Thank you. Recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, father drinan, for purposes of general debate only for a period of 15 minutes. Father drinan. Members of the committee, in the long summer of 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in philadelphia, the delegates from my own state of massachusetts consistently opposed including impeachment in the constitution. Massachusetts argued on july 20th of that year that american law unlike that of england would provide for a genuine separation of powers, judicial review and the regular elections by the people. Hence it was argued the remedy of impeachment, which had been frequently abused in england would not be necessary in america. The delegates reasoned on that day that impeachment would impose a penalty in the absence of any specific statute, which would make known to those to all citizens the punishment that they would expect for their offenses. Massachusetts in that year wanted america to aspire to the idea already stated in the constitution of massachusetts a government of laws and not of men. Only South Carolina voted with massachusetts to omit impeachment from the constitution. Massachusetts then as so often stood almost alone. During this summer, mr. Chairman, i have wondered countless times whether or not the delegates from massachusetts from 1787 were, after all, correct in their judgment. That impeachment was unnecessary, unwise and indeed dangerous. My concern over this question has deepened as i have witnessed the process of selecting articles of impeachment on the basis of whether they will fly. I have been deeply troubled because the process of choosing articles of impeachment is not necessarily done in the order of their gravity, but to some extent on their capacity to play in peoria. Theres been no shortage of facts on which to focus in this inquiry. But only history will discover why the greatest deception and probably the most impeachment offense of Richard Nixon may not become a charge against him. I speak of the concealment of the clan decent war in cambodia. I do not reach the claim merits of the bombing. I speak only of its concealment. We see in this series of events the same abuse of power and the same techniques of coverup employed by the president and his associates in the aftermath of watergate. Like the gentleman from new york, i am profoundly disturbed at the massive coverup of the facts during and after the secret bombing raids where b52s went over cambodia during a period of 14 months from march 69 to may 1970. I remember well my absolute con city nation on july 16, 1973, when the cambodian bombings were revealed for the first time. I learned on that day that president nixon had misled me and the entire nation when he had said three years prior to that time on april 30, 1970, that quote, for the past five years we have provided no military assistance whatsoever and no economic assistance to cambodia, unquote. The calculated coverup, like watergate, unravelled by dent. We heard about it because a Foreign Correspondent happened to report on his discovery of the thousands of craters made by american b52s. There was no justification for maintaining secrecy about that war. The cambodians knew, everyone knew except the people of america, and this information was withheld from them until is happened to come out. The only reason for the deception of congress and the country was the president s political objective of deceiving and quieting the antiwar movement. The president orchestrated a conspiracy to keep the lid on cambodia until after the election of 1972. The facts of this president iallyelected conspiracy do not come from taped conversations or mere infrances. They come from a testimony of general earl wheeler, head of the joint chiefs of staff. He testified in july 1973 that the president told him not once, but at least a half dozen times that the bombing of cambodia must never be revealed. He also acknowledged that the pentagon was following the president s command of secrecy when the pentagon invented the deceptive system of dual reporting by which airstrikes in cambodia were recorded as having vietnam. James madison stated that the power to declare war in Congress Must include everything to make that power effective in the congress. Congress and congress alone had the right and the duty to judge whether the United States was justified in making or not making war in cambodia. President nixon usurped that right. Can we be silent about this violation of the constitution . Can we impeach a president for unlawful wiretapping but not impeach a president for unlawful war making . Can we impeach a president for concealing a burglary, but for not for concealing a massive bombing . Many deceptions were carried out on the congress itself. In april 1970 the secretary of the army told a Senate Subcommittee that no military aid had been given to cambodia. In may 1970 general wheeler gave misle misleading testimony to a committee of this house. In 1971 the secretary of the air force reported to the senate that no bombing strikes had occurred in cambodia prior to may 1, 1970. Those who assert that the president has the power to bomb cambodia and keep it secret for years has the burden of justifying the deception of congress to the falsification of documents, and three, the statement of the then secretary of defense to the effect that the air raids over cambodia should have been revealed in 1970. To these persons who would justify the nature and the secrecy and the conspiracy, do they have an answer to the statement made by senator stewart simonington . Senator simonington asked the question, the congress authorized 130 million for warfare in vietnam, but they never appropriated that sum of money for war in cambodia. In and around my Congressional District in eastern massachusetts, there lived the descendents of those who fought at lexington. Those american revolutionaries two centuries ago took up arms in a desperate and determined effort to gain the precious right of knowing and participating in the processes of their own government. The men who fought in the revolution gathered in philadelphia from may to september 1987. They came together to create a government where no one ever again would have to enter into an armed rebellion to vindicate his right to be free of tyranny. And for the framers of the constitution, the other tyranny was war. Carried on illegally by the executive without the knowledge or consent of the congress. Mr. Randolph of virginia stated in the Constitutional Convention that the president under the constitution that they were writing would have great opportunities of abusing his power particularly in the time of war. Against that other tyranny, the authors of the constitution adopted impeachment as the ultimate remedy. Within a thousand days, we as americans will commemorate the 200th anniversary of that fight for freedom that began on the rude bridge at concorde. We will be worthy of those who fought on our behalf in 1776. If we fight for the rule of law as they set it forth in what is now the oldest written constitution, still in use in the entire world. Finally, mr. Chairman, we will be worthy of those who brought freedom to america only if we continue to remember as we have that is impeachment is designed as the one way by which a president can vindicate himself. Colonel george mason reminded the framers of the constitution that the impeachment proceeding is e designed to vindicate the rights of the people against a tyrant, but it is also provided so that there will be honorable acquitable for a public official should he be unjustly accused. Whatever the outcome the aman