the defense. The secretary of state. The director of the Central Intelligence agency along with the secretary of treasury and the attorney general by designation of the president. Now they dont talk about rules for a handball game. They discuss and make the policy for the defense of this country. Your defense, my defense. Our childrens defense. Thats what they do. These leaks that concerned the president of the United States were coming directly out of that National Security console. Now what were they . Many of our colleagues here today have alluded to them. I dont want to duplicate to what they said but let me point out that about every time the National Security counsel would make a decision, a couple of days later, and hate to mention newspaper but i must, the New York Times would publish it or the evening star. Wouldnt this concern you . It concerned me. It concerned the president. Let me give you just one. On april 6th, the New York Times prints a front page article indicating u. S. Consideration of unilateral withdrawal, june of 69. Shortly after a decision had been reached to begin an initial withdrawal of troops. The New York Times and evening star reported this decision indicating it would be made public following the meeting. Following the meeting with the south vietnamese president , too. Leaks damaging dr. Kissingers diplomatic efforts to end the war for the south vietnamese government to hear publically of our apparent willingness to consider unilateral withdrawal without first discussing the matter with president too. What does this do to our credibility . Damage and leaks have been occurring with regard to the salt negotiations and have been discussed and also internal use by our government of the Strategic Force posture. A study was made to determine what programs should be adopted relative to our countrys get this deterrent, conventional and nuclear capability. The study included five possible strategic option from an emphasis on offensive forth their estimate of the soviet unions one strategic strength and possible first strike capability. The gentleman has consumed ten minutes. I wish i had ten more mr. Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman from ohio mr. Syberling is recognized for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. I think that the gentleman the other gentleman from ohio has put his finger on one of the very fundamental issues which brought about this proceeding which is whether in the under the guise, the phraseology National Security, the president has a blank check to violate the law because thats what its all about. When attorney attorney ruckelhouse declined to fire special prosecutor kox after Elliott Richardson resigned because he defined to follow him. You remember what the president s aid toad hld him. He said your commander and chief has given you an order. Mr. Ruckelhouse had to remind him that he was subject to the law and that the commander in chief could not give an order that violated the law. Now, lets take a look at that law. Point 5 of this article talks about the disregard of the rule of law by the president of the United States. Among other things, he disregarded it when he fired the special water gate prosecutor archibald kox or ordered him to be fired. Lets go back to april 30, 1973 when the president accepted the resignation of them. He at that time pledged to the American People that he would do everything in his power to ensure that those guilty of misconduct within the white house or in his Campaign Organization were brought to justice. He announced he was going to appoint Elliott Richardson attorney general and he would appoint a special prosecutor. In due course that came to pass. Mr. Richardson commsubmitted th responsibilities and duties of the special prosecutor and provided that he would have jurisdiction over offenses arising out of the water gate break in. Allegations involving the president , members of the white house staff or president ial appointees and also provided that the special prosecutor would have full authority for determining whether or not to contest the assertion of executive privilege or any other testimonial privilege and that he would not be removed accept for extraordinary improprietiem. The long had already been long establish bid the Supreme Court in 1953 that as long as the attorney generals regulations remained operative they had the force of law and defied him or any other member of the executive branch the right to violate those regulations. Such were the regulations under which the special prosecutor was operating. That principle was upheld again as recently as last week when the Supreme Court reaffirmed it in the case of United States versus nixon. Now we all remember the shock that we all experienced last october when in quick succession two attorney generals in the special prosecutor were fired on order of the president because they had the temer temerity to out an order on behalf of the United States government ordering the president to turn over the tapes which he subsqueptly was forced to do by public opinion. It was that act which brought about the reaticreation of this special proceeding. I all believe that my elected to the highest office in the land would rise to the occasion. Like every american, i want to believe the best of my president and ive tried to do so as i studied the evidence before us in this proceeding. Having done so i must sadly say to both of my friends on the aisle and the country he let us down. Mr. Chairman he yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman from california mr. Moorehead is recognized. Chairman, members of the committee, one thing certainly must be clear by now to everyone in america. That is certainly the president of the United States is not so all powerful under any circumstances that he cant be examined one way or the other for his acts and even if necessary, be removed from office. I dont believe in a any man in the history of this world has ever been examined as thoroughly as this president Richard Nixon. I dont know of anyone who has ever had 25 million of federal money spent on various investigations over a period of two years time. Many, many more millions of dollars by other private agencies. Everything that mr. Nixon could possibly have done wrong surely would be uncovered by this time. Yet, you look at the evidence thats brought to us here today and it almost seems pathetic that 25 million brought in so very little. If the irs was use wrongly no one would object louder or stronger than i. I spent 16 years running a legal aide lawyers reference service. No one has more respect for the underdog or the law than i do. Theres nothing that brings the fear into the heart of the average american that the is brought into their heart by an irs audit. That must be clear to everyone. But the cold hard facts are that the irs was not misused by the president. Its true that four days before he talked to the president , mr. Dean went and asked took a list of enemies to the irs and asked for something to be done about it but the evidence that was brought to us by our staff was the president s connection with mr. Dean was very, very slight during those particular days and picked up only in the months of 1973. Now, its true that dean and nixon had a meeting on the 15th of september but there isnt one shred of evident that anything was done as a result of that meeting on the 15th of september. No real evidence that anyone took the comments seriously certainly on mr. Deans request, the irs consideration of certain people, there was nothing done. The names were put away and were never presented to another soul. Theres been a suggestion that perhaps the irs was used to help friends. Well, certain people evidently a few of them had come to the people in the white house and said that they were being harassed by the irs. I wonder how many congressman have had people come to them and say they were being harassed by some agency of the federal government. These were checked into by a simple request with whats happening. This is the testimony that we have. There was no special consideration given. There was no evidence of any pressure put on these people. What kind of a count for impeachment is that . We have the question of the plumbers group. The plumbers is a name of art thats been given to this special group. I dont approve of many of their later activities, certainly they went beyond any power that the president expected them to have. We have the testimony, the sworn testimony of mr. Crow who said with respect to the purposely for the special investigations unit, it is mr. Crows sworn testimony that on or about july 15, 1971 he was given oral instructions to begin a special National Security project to coordinate a government effort to determine the causes, sources, and ramifications of unauthorized disclosure of classified documents known as the pentagon papers. We have other National Security matters. We have the 17 wire taps that were approved by j. Edgar hoover and the president. Theres mention made of two or three other wire taps that were not authorized by the president and no showing whatsoever of any authorization by the president but the 17 wire taps were actually made at the president s request or at least with his signature were they definitely brought about by a very great concern with Henry Kissinger with the negotiations that were going to take place and with knowledge it might be given to a foreign country. The time of the gentleman has expired. Id like another ten minutes, too. Thank you mr. Chairman. The gentleman has been yet been recognized. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Sorry. Thank you again mr. Chairman. Im very proud and honored to associate myself with the remarks of a dear friend, a great lawyer the gentleman from massachusetts. Mr. Chairman our debate today has distilled the issues of this article to where we all now can clearly see that they constitute a clear threat and attack against our constitution which is the essence and soul of our republic. We cannot and must not fail a responsibility which is ours and so again with heavy alert and great sadness, we must vote for this article of impeachment. I yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman from new jersey mr. Marazitti is recognized. Thank you mr. Chairman. We see here the sharp differences in the interpretation of the facts and the law in this matter. Mr. Chairman, i submit that we have these sharp differences because the case and the evidence is not clear and convincing against the president. Specific allegations are not set forth and the proponents of the resolution to impeach continue to refuse to set up these specific allegations in the articles. We have theories propounded that the president should be held accountable for the acts of his subordinates even though he has no knowledge and did not authorize certain acts. A great deal has been said and in fact proven that this staff must be did this and that staff member did that. These Staff Members in concert did this and did that. Mr. Chairman, i submit to you that the proof fails and fails in a very vital respect when it fails to draw the line to the president of the United States. Now, on the question of wire tapping that weve heard so much about. Without going into details because its been thoroughly discussed, what do we really have here . We have heard the urgent pleas by mr. Henry kissinger to stop the leaks from the National Security counsel. Mr. Chairman, these pleas were made not by just an ordinary individual that might not have had the knowledge and information necessary to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. But no less, a man than mr. Henry kiss icinker in my opinio be the highest authority in the land as to whether or not leaks would affect the security of the United States. What do we have here . In response to that plea, the president and in pursuant of his constitutional duty, his constitutional duty to protect the United States ordered the wire taps and stop the leaks. As i said in my previous remarks today i for one, mr. Chairman, would on the basis of Henry Kissinger making a request, if the nixon refused to take this action to protect the United States by ordering these wire taps, i for one would vote to impeach him for that refusal of his constitutional duty and responsibility. In closing mr. Chairman, let me say that i think we ought to give some serious consideration to exactly what we are doing here. Mr. Richard nixon was elected by 47 Million People to be the president of the United States. What ive heard and on what i have heard today i cannot and will not bring myself to remove the choice of 47 Million People and impeach Richard Nixon, president of the United States. Mr. Chairman, any time left, i yield the balance of my time to mr. Lattam. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. Thank you mr. Chairman. Let me completely comments concerning the National Security. The threat was compounded by the fact that mr. Elsberg was a former staff member of the National Security console itself and the prospects that he might divulge Additional Information and the realization that the soviet government had already received a copy of the pentagon papers on june the 17th and might be the recipient of additional classified information including cyop better known as the nations a single integrated operations plan. What does this encompass nothing other than that and i stress the word all of this nations contingency plans in case of word including integrated conventional and nuclear options. Thats what concerned the president. Time of the gentleman has expired. Recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. Im happy to yield to ms. Jordan a moment a minute of my time. The gentleman from texas is recognized. In one phrase that affecting personally or through his subordinates or agents, theres no need to substantiate this phrase by agreeing or disagreeing with the madison superintentency theory because the charges which under lie this phrase are permeated with president ial demand and direction. The president in charge. T the greatest clue to this chain of command and the president knowing what his subordinates did is not the testimony of mr. Butterfield. We dont have to rely on him. We have an exchange between mr. Thorn of arkansas and mr. John mitchell. Mr. Thornton, did you ever check to determine whether or not the information relayed to you through mr. Haulederman was a correct reflection of the president s instructions . Mr. Mitchell, there may have been occasions congressman but i would have to say that in most all instances that i can recall mr. Halledermans representations to me of the president s position were truthfully and fully stated. Mr. Thornton, did you ever check with the president to determine whether or not information you had passed toward him through mr. Hallederman had been received by him. Mr. Mitchell no, i dont believe i did but i think again, the record of actions coming from such line of communication would indicate that they were fully and faithfully conveyed. Mr. Chairman. This article is so overwhelming that i dont think its an exaggeration to say that history will judge this as comparable to the moral rebellion centuries ago. They were our legal and moral answers because they revoted against tyranny. I want to pay tribute tonight to two men who made this possible. I am honored and humbled because these two men happen to be my constituents. One is a democrat and one is a republican. I speak about archibald kox and Elliott Richardson. When they follow their conscience, three million citizens wired their congressman and this inquiry began. These two good men never realized that their decision not to submit, not to go along would force every member of congress and every american citizen to make the same moral decision. They were the first to see the repeated abuses of the Constitutional Rights of citizens on which this committee is to act tonight. Mr. Kox, the former solicitorgeneral of the United States, distinguished professor and author, he would not back down. He with not become a part of the cover up. Elliott richardson, the former attorney general of massachusetts, he gave up his entire career rather than tarnish his soul and permit himself to be part of the cover up. I pay tribute to these two men. Without their courage, the victory for justice which we witness here tonight could never have happened. Mr. Chairman, i hope that their courage will continue to be contagious. I yield back the balance of my time. Recognize the gentleman from new york mr. Smith. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we have spent awf all of today and the debate of this article ii which says the president of the United States, contrary to his trust as president and subversive Constitutional Government repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the Constitutional Rights of citizens, impairing the due and Proper Administration of justice an the conduct of lawful inquiries or controve evening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch of the governme government. I think probably everything has been said about this that could be said from the comments that have been made, i would say that a majority of this committee will support this article and believes what it says and there are some who dont feel that the United States is such. Thats been proer deuced in this long proceeding that this committee has been involved in that makes out a clear and convincing case that this is so the president of the United States himself. With that mr. Chairman id like to yield two minutes of my time from the gentleman from indiana mr. Dennis. Mr. Dennis is recognized for two minutes. I thank the gentleman from yielding because something the gentleman from california mr. Moorehead said struck a very responsive cord with me. I believe i have spent as much time in courtrooms defending the underdog as many man or woman on this committee. I have done it in forenforcing civil rights too where it counted. I have done it when every mans hand in the establishment was against my client and when every public organ was crying loud fors had blood. So that situation is nothing new to me at all. I never expected to find myself in this similar situation where the president of the United States was concerned. Now, that i have, i simply want to say that it is my belief and opinion and my sincere opinion and belief that the president of the United States has exactly the same rights and will stand up for them exactly the same way as did those humble citizens i used to represent. I thank you. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman one minute. I thank you the gentleman for yielding. In one minute id like to explain that while i voted against article i which was the vote that we took on the last article that i intend to vote in favor of the article ii. In my opinion there was no prove, no clear and convincing prove of any criminality or any conduct of the president which involved him as a coconspirator but the president does have a constitutional oath and an obligation to see the faithful execution of the laws. With multiple misconduct of illegality and criminality being conducted in and around the white house by many of his top aids, it seems to me that the president has failed us in this take Care Provision of the constitution. While i bare no malice and no hostility to the president , it seems to me that i have an obligation myself as a member of this committee when i see the constitutional obligation in default to support an article of impeachment. Thank you gentlemen. The gentleman has 40 seconds remaining. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Im sorry that my remarks brooef as they were made fail to sway any colleague who sits on my right. With that i yield back the balance of my time. Recognize the gentleman from new york mr. Rengal. Thank you mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you and the members of this committee pause through their decision they have restored some faith and integrity to our sift eyste government. Weve heard many times in the past the words law and order. Most americans recognize who those words were directed at and exactly what those words really meant. Today mr. Chairman, in a phrase can be restored to some of its original meaning meaning because we have established some law and some order as relates to the abuse of president ial power. The Vice President of the United States as reportedly said that this committee does not properly reflect or represent the members of the house of representatives. Perhaps it does not for what committee truly does. Nevertheless, the Committee System is a part of the house of representatives. Is it not part of our american way of life to attack the entire system merely because we differ with the results. The president of the United States not only disregarded the law but in fact feared the law and feared the grand jury system and our nations capitol. On march the 27th of 1973, the president in talking about the fate of mr. Mitchell, he said, i think we have to recognize that youre not going to escape indictment, talking about mr. Mitchell. This is what they are supposed to tell them. Theres no way far better than you should be prosecuted on information from the information attorney based on your conversation with the United States attorney than on an indictment by a grand jury of 15 blacks and three whites after this kind of an investigation. The president responded right. And the door of the white house were trying to protect it. Well mr. Chairman, i am satisfied that while the president is protected from indictment at this time, from a grand jury in the nations capitol and while he has been denied his day in court as relates to the criminal courts that i am satisfied that he would have had a fair hearing in the house of representatives. That he will have a fair trial in the United States senate and for the American People in its constitution, it would have had its day to prove that the system can work and indeed it has been a victory for law and for order. Thank you mr. Chairman. I recognize the gentle lady from new york. Thank you mr. Chairman. The question has been raised tonight what are the rights of the president . I think we have to confront what his duties are. He takes an oath. A solemn oath to defend and protect the constitution of the ut United States to the best of his ability. In the preampble says we the people of the United States to secure the blessings of liberty. That is our precious heritage. What has this president done as this committee has examined . We have seen the president has engaged in a course of conduct in which the end justify the means in which this blessing of liberty has been trampled to our disgrace. Let us look first at this houston plan which our president , your president and my president approved. This houston plan which i read in anger twice or three times, says that decent is tranantamou to treason. Because its tantamount to treason, the president has any right to bring the force of the fbi, cia illegally that a person is subject to having his mail opened or his housebroken into or his phone tapped because he dissents. Its not at all clear from the evidence before this committee that the houston plan was not carried out. Let us look at the leaks that everybody has talked about. Do they justify the ends we have seen . Does anybody argue that the wire tap of joseph kraf by a private operative on behalf of the white house is constitutional or legal and that the president can put on that. Does anybody argue that is within the balance of the constitution . I cant believe it. What about the elsberg case . Perhaps the president didnt authorize the burglary in the first place but he according to him, ratified it afterwards. If it were such a horrendous crime in the president s eyes, why didnt he expose the people who were responsible to the criminal authorities . No, he covered it up. He said that he who has since been convicted in this break in for being involved in that he said that he was one of the two finest Public Servants he had ever known. What about the Internal Revenue service whose 575 names of political opponents of this administration turned over . The president clearly approved that in a conversation on september 15th and we have his words. He didnt expose these people. He didnt throw hallederman out of his office or dean out of his office. At a later said he said do you need any more help with irs. The commissioner of Internal Revenue service submitted an affidavit to this committee who said that it was his intention to try to create a personal police forceout of the alcohol, tobacco and fire arms part of the Internal Revenue service. What weve seen here is an attempt by the administration with this president to bring retribution against those who seek to oppose the administration and how many of us have not quarrelled with president s in the past democrats or republicans over Agricultural Policy or environmental policy or Foreign Policy or whatever. Does that give the president the license to burglarize our home . So wire tap our phones . To open our mail . I submit that if it does we have gone down the long road to tyranny and that the blessings of liberty that we formed this constitution 200 years ago on to preserve will vanish very quickly. Id like to remind my colleagues that under the constitution of the United States we in the house of representatives through the power of impeach. Have been given the duty to preserve this constitution and to preserve the blessings of liberty. For that reason, i feel that we are compelled to approve this article of impeachment. Time of the gentlemen lady from new york has expired. I recognize the gentleman from virn i virginia mr. Butler. I thank the gentleman from virginia. A number of our colleagues who said that the evidence presented today fails to support the Impeachable Offenses. I know that they do not want to give the erroneous impression that weve been involved today or in any of these recent deliberations in a presentation of evident. What weve been involved in is debating amendments to these articles of impeachment. The evidenceary presentation took ten weeks of our time after months of staff work. We shouldnt be giving the impression that what weve been giving is evidence. What we have seen is as a result of this labor and having all 38 members of this Committee Study that evidence for ten weeks in long sessions day after day, hour after hour and over wwhelmg majority of this committee can subscribe to the idea that that evident supports these articles of impeachment. I yield back mr. Chairman. Recognize the gentleman from utah mr. Owens. Thank you mr. Chairman. Article i of impeachment focus on many instances of immense abuse. The cover up of the water gate break in. In contrast, article ii so collection of separate individual very seriouses abuses of the presidency. These are charges that the president used his power or knowingly permitted his power to be used to do something unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, or to do something legal but for political or nonlegitimate purposes. It is not a grab bag of president ial actions which a majority of the committee thinks unwise or bad or contrary to our national interest. These are what they must be to be impeachable, acts which would be clear violations of the standards of conduct for any president of the violations which are so grave and are such an abuse of the president ial trust that the public well being requires that they be corrected. There are other serious offenses of the president which do not in my opinion rise to the level of impeachability on the basis of evidence before us, i do not believe that the allegations of bribery for example in the itt case or the milk case have been sustained. Each one of the abuses contained in article ii is adequate in itself is sustain impeachment in my opinion. These instances of president ial abuse center around the violation of the guarantee of Civil Liberties contained in the bill of rights. Namely the right to be free from government interference in his privacy, his home, his letters and his belongings and his conversations. I would hope that the president is watching this proceeding tonight. I feel that ive grown to know him intimately over the past eight months. Were about to vote this new article of impeachment. Do not wish him the slightest personal harm. We recognize that there is tragedy involved. There is only good will on this committee. I believe that every member acts tonight with accordance with his or her conscience and with pursuit of a constitutional obligation. I would hope he would believe that this article of impeachment does not attempt to apply new standards to this president. We apply old standards which everyone knows of through the impeachment process. An impeachment is the only remedy for the abuses which article ii proposes to correct. Some of them are not criminal abuses. Even if they were criminal, the president when sitting is beyond criminal process. Probably the principle reason the framers included the impeachment power in the constitution was they say that the only remedy against a president for the unlawful enlargement of the executive power and the encroachment upon individual liberties was through this type of stern accountability. The only remedy. By passing these articles of impeachment, we set an example. It is a fair example because we apply only the most fundamental and basic standards of which any president should be aware. It is an example to future president s and to all who hold Civil Authority in this country that the Congress Even to the exercise of its impeachment capability will stand against the abuse of power and the invasion of Civil Liberties which would undermine our constitution or the rights and the dignity of the individual