Transcripts For CSPAN3 Nixon Impeachment Hearing Evening Session Part 2 20140802

He only needed to be found guilty of one article of impeachment. Richard nixon, seeing the writing on the wall, he was very gifted, he saw the writing on the wall and he decides to resign before he is actually thrown out of office. He announced his resignation august 8, 1974. He leaves office at noon on august 9, 1974, 40 years ago this august. Timothy naftali who served as director of the Richard Nixon Library Museum in california. Now the director of the library at new york university. Thank you for your perspective on the events 40 years ago. Up next more from the debate , before the House Judiciary Committee on july 20 9, 1974, including the vote on article two the abuse of power against Richard Nixon. Here on cspan 3 and American History tv. The gentleman from california recognized for five minutes. Article two. Which i suggest is an expression of our deep devotion to the constitution and to the first ten amendments. The bill of rights. Article two is our rededication to and reaffirmation of the bill of rights and no officer of our government from the most lowly to the highest can violate with impunity those fundamental Constitutional Rights. In 1787 when the 13 colonies were considering the ratification of the new constitution, three states voted to ratify only on condition that the ratification contain a recommendations that the bill of rights be added. These men remembered well that they or their parents had fled from the kingdoms of europe to seek individual freedom in the new world. They just finished winning the war to ensure independence and freedom. They were not about to substitute a new federal government for the old tyranny without safeguards designed to protect their rights as individual human beings from the arbitrary encroachment of the new government. So it was that the first acted then 1799 and bill of rights. Jefferson in the letter to madison urged the adoption said, let me add that 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 our article two . It is because article two charges president nixon will with intentional violations of the constitution. Chiefly, amendments one, four, five and six. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and the press. In direct contravention of this amendment, president nixon authorized order permitted illegal wiretapping and other surveillance of individuals including reporters and the use of this information so gained for political defamations. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their homes, their houses, their papers. Again, unreasonable searches and seizures. In direct contravention president nixon established , special investigation unites unit within the white house without legal warrant and special white house unit committed burglary in the state of california. The fifth amendment guarantees to all equal protection of the law and in direct contravention of this amendment, president nixon endeavor to use the Internal Revenue service for tax harassment of political opponent. Opponents. The fifth and sixth amendments guarantee a fair trial in all criminal prosecutions. In direct contravention president nixon and his , subordinates leaked information unfavorable to a criminal defendant, 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 and the notion that any public official, the president or a policeman possesses a kind of inherent , power to set the constitution aside whenever he thinks the Public Interest and now given such easy currency, the National Security warranted. Warrants it. That notion is the essential postulate of every tyranny that is indeed a dictatorship. A dictatorship is simply a system under which one man is in power to do whatever he deems for the community. We look beyond the wall to every citizen, rich or poor, white or black, brown or yellow. From the most powerful to the humblest. This article two 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. Youre right to be secure in , against wiretapping and burglaries. Your right to equal treatment under law, youre right, if to a difficulties arise, fair trial, youre right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness free from unlawful incursion from the president down. Thank you. The gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, i thank you for yielding. It had been my intention to use my five minutes to discuss the historical meaning of the clause 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. It is probable with application to article two. I will reserve that to a later time and probably will include it in the report. Moment totake this lay out a few facts. Charges are easily made. Then we have to take the time to shoot them down. It is said that president nexen attempted to subvert justice by somehow improperly interfering with a federal judge. Thenow we are talking about ellsbury trial in california. Let me tell you what happened. It is relatively a short story. Everybody knows the nomination of pat gray was in trouble in trouble and the president would have to nominate a new director for the fbi. The president sought the advice of his attorney general as to whom that nominee ought to be and the attorney general suggested to names, matt burns, a judge in california, and henry peterson. Given that, mr. Ehrlichman, acting as the president s agent, sought to inquire whether or not judge burns was interested. This is what he said. Judge, i have been asked by the president to call you. I have been asked to discuss with you a federal appointment, which is not traditional in character. I do not know whether this is an appropriate time for us to have a conversation like this because i do not know what the present situation in your trial is. Iven that, judge burns said, see no reason why we cant talk right away. Thereafter, they met. They walked out on the bluffs in san clemente. , you aren said proposing a lawsuit. If that any point a subject arises that you feel impinges upon your ability to fairly try the case, you just turn around and walk away from me. As i said before, this is not something that needs to be discussed right now. We can talk about it later. The judge said, fine. Lets proceed. They walked out on the bluff. An offer was made to be director of the fbi. Judge burns saw no impropriety in that. He did not 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 it may take as long to get it tried as it took for me to end the war in vietnam. That is all he said. Sweeping statements that the president unsupported by this sort of record. We ought to be more careful in our language. That allegation, at least, has no substance to it whatsoever. Whatever i got, i yield to my friend. My friend from indiana. The gentleman from indiana. Remaining,short time i think we ought to keep in mind, i could go over the surveillance again, the plumbers again. Is it suggested there is no law broken . No one told me what the law was. Is it because the unit is created, take legal action to do certain things . Perfectly obvious that the president knew nothing about the breakin in california because of his remarks when they came to his attention. It is perfectly obvious he knew nothing about it. He said again in the record, i told all these fellas to obey the law. There was evidence to the contrary. There was talk before about impeding the investigation. It came under article one. I said then and i say now it is a debatable question. Involvement, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Finally, what we need to remember is we are not accusing the president because of the general moral character, whether he is moral, immoral, or what our personal opinion of him maybe. May be. We have got to find evidence of proof of a misdemeanor. If we try to impeach him for anything less, then we are not doing our duty. We are violating the time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from west johnson. Wisconsin. I am not seeking recognition at this time. The gentleman from new jersey. I would not like to at this time. I would like to at another time, but not at this time. Thegentleman from gentleman from pennsylvania. Chairman, i would like to say articlencerning him two. The subject is perhaps not completely covered. All the members of the committee agree now that the president did authorize the taps. In addition to that, i refer to a letter which the president wrote july 12 two senator fulbright in which he says, i ordered the use of the most effective investigative procedures possible, including wiretaps, surveillance, and wiretapping of certain individuals. Some question the president assumes that the spots ability. It was not always that way. A little over a year ago, february, 1973 amateur white house learned of the forthcoming Time Magazine story exposing the existence of wiretaps on white house employees. Investigated the story by contacting the assistant fbi director. Each confirmed the existence of the wiretaps. Ehrlichman said he had the files. The secretary denied the story. On article published february 20 six and stated the white house spokesman had denied anyone at the white house at authorized or approved any caps on white house employees. Dean told the, president the white house was stonewalling totally on the wiretap story. The president replied, absolutely. To which i say, how interesting. Now, mr. Chairman, i am i am one of those who believes the standard involved in impeachment does not involve criminality. Nevertheless, i find in this paragraph evidence of criminality on the part of the president and his men. I would like to refer to a few of them. 1969, it was ordered on the highest authority not to have wiretaps initiated under the president cost authorization, not to maintain records. This came from the director of the fbi. Yet, the recordkeeping statutes cap standard for record keeping, identifying what records must be maintained, provide rules for the orderly disposal of the records. It required all Government Employees to be familiar with the fact that records cannot be used in the specific manner described in article 44. Additionally, there are other provisions, special one for the fbi in title 28, directing the fbi to preserve its records. Separate dissemination to other law engagements law agencies. It is punishable by fine or imprisonment to unlawfully conceal or obliterate or destroy or take or carry away any record. It must be assumed that he knew it was illegal for the fbi not to maintain records of the wiretaps and it must be assumed to be only two men who could order him to give such directions to the fbi, dr. Henry kissinger, head of the National Security council, and the president also knew this was illegal. July, 1971, william sullivan, head of the justice departments internal security division, was afraid that J Edgar Hoover would use them as blackmail against the president to keep nexen from removing him from the top job at the fbi. After conversations with the then attorney general John Mitchell and white house essentials, they discussed the existence of the records personally with the president and john ehrlichman. These conversations, the president ordered him to bring them to the white house. This is a violation of the statute in title 44. He got the files involved and delivered them to the oval office in the white house. When he was interviewed about this by the fbi, he was asked, did you give the bag to mr. Nixon . He replied, i cannot answer that question. We must assume he was protecting he gaveident because them to a third party and he would be shielding that person. Ehrlichman has testified that following delivery, the president ordered ehrlichman to pick up the documents in the oval office and he kept them in his own office until april 30, when they were removed with other president ial papers. The effect of the president s order in this matter was a violation of the pertinent sections in title 44. I submit that this paragraph is a very strong paragraph, a very important charge in the impeachment of the president of the United States. The time of the gentleman has expired. Recognize the gentleman from illinois. I will be happy to yield thank you. Very much, and im sorry that my i certainly want to agree i certainly want to agree with some of the views of my colleagues. The special intent was to seal up leaks. I would like to call attention to the fact that in july, a few weeks after the plumbers were of dr. The breakin fieldings office was recognized by the president and mr. Early 10 ehrlichman. There was not any espionage involved at all. The effort to draw in the cia by the fbi were resisted head of the cia and the head of the fbi. Matter of later, as a fact, in april, 1973, when henry in charge of criminal investigation for the department of justice, was investigating, the whole subject of watergate and the coverup, brought to the president s attention this dr. Fieldings office breakin, the president in the taped conversation we had here before the Committee Said to henry, i know all about that. That is National Security. Facts are thatl while the plumbers may have started out as a legitimate, valid organization, there was they were soon converted by ehrlichman and the whole group there into something quite different. Something that the president knew about, and was wrong. It seems to me that that is why this belongs in this part of our impeachment proceedings, why it is appropriate to be put in article two, which relates to the question as to whether or not the president was taking care of the execution of the laws. Is appropriately there, as well as some of the other paragraphs that we have, which question the president s obligation, whether he was fulfilling his obligation. Location. It is a bit we should send to the house of representatives to have them consider their. Im open this article would be supportive. Im hoping this article would be supportive. I dont think the record should remain. The breakin occurred in september 1971. There is not a word and ehrlichman notes indicating prior knowledge of any breakin. Its not the breakin. July 1971 i did not mean that. Mr. Chairman. Time ive any remaining would like to yield it to the gentleman from maine. Minutegentleman has a and 50 seconds remaining. Can ian inquire inquire if that time could be helded to me yet though has time if he so desires. Gentleman has six minutes 50 seconds. Beenere is a word that has used here for the past few days and i am constrained to call upon myself to repeat it. Snt it amazing i find it amazing that the fine myers on this committee fine lawyers on this committee could overlook an attempt at a wrongful act. All we heard about the irs is what happened. It reminds me of the words we see in the transcripts. Like to direct a couple of questions to the staff now and ask you about the criminal penalties involved under this section. For any it is a crime officer or employee of the United States to breached the confidentiality of the income tax deterrence of the citizens of this country. I further assume that under title 18 the president falls under the definition of the employee of the United States government. Is that correct . Session attempts to interfere attempts to obtain information with respect to materials shall be fined no more than 5,000. That is supplemented by section 72 13. If the offense be fined by an officer or employee from the United States he shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment. Purposes of this section we are talking about those who attempt to abuse this information for improper purposes. Correct in that it is not necessary to have a specific act carry out . Would it be sufficient if the president were to direct or ask or inquire to obtain certain information . Itself he act the direction would be an attempt. It would not be necessary to have that particular direction completed or violated area i would like to make some comments to the gentleman from california. I found the statements rather amazing. Henry peterson recommended him as fbi director in response to a i asked that i asked whether he should be contacted while sitting on the ellsberg matter. To which he replied no. Even though he made a personal recommendation he specifically indicated he should not be contacted during the course of that trial. The answer is quite clear as to why not. Said it wouldnt be a mistrial. Some of us felt it would. I happen to think it is a matter of law that there would be a good there would be a mistrial declared on a matter of disclosure. I think the presiding judge on a case of that magnitude i find it amazing once again for mr. Ehrlichman to say he didnt know what the present situation was. This was the major case of the. Ecade he didnt happen to know what is going on at that time happen to fill the position of a judge is one of the most delicate in our entire system because he has to remain an absolute and scrupulous infallibly. And scriptless neutrality. Destroyedality is when a subordinate offers a position to the judge of an fbi directorship. The defendant himself offers the presiding judge or even a juror it job with his firm upon the completion of the case. That man would be held in contempt and be in jail. I simply want to conclude my own remarks. I know what the gentleman of california might say. I only call attention to the manner of which this is carried out. There was never any publication of it, never any nomination of what works. It was covertly carried out in it seems to me of all the allegations we have been dealing with Internal Revenue service, the fbi, the investigation of daniel schorr, the fabricated statement of what would happen as a would hire him consultant, all of these activities raise the faint specter of an american archipelago. I think with the chief executive of the country investigates citizens and criticizes policies or authorizes use of such things the rattle of the change that would bind up our constitutional freedom can be heard. Is against this rattle we should awake and say no. I will yielded to the gentleman from california. I respect your theory that judge burns was a participant in that card tacked and that contact and he doesnt agree with you. It was his case. He didnt think anything was improper about it at all. Time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from texas is now recognized. There can be no satisfaction in impeaching the president of the United States. Anyif we are to remove president whose actions destroy our system, the checks and balances System Incorporated in our constitution places this responsibility on the congress. The future strength of our democratic form of government requires us to exercise this power at this time. Under mr. Nixon the constitution of 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 the law demands that he so abuse this process be removed from office. Future monstrate to to future generations of america that no man, even be he president , can put himself above the law. Many people voted for Richard Nixon in the last election. Those who did have no way of knowing that the man in whom they had placed their trust was so abusive, no one who voted for nature and for Richard Nixon for be ashamed of that vote they cannot know what was happening or what was to occur. We have been disappointed in him. I know the vast majority of people who support him do not condone the way he abused that policy. Permit such behavior to go only have the effect of destroying the American Peoples faith in our constitutional form of government. High yield balance of my time. The gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Chairman, in a way article one is concerned and obstruction of justice article two, as i understand it, is or,d on abuse of power expressed in the negative, the constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. We heard quite a lot of discourse on the subject this morning. Frankly i found it to be quite ballistic. Of thely to take care laws that are faithfully executed as a mandate to the president doesnt mean he personally executes all the laws. Mean . I cant help but believe this constitutional requirement is playing an understandable. I would like to pose some suggestions to some questions for you to see if we cannot work in justveryday language what this constitutional responsibility upon which this article rests means. Inld you say that included this responsibility is a duty of the president not to mislead his subordinates, not to put into action byourse of , indicatinganguage you dont care how it is to be done . Yes, sir. Would you say there is a duty incumbent on the president to police his lieutenants to see that they are operating within proper bounds . I think that is inherent in the clause. With you further say that would you further say that the president has a duty to alert what is going on, such a duty that president and that president nixon manifests in his elite careful reading in his daily careful reading of the news that is brought to him. This is a fourth thought, that the president would have a duty to find out what is going on in those agencies and the government. And furthermore a duty to disclose to them any information he has, knowing of their interests. The last is quite clear and inherent in the duty to take care. The first is likewise included in the president s obligation to at leastt is happening in the executive agencies and executive institutions. You will recall there was a good with respectmony to the president carefully heeening the new summaries received his desk he received at his desk at 8 00 every morning. Those. Se news reports necessarily because they covered tv, the print media magazines, would necessarily distill by experts he had there would bring to him what was occurring day today throughout the country and alert him to things about which you should inquire with respect to executive agency and his staff as well. The main one is an obligation on the part of the president expectation of the people with respect to the president and that he would police his immediate subordinates. Not only with respect to direct directions he had given them but as chief of staff and others as to whether those directions have been carried out. I want to comment that i that theerstand effective things are going to change is in any sense of the if john dean is concerned i think he is serious about an attempt but i dont think the president would. The time of the gentleman from new york has expired. The gentleman from california is recognized. The past few days have been a normalcy important for the constitution of the United States. Of whatever the ultimate result of these proceedings, whether the president be impeached or not impeached, the constitution has been strengthened and it has been particularly and by in aly strengthened president who abused his constitutionally limited powers to an extraordinary degree. Passage and adoption of this article we not only tell this president we will no longer tolerate his personal excesses futurer to tell eddie president of the constitution is a limiting document and a particularly limits power for it is concentrated most heavily in the executive branch. Few members of congress have understood this lesson. I personally believe that few president s have misunderstood it as grossly as this president. In fact all president s have sought to grasp and accumulate power at the expense of other institutions of government. It was inevitable that time would come when this constant accumulation of power would have to be checked and curbed and done so in a matter not only clearly by the president but by president s yet to come. That duty falls first on this committee. We have begun to draw that line. Overduebegun the long and painful process of curbing the executives in power and the executive branch. I yield back the balance. The gentleman from iowa is recognized. Thank you mr. Chairman. I want to agree with the gentleman from maine that the approach about possible employment as the new head of was certainly highly improper. To discuss a trial, particularly a trial of major importance such is a possible promotion. Seems to me so obviously inappropriate that i am surprised and disappointed that this was done. A conversation in which the president himself participated a very briefly, not dealing with the actual subject of the appointment. Byrnelso a that judge would entertain such an approach in any degree. Not eclair a mistrial on that ground. Mistrial when the government disclosed that there had been this invasion of dr. Fieldings rights by the breakin. Furnishedmation was , albeit reluctantly, by the president after became known to him upon the advice of counsel. The attorney general about it. Although it was not technically was betterey felt it under all circumstances to reveal this. It was reported in a mistrial. I just want to emphasize the time remaining to me that there is absolutely no question on the evidence in this case aside from theref the argument that were serious National Security problems in connection with. Hese leaks the president carries out his duty to uphold the defense and National Security of the whole country and was determined to stop. They affected our troops and their attempts to negotiate between the end of the war and vietnam. They affected various negotiations and relationships with the russians. 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. These appeared in the president ial presentation book. Each of these disclosures were once some for one of the most extreme gravity. They provided the soviet union with extensive insight as to our approach to negotiations and severely compromised our assessment of the soviet unions missile testing and our ability to accurately assess their exact capability. Assessmenture of the of the first try capability would prove a useful signal to the soviet union as to the efficacy of our intelligence system. Prematurely reveal intelligence basis on which we are developing our positions for the impending strategic arms talk. And with regard to the negotiations on guam on page 86, kissinger stated complicating our relations with japan were obvious and preempted will providety and a more favorable outcome in our negotiations with the japanese. 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. In a miserablet crime out there in california. There is absolutely no evidence the president knew anything about the planning of that in advance. Reflect that i respectfully submit the president did try according to his best judgment to protect the National Security of this country. The fact he did it perfectly and experience and got an xperienced group in their does not mean he was guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor for which he should be impeached. That is the only basis under the constitution in which we can find him impeachable. I yield back the balance of my time. I yieldd back my time. The time the gentleman from iowa had expired the gentleman from new jersey. I dont propose to take up to five minutes. Wind things up as quickly as possible and gracefully as possible. Can do thathing i will change the outcome. A i would like to use these closing moments when some people would refer to the stark and what i think we should be thinking about. I dont think i am the most naive person in the world. To believe every man that has been present that be president of the United States had to be a good man or a great man or this country would have never voted for him. It may be a surprise but the it was lyndon johnson. I thought it was a horrible thing during the bobby baker talks at some people thought we may be ought to try to impeach lbj. That was wrong. Way iho feels this kind of think the country feels this way. They want to believe their president is a very good man. To prove to them otherwise it would take it would take a tremendous amount of approval. You cannot do this loosely. World is watching this proceeding. Make it ag to precedent for a thousand years. That is the importance of the question as i see it. Me when i tried to think of some of the problems involved. A littleaybe we are mixed up and we ought to sit down for a moment and review where we are. I was on a program one time in long island. Him i walked in a room at a very famous man, a good democrat. He got a pretty good hand. I did it because of him. Minutes,three or four lockin daniel ls walked in dental ellsberg. The stadium shook and i wonder why. And why did that happen . Here is a man who confiscated and hedocuments dispersed these documents. I thought this was wrong. This is a this is a strange thing happening in this country. A mistrial was declared in that case. A man who is surely as guilty as guilty could be was never penalize. Now we talk about impeaching the president of the United States. Our thinking is a little fuzzy here. Him maybe we ought to look at that once again and make sure we are doing the right thing. It is more popular to give away secret documents that it is to protect the security of the great nation . I dont think so. I would like to believe in absence of extremely heavy proof of what the chief did. I dont take my obligation here more likely than any other person. What we are doing here, were acting as a judiciary in a sense. Him we are judging whether or not the president of the United States should be replaced. We are judging the rights he has as an individual. It is not in line with what i learned in the 20 years i went to school. No one can ever make me process is thee law of the land and it is always going to be the law of the land. The for these reasons i think we have to not make an inference against the president of the United States. Makef anything we have to an inference that what he did he did in the best interest of the country. Even though it is not going to be a popular position, and i know that, i am convinced it is the right one. The gentleman from. Assachusetts thank you. Him you know the debate on this article . It seems to have been developed. Him us the president personally or individually thezed the activities charges set forth they are in have not been sustained. The statement made by james madison, one of the main architects and framers of our saytitution, he went on to i think it absolutely necessary that the president should have the power of removing from office. It will make him responsible for their condor. If he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity crimes and misdemeanors against the united he will be subject to impeachment. He goes on to say so as to check their excesses he shall likewise be subject to impeachment. Madison went on to say on the constitutionality of declaration, i have no doubt. Is did question president nixon recognize a who has been as aibed by his deputy stickler for detail. And the person who made all decisions know of these operations. He was being directed by trusted and loyal members of his official family. This member believes that he did. On the day in 1789, when the ,onstitution was adopted Benjamin Franklin was asked by a lady what kind of government have you given us a . Given us . Republic, if you can keep it. I believe that we will keep our onublic and the process which we are engaged in during these proceedings will help us. We recognize the gentleman from maryland, mr. Hogan. I would like to return to a thought which my esteemed ranking Authority Member offered to us this morning. They remind us that a few years ago the country was being torn apart by groups of people that were going bombing college and rotc facilities and destroying the work of scholars. They disagreed with the vietnam war, they disagreed with the draft, they disagreed with the positions of the next administration. They felt 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 flag. Inside the white house at the same time there was another who were well tailored business suits and were flagged for dutch war flag pins on their lapel. They thought the cause was just. Do they believe the vietnam war was justified. They supported this administration. They felt because their cause was just they too were above the law. Had several months of all the chronicle and illegalities of the crimes they committed in the assumption. Both of those groups of people were wrong. Accountable held for the relations of law. Today isre debating whether or not the president of the United States lived up to his constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws and duties of his office. Day andd about this all i would like to read for you the oath that every president is required to take. The president must state, i do solemnly swear i must faithfully execute the office of the president of the United States and will to the best of my ability to serve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. 600 years ago the british house of commons impeached the earl of high crimes and misdemeanors. The wrong doings against which the high crimes is misdemeanor was charged in involve some form of corruption of office or misuse of office. As based as it was in hundreds of years of precedents, our Founding Fathers who established this country used the same term. The cash of ng broad widely recognized standard of impeachable conduct. Whichuse of power by those in high office stand constituted what was essentially the first Impeachable Offense and what is still today the touchstone of our debate. As the consistent abuse of power holds greater danger for the republic then does a single criminal act, it is a much more serious offense and a far more serious charge than the one that this committee has already approved. Has the president faithfully executed the law . Section four of the United States code says whoever has knowledge of the actual makeon of felony some judge or Civil Authority under the United States may not be fined more than 500 in prison, not more than three years or both. I submit we are complete with a whole litany of repeat offenses of this particular statute. The time of the gentleman from maryland has expired. I recognize the gentleman from alabama. Ella i shall be brief. With much interest my dear i find that i agree with almost everything he said except the way he put some of the things together. I cannot quite do it my way do it that way for myself. He knows i respect him. I think this article of impeachment is more important than article one. Be included asld. Subparagraph and there are some things i dont feel as strongly about as i do others. Overall i believe it to be a strong case that is made out by article two. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Fails toresident assert that affirmative duty to take care of the laws be faithfully executed, if he fails to resist even the transgressions if he has violated the sensitive agencies of our government, and i believe he has, these agencies are necessary and useful. With the same reluctance and the , i find iw and regret must also support this article of impeachment. Mr. Butler. The gentleman from south carolina. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We appreciate him. Time. Ing to reserve i joined with you in feeling that except a certain state, he should have not been at that place or at that time. It was evidence of our system. System looks out for the underdog. Our system looks out for the right of the individuals, the little man. It is a protection of the rights of the individual citizens. A look at every decision of our Supreme Court and whether we like it or not. They are interpreting the constitution of the united to protectits laws that individual from the power of his government. It is really synonymous with the phrase the rule of law. There was one man in this government that i have to mention. Johnnie walters practiced law upstairs when he and i practiced law back in the middle 60s. He wasnt far behind me. As he came to washington to serve in the department of justice. Mike walters respected the rule of law. They know that by his oath he is supposed to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. Enforce the bill of rights, which is their heritage. Whether you are democrat or republican, rich or poor. He will say that the laws are faithfully executed. This committee has spent 10 weeks reviewing the evidence. It is not fair to you in the sessions to pull the tidbits out from one side or the other. You can bringy yourself in the position that we are with the knowledge of the facts we have. I wish we could. We are charged with determining that truth. I have people ask questions about what the evidence was. Im wondering if they were here with me. It is on that evidence that each of us is making our decision. To escapek of a way that decision we cannot escape that small voice. As thomas paine wrote those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must like men undergo the fatigue of supporting it. As we look at how the office of the presidency has been served by an individual, ive heard remarks from George Danielson that it isnt 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 watchmen. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from mississippi is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would first perhaps submit are asked my colleague from south carolina, who is the underdog now . I yield. That meeting American People consider the president as being attacked and abused by Sinister Forces in this country, by the leftwing press, or by the democrats. And 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 in my role under my oath, he will get it, be he president , or be he pauper. I think he knows this is not a matter of partisanship with me either. It is a very serious matter. We are setting a precedent for the future. Whether or not a president , because he is unpopular, because of some acts of his age, will a president be impeached. Several people here tonight have referred to a gentleman by the name of butterfield they came in and testified. I would like to refer to some of his testimony. In one area he testified, everything am saying to you is judgment. Yes. I dont claim to be 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, 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 watergate coverup . No, he did not. He was sitting right there next to the president. I asked if he knew about the plumbers. He did not. What we have here an article to is a catchall. It lumps together five separate charges with connecting links of only certain common phrases. The purpose in my opinion is to put together several partial cases with the hope the result would be one whole case. Grouping these different charges together in one article represents a clear attempt to accumulate guilty votes and it would be completely improper under any theory of criminal proceedings. In subparagraph one of article two, the president accused of trying to improperly use the irs. In subparagraph three, accused of watergate coverup and other unlawful activities which were subsequently specified. There is no real connection between them. Its clear why catchall approval has been adopted and why this is a properly being used. A congressman who believes the president should be removed from office for interfering with the fbi may add his boat to the total him even though he does not believe, for example, that the president in any way approves the breakin of the office of dr. Fielding. Another congressman may vote for the entire article because he subscribes to one sub aircraft and may not ascribe to subparagraph five. In criminal justice, such words as duplicity and president ial joinder of offenses would come into play. We dont have it here. Its a think we do have parts of several cases. Maybe you got to three fourths of the case or an eighth budget put them together in you get a patch. Let me quote the words of senator austen against judge ritter in 1936. Six legal malts cannot become a unit of legal accountability. 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 from maryland is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. It is imperative that every american appreciate that abuses of our discussed here today, those we have reviewed in the course of the consideration of this article, placed in jeopardy our free society and endangered your liberties and your Constitutional Rights. And that in the course of that effort, there was also an effort to twist the proper functions of Government Agencies so that rather than such agencies, those institutions being your servants, serving you, there was a grave danger that those agencies would become your oppressors. Stop and think for a moment, if you will, what it means at the agencies of government are not administered in an evenhanded 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 that there it has been asserted on occasion during the course of our discussion that because bad things in the end did not happen, those who saw 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 at 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 accede to the houston plan, which for a brief period was approved by the president of the United States, which provided for surreptitious entry, which provided for electronic surveillance. All of which J Edgar Hoover dissented to. And it was hoover in the end who went to the president and insisted that 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 Law Enforcement agency. It was then irregular, ad hoc group established to carry out certain activities. And 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 bring money to the white house to be furnished to the plumbers in order for them to carry out a breakin of a doctors office. And that money was returned to the private person who provided it in the following manner. Mr. Colson called up the 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. And that 5,000 contribution was made by the milk cooperative for that Political Committee, that check was cashed. The man who provided the original money in order to carry out the breakin went to the Political Committee and recover his 5,000. Now stop and think about it. You havent your regular 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 perilously close to losing our basic freedoms. And 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 system. We do it, mr. Chairman, pursuant to that constitution. We do it with a strong sense of responsibility and a powerful believe in america and in the decency and the honesty of her people. The time of the gentleman has expired. Recognize the gentleman from wisconsin. My concern over the extended use of the wiretaps and the abusive use of the irs have been fully developed here this evening, and today, and i therefore yield to the gentleman from ohio. I take my time now, mr. Chairman. The gentleman is recognized. Cut thank you for yielding to me. As to chairman, if we had not had all these weeks of indepth study on the evidentiary material, i frankly would have a hard time making a judgment on this article. After hearing all of these remarks that have been made by her colleagues. I think this is probably attributed to the fact that i believe in the history of the congress, there hasnt been a committee that has studied so intently for such a long time and given such attention. I dont believe we have ever had a committee and the congress that has had better attendance, even behind closed doors at committee sessions. And i want to commend you, mr. Chairman, for the attention you have given and the direction you have given. Certainly there are disagreements, and i think by now there is one thing in which we can all agree. That is there are many areas of disagreement. Our vote depends on which interpretation would place upon them. If we choose to view the president in a bad light, we can do that. And if we choose to view him in a good light, there is ample evidence to permit us to do that. Weve also learned this afternoon that a majority on this committee wishes to hold a president impeachable fractions of subordinates, under subparagraph one and two, even this committee wishes to hold a president impeachable fractions of subordinates, under though he had no knowledge of the acts of said subordinates. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee and fellow americans, this bothers me tremendously. I will be happy to yield. You are not suggesting, i take it, that on september 15, 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 audit. I have direct reference to the refusal of this committee to adopt the amendment. Mr. Chairman, as i say, 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. And im not particularly concerned about the present occupant of the white house. I am most deeply concerned about the office of the president of the United States. And where that office will be not 10 or 20 years from now, but in generations to come. I highly revere that office. Its the most respected office in all the world, and its the most powerful. Nobody can deny the fact that every nation on the face of this globe looks to the oval office, the president of the United States. What we are 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 . You can impeach, for actions of a subordinate, without his knowledge. Members of this committee no there are approximately 39 hundred employees of the executive office of the president. There are 2,600,000 employees in the federal government. Not counting the military. Could somebody down the line interpret our actions here years hence, 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 are under his jurisdiction, under his administration, and technically, they are. So i think that we must proceed with utmost caution, that we weaken that office that we hold so dear. Let me direct my attention in the few moments that we have to another area that concerns me, because we have touched upon it so lightly. In fact, i heard somebody say, and im sure he said it in jest, something about its a bugaboo. And i have reference to National Security. What are we talking about . We are talking about protecting the lives and the security of 220 million american. Thats what we are 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. A Strong National defense, we cannot be second. Weve got to be strong and were talking about National Defense as a bugaboo 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 . Are 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 council. Who sits on the National Security council . Staff members . The president of the United States. The secretary of the defense. The secretary of state. And 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 policies for the defense of this country. Your defense, my defense, our childrens defense. Thats what they do. These leaks that concern the president of the United States were coming directly out of that National Security council. And what were they . Many of my colleagues here today have alluded to them, and i dont want to duplicate what they said. But let me point out that about every time the National Security council would make a decision, a couple of days later and i hate to mention newspapers, 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 want. On april 6, the New York Times prints a frontpage article indicating u. S. Consideration of unilateral withdrawal. June 1969, began initial withdrawal of troops. They reported the decision indicating it was made public following the meeting with the south vietnamese president. Leaks damaging dr. Kissingers diplomatic efforts to end the war. Our apparent willingness to consider unilateral withdrawal without first discussing the matter with the president. What does this do to our credibility . Damaging leaks have been occurring with regard to the salt negotiations as discussed, also internal uses by our government of strategic forces. A study was made to determine what programs should be adopted relative to our countrys get this deterrent, conventional, and nuclear capabilities. The study included five possible Strategic Options. With an emphasis on offensive capibilities to heavy reliance on antiballistic missile systems. Notwithstanding the obvious need for secrecy of the study, the may 1, 1969 edition of the New York Times reported the five Strategic Options under study and even gave the cost estimates. The United States intelligence board had been engaged in an analysis of the soviet unions testing of missiles and issued a report in 1969 setting forth their estimates of the soviet unions strategic strength and possible for strike capability. The gentleman has consumed 10 minutes. I wish i had 10 more, mr. Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think that the other gentleman from ohio has put his thinker on one of the very fundamental issues which brought about this proceeding. Which is whether under the guise the phraseology National Security, the president has a blank check to violate the law. Because that is what its all about. When attorney general ruckelshaus declined to fire special prosecutor cox after Elliot Richardson had resigned because he declined to follow them, do you remember what general haig, the president s aide, told him . He said your commanderinchief has given you an order. And mr. Ruckelshaus had to remind him that he was subject to the law, and that the commanderinchief could not give orders that violated the law. Now lets take a look at that law. 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 watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox, or ordered him to be fired. No lets go back to april 30, 1970 three, when the president accepted the resignation of ehrlichman and dean. 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 are in his Campaign Organization were brought to justice. He announced he was going to appoint Elliott Richardson attorney general and he announced that Elliott Richardson would appoint a special prosecutor and in due course, that came to pass. This to richardson submitted to the Committee Statement of duties and responsibilities of the special prosecutor and the statement provided that he would have jurisdiction over offenses arising out of the watergate breakin, allegations involving the president , members of the white house staff or president ial appointees, and they also provided that the special prosecutor would have full authority for determining whether or not to contest the exertion of executive privilege or any other testimony privilege and that he would not be removed except for extraordinary impropriety. Now the law had already been long established by the Supreme Court in days of mccartney versus shaughnessy in 1953, that as long as he attorney generals regulations remained operative , they had the force of law and denied him or any other member of the executive branch the right to violate those regulations, and 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 and the special prosecutor were fired on order of the president because they had the temerity to carry out an order of a court of the United States government. Which order had been appealed and affirmed by the president. Affirmed by the court and order the president to turn over the tapes, which he subsequently was forced to do by public opinion. It was that act that brought about the creation of the special proceeding. Now i while we believe that any man 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 i tried to do so as i studied the evidence before us in this proceeding. And having done so, i must sadly say to my friends on both sides of the aisle and the country, he let us down. Mr. Chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman from california, mr. Moorehead, is recognized. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, one thing certainly must be clear by now to everyone in america, and that is certainly the president of the United States is not so allpowerful under any circumstances that he cannot be examined one way or the other for his acts, and even if necessary, be removed from office. I dont believe that 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 Dollars of federal money spent on various investigations over two years time. Many, many more millions of dollars by other private agencies. Everything mr. Nixon could possibly have done wrong has surely been uncovered by this time. And yet you look at the evidence brought to us here today, and it almost seems pathetic that 25 million brought in so very little. If the irs was used wrongly, no one would object louder or stronger than i. I spent 16 years running a legal aid lawyers reference service, and no one has any more respect for the underdog or the law than i do. And theres nothing that brings fear into the heart of the average american that 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 took a list of enemies to the irs and ask for something to be done about it, but the evidence that was brought to us by our staff was that the president s connection with mr. Dean was very, very slight during those particular days, picked up only in the months of 1973. Its true that dean and nixon had a meeting on the 15th of september, but there isnt one shred of evidence that anything was done as result of that meeting on the 15th of set september, and no real evidence that anyone took the comment seriously. Certainly on mr. Deans request of irs consideration of certain people, there was nothing done. The names were put away and were never presented to another soul. There had been a suggestion that perhaps the irs was used to help friends. A few of them had come to the people in the white house and said they were being harassed on the irs. I wonder how many congressmen had come to them and said they were being harassed by some agency of the federal government. These were checked into by a simple request, what is happening . This is the testimony that we have. There is no special consideration given. There was no evidence of any pressure put on these people. What kind of count for impeachment is that . We have the question of the plumbers group. It is a name given to the 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 sworn testimony that says with respect of the purpose of the special investigations unit, it is sworn testimony that he was given oral instruction by mr. John ehrlichman 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 wiretaps approved by J Edgar Hoover and the president. As mentioned, two or three other wiretaps that were not authorized by the president and no showing whatsoever of any authorization by the president but the 17 wiretaps were actually made at the president s request, at least with his signature, were definitely brought about by a very great concern of Henry Kissinger with the salt talk negotiations that were going to take place and the knowledge that might be given to a foreign country. The time of the gentleman has expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The gentleman has not yet been recognized. [laughter] the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Thank you again, mr. Chairman. Im very proud and honored to associate myself with the remarks of my dear friend, a very great lawyer, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. Donahue. 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 heart and great sadness, we must vote for this article of impeachment. I yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman from new jersey 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 the 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 had no knowledge, did not authorize those acts. A great deal has been said, and in fact proven, that this staff member did this, and that staff member did that, and these Staff Members in concert did this and did that. But mr. Chairman, i submit to you that the proof fails, it fails in a very volatile respect. When it fails to draw the line to the president of the United States. Now on the question of wiretapping that weve heard so much about, and without going into detail, because it has been thoroughly discussed, what do we really have here . We have heard the urgent please by mr. Henry kissinger to stop the leaks in the National Security council. 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 that mr. Henry kissinger, who in my opinion would be the highest authority in the land as to whether or not leak would affect the security of the United States. What we have here in response to that plea, the president is in pursuant of his constitutional duty to protect the United States, ordered the wiretaps that stopped the leaks. As i said in my previous remarks today, i for one, mr. Chairman, would on the basis of Henry Kissinger making the request, if mr. Nixon refused to take this action to protect the United States by ordering these wiretaps, i, for one, would vote to impeach him for that refusal of his constitutional duties and responsibilities. In closing, mr. Chairman, let me say that i think we ought to give some serious consideration to exactly what we are doing here. As to Richard Nixon was elected by 47 Million People of these United States to be the president of the United States. What i have heard, and on what i have heard today, i cannot and will not bring myself to remove to vote to remove that choice of 47 Million People and impeach Richard Nixon, president of the United States. Mr. Chairman, if i have any time left, i yield the balance of my time. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. Let me just complete my comments concerning the National Security. The threat was compounded by the fact that mr. Ellsberg was a former staff member of the National Security council itself, the prospect that he might divulge additional information, the realization that the soviet government has already received a copy of the pentagon papers on june 17 might be the recipient of additional classified information. He also had a broad area of access to classified information including the nations single integrated operations plan. What does this encompass . All of americas contingency plans in case of war, including integrated, conventional, nuclear options. That is what concerned the president. The time of the gentleman has expired. Recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. Im happy to yield to mr. Jordan a minute of my time. Mr. Chairman, one phrase in subparagraph three of article two which has generated much debate is that acting personally or through his subordinates and agents, there is no need to substantiate this phrase by agreeing or disagreeing with the madison superintendency theory because the charges which underlie this phrase are permeated with president ial commands, president ial directions, the president is in charge. The colloquy which gives 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. John mitchell and the gentleman from arkansas. Did you ever check to determine whether or not information relayed to you through mr. Haldeman was a correct reflection of the president s instructions . Mr. Mitchell there may have been occasions, congressman, that i would have to say that and most all instances that i can recall, mr. Haldemans 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 information you had passed to him through mr. Haldeman had been received by him . Mr. Mitchell no, i dont believe i did. But i think there 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 sentries ago at runnymede. They were our legal and moral ancestors because they revolted against tyranny. I want to pay tribute to nine to two men who made this possible. I am honored and humbled because these two men happened to be my constituents. One is a democrat, one is a republican. I speak about Archibald Cox and Elliot Richardson. When they follow their conscience, reno in citizens wire their congressman and this inquiry began. These two good men never realized that their decision not to submit, not to go along with 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. The distinguished professor and author, he would not back down. He would not be calm part of the government. The secretary of hud of you and defense 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 would 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. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We have spent all of today in the debate of this article which says the president of the United States, contrary to his trust as president and subversive to the Constitutional Government repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the Constitutional Rights of citizens, impairing the due and Proper Administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries or contravene the laws governing agencies of the executive branch of the government. I think probably almost everything has been said about this that could be said, from the comments that have been made i would say that a majority of the committee will support this article, and believes what it says, and there are some who dont feel that the evidence that has been produced in this long proceeding, that this committee has been involved in, that lays out a clear and convincing case that this is so, though president of the United States himself. I would like to yield two minutes of my time to the gentleman from indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding because something the gentleman from california, mr. Moorehead, said struck a very responsive chord with it i believe i have spent as much time in courtrooms defending the underdog as any man or woman on this committee, and i have done it enforcing their civil rights where it counted. And i have done it when every man and in the establishment was against my client, and when every public organ was crying loud for his blood. So that situation is nothing new to me at all. But i never expected to find myself in a similar situation where the president of the United States was concerned. Now that i have, i simply want to say that its my belief and opinion and my sincere opinion and believe that the president of the United States has exactly the same rights, and i will stand up for them exactly the same way, as did those humble citizens i used to represent. I thank you. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman one minute. I thank the gentleman for it yielding. In one minute, i would like to explain that while i voted against article one, which was the vote that we took on the last article, and i intend to vote in favor of article two. In my opinion, there was no proof, no clear and convincing proof of any criminality or any conduct of the president which involved him as a coconspirator. The president does have the constitutional oath that obligation to see to the faithful execution of the law, and with the multiple acts of misconduct, of illegality, of criminality being conducted in and around the white house by many of his top aides, it seems to me that the president has failed us in this take Care Provision of the constitution. While i bear no hostility or malice to the president , and 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. The gentleman has 40 seconds remaining. Thank you very much, and im sorry that my remarks failed to sway my colleague from illinois who sits on my right. With that i yield back the balance of my time. Recognize the gentleman from new york, mr. Rangel. I would like to thank you and the members of this committee because through their decision, they have restored some faith and integrity to our system of government. We have heard in the past many times the words law and order. Most americans recognize who those words were directed at an exactly what those words really meant. Today, mr. Chairman, that phrase has been restored to some of its original 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 has reportedly said that this committee does not properly reflect or represent the members of the house of representatives. And perhaps it does not for what the committee truly does. Nevertheless, the Committee System is part of the house of representatives. It is not part of our american way of life to attack the entire system merely because we differ with the results. President of the United States not only disregarded the law, but in fact fear the law, and feared the grand jury system in our nations capital. On march 20 7, 1973, the president in talking with ehrlichman 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. There is no way. Far better that you should be prosecuted on information from the United States attorney based on your conversation with United States attorney, then on an indictment by a grand jury of 15 blacks and three flights after this kind of investigation. The president responded, right. And the door of the white house, we are trying to protect it. Mr. Chairman, im satisfied that while the president is protected from indictment at this time from a grand jury in the nations capital, and while he has been denied his day in court as relates to the criminal court, that im satisfied that he would have had a fair hearing in the house of representatives, that he will have a fair trial in the u. S. Senate, and for the American People and 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 order. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I recognize the gentlelady 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. When he takes a solemn oath to defend and protect the constitution of the United States to the best of his ability, and the preamble of this constitution says we the people of the United States to secure the blessings of liberty, and 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 on. In which the ends justify the means, and in which this blessing of liberty has been trampled to our disgrace. Let us look first at this houston plan which our president approved. This houston plan which i read in anger twice or three times, says that dissent is tantamount to treason. Because it is tantamount to treason, the president has a right to bring to bear against any dissenter the force of the cia, the force of the fbi, illegally, that a person subject to having his mail opened or his house broken into or his phone tapped because he dissents. And its not at all we 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 wiretap by private operative on behalf of the white house is constitutional or legal . And that the president can put his imprimatur on that . Does anybody argue that that is within the bounds of the constitution . I cant believe it. And what about the ellsberg case . Perhaps the president didnt authorize the burglar in the first lace, but according to ehrlichman, he ratified it afterward. If it were such a horrendous crime in the president s eyes, then why didnt he exposed the people who were responsible to the criminal authorities . No, he covered it up. And he said that ehrlichman, who has since been convicted for that breakin, he said that ehrlichman 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 15, and we have his word. He didnt expose these people. He didnt throw haldeman out of his office. He didnt throw dean out of his office. At a later date, he said did you needed more help with the irs . The commissioner of the Internal Revenue service submitted affidavits to this comedian in which he said it was a white house intention to try to create a personal police force out of the alcohol, tobacco, and firearms part of the Internal Revenue service. What we have seen here is an attempt on the administration with the imprimatur of this president to bring retribution against those who seek to oppose the administration, and how many of us not world with president in the past, democrats are republicans, over agricultural or environmental or Foreign Policy or whatever. Does that give any president the license to burglarize our homes, to wiretap our phones, open our mail . I submit that if it does, we have gone down the long road to tyranny and the blessings of liberty that we warmed in this constitution 200 years ago to preserve will vanish very quickly. I would like to remind my colleagues that under the constitution of the United States am a we in the house of representatives, through the power of impeachment, 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. I recognize the gentleman from virginia. I yield my time to the gentleman from maryland. A number of our colleagues have 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 we have been involved today or in any of these recent deliberations in her presentation of evidence. But we have been involved in his debating amendments to these articles of impeachment, the evidentiary presentations of 10 weeks of our time after months of staff work. We should not give the impression that what we have been presenting his evidence, but what we have seen is the result of all of that labor, and having all 38 members of this Committee Study that evidence for 10 weeks in long sessions, day after day, hour after hour, an overwhelming majority of this committee can subscribe to the idea at that evidence supports these articles of impeachment. I yield back the balance of my time. Recognize the gentleman from utah, mr. Owens. Article one of impeachment focused on many instances of abuse, the coverup of the watergate breakin. Article two is a contrast of very serious abuses of the power 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. This is not a grab bag of president ial actions which a majority of the committee thinks is 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. Violations which are so grave and such an abuse of the president ial trust that the public wellbeing requires that they be corrected. There are other serious offenses of the president which do not, in my opinion, rise to the level of impeachable if he can meet on the basis of evidence before us, i do not believe the allegations of robbery, for example, have been sustained. But each one of the abuses contained in article two is adequate in itself to 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 conversation. I would hope that the president is watching this proceeding tonight. I feel that i have run to know him intimately over the past eight months. We are about to vote this new article of impeachment and do not wish him the slightest personal harm. We recognize there is tragedy involved. Theres only goodwill on this committee and i believe that every member asked tonight in accordance with his or her conscience in pursuit of a constitutional obligation, and i would hope that he would believe that. This article of impeachment does not attempt to apply new standards to this president. Well fly old standards, which everyone knows of through the impeachment process. And impeachment is the only remedy for the abuses which article to proposes to correct. Some of them are not criminal abuses, and even if they were criminal, the president , when sitting, is beyond criminal process. Probably the principal reason the framers included the impeachment power in the constitution was because they saw that the only remedy against a president or the unlawful enlargement of 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 said 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 they on rest will stand against the abuse of power and the invasion of Civil Liberties which would undermine our Constitutional Rights and the dignity of the individual. We should not forget that the history of liberty in the world is very short. The history of tyranny is very long, and the principal source of oppression is always been the unrestrained power of the state. Mr. Chairman . I ask unanimous consent to consider and adopt technical perfecting amendments. They have been distributed to each member. I ask unanimous consent, mr. Chairman. The gentleman from missouri asks unanimous consent that certain technical amendments be adopted. This is on page two on line four of page two. We strike out a comma following the words directing and at the bottom of the page, four lines from the bottom the page, you insert a comma immediately before which. On page three, the word misused is misspelled. A gentleman has read the amendment. Is there any objection . Without objection, technical amendments are adopted. The question now occurs on the adoption of the substitute as amended. All those in favor of the substitute as amended, please state aye. All as opposed . The ayes have it. All those in favor of the of the hungate amendment. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. No. Aye. No. No. Aye. No. No. Aye. No. Aye. Aye. Aye. No. Aye. No. No. No. Aye. The clerk will report. 28 members have voted aye. 10 members have voted no. The substitute as amended is agreed to. The question now occurs on the adoption of the article two of the resolution as amended by the hungate substitute. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. The ayes appear to have it. The call the roll is ordered. The clerk will call the roll. All those in favor of the adoption of the article two of the donahoe resolution please signify by saying aye. Those opposed by saying no. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. No. Aye. No. No. Aye. No. No. Aye. No. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. No. Aye. No. No. No. Aye. The clerk will report. 28 members have voted aye, 10 members have voted no. To. He resolution is agreed article two is amended is adopted and will be reported to the house. The committee will recess until 10 30 tomorrow morning