And my colleagues on this committee know full well that we cannot escape history. That the decision we must jointly make will itself be tested and tried by our fellow citizens, and by history itself. The magnitude of our mission is awesome. Theres no way to understate its importance. Nor to mistake its meaning. We have unsheathed the strongest weapon in the arsenal of congressional power. We personally, members of this committee, have felt its weight, and have perceived its dangers. The framers of the constitution, fearing an executive too strong to be contained, and constrained from injustice or subject to reproof arrayed the congress with the power to bring the executive into account, and into peril of removal for acts of treason, bribery, or other crimes of high and misdemeanors. Now the first responsibility facing members of this committee was to try to define what an Impeachable Offense is. The constitution doesnt define it. The precedents, which are sparse, do not give us any real guidance as to what constitutes an Impeachable Offense. So each of us in our own conscience, in our own mind, in our own heart, after much study, had to decide for ourselves what constitutes an Impeachable Offense. Obviously it must be something so grievous that it warrants the removal of the president of the United States from office. I dont agree with those that say Impeachable Offense is anything that Congress Wants it to be. And i dont agree with those who say that it must be an indictable criminal offense. But somewhere in between is the standard against which we must measure the president s conduct. There are some who say that he should be impeached for the wrongdoing of his aides and associates. I dont concur in that. I think we must find personal wrongdoing on his part if were going to justify his impeachment. The president was elected by an overwhelming mandate from the American People to serve as their president for four years. And we obviously must be very, very cautious as we attempt to overturn this mandate and the historic proportions that this deliberation have. After a member decides what, to his mind, constitutes an Impeachable Offense, he then had to decide what standard of proof he would use in trying to determine whether or not the president of the United States had committed an Impeachable Offense. Now some have said that were analogous to a grand jury. And a grand juror only need find probable cause that a criminal defendant had committed an offense in order to send the matter to trial. But because of the vast ramifications of this impeachment, i think we need to insist on a much higher standard. Our counsel recommended clearly and convincing proof. Thats really the standard for civil liability. That or preponderance of the evidence. And i think we need a higher standard than that when the question is removing the president of the United States from office. So i came down myself to the position that we can have no less a standard of proof than we insist on when a criminal trial is involved. Where to deny an individual of his liberty, we insist that the case against him be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And i say that we can insist on no less when the matter is of such overriding import as this impeachment proceeding. I started out with a presumption of innocence for the president , because every citizen of this country is entitled to a presumption of innocence. And my fight for fairness on this committee is obvious to my 37 friends and colleagues who i think will corroborate that i was as outspoken as every member any member of this committee in calling our very fine staff to task when i thought they were demonstrating bias against the president , when i thought they were leaving from the record parts of the evidence which were exonerating of the president. I fought with the chairman and the majority, with some of my colleagues on this side, insisting that every element of fairness be given to the president , that his counsel should sit in on our deliberations and offer arguments and evidence and call witnesses, and my friend from alabama mentioned that earlier. Mr. Flowers. But he will also have to confess that most of these concessions to fairness were made only after partisan dispute and debate, which is what our whole legislative process is about. In the congress. So i dont concede to anyone on this committee any position of fighting harder and stronger that the president get a fair hearing of the evidence. And while i do have some individual, specific objections to isolated incidents of unfairness, i think on the whole the proceeding has been fair. Now im a republican. Party loyalty and personal affection, and precedents of the past must fall, i think, before the arbiter of mens actions. The law itself. No man, not even the president of the United States, is above the law. For our system of justice, and our system of government to survive, we must pledge our highest allegiance to the strength of the law and not to the common frailties of men. Now a few days ago, after having heard and read all the evidence, and all the witnesses, and the arguments by our own staff and the president s lawyer, i came to a conclusion. And i felt that the debates which we began last night were more or less pro forma and i think theyve so far indicated that. I feel that most of my colleagues before this debate began had made up their minds on the evidence, and i did. So i saw no reason to wait before announcing the way i felt and how i was going to vote. I read and reread and sifted and tested the massive information and then i came to my conclusion. That Richard Nixon has, beyond a reasonable doubt, committed Impeachable Offenses, which in my judgment are of sufficient magnitude that he should be removed from office. Now that announcement was met with a great deal of criticism from friends, from government officials, from colleagues in congress. I was accused of making a political decision. If i had decided to vote against impeachment, i venture to say that i would also have been criticized for making a political decision. One of the unfortunate things about being in politics is that everything you do is given evil or political motives. My friend from alabama, mr. Flowers, said that the decision that we make is one that were going to have to live with the rest of our lives. And for anyone to think that this decision could be made on a political basis, with so much at stake, is something that i personally resent. It isnt easy for me to align myself against the president to whom i gave my enthusiastic support in three president ial campaigns. On whose side ive stood in many a legislative battle. Whose accomplishments, in foreign and Domestic Affairs ive consistently applauded. But its impossible for me to condone or ignore the long train of abuses to which he has subjected the presidency, and the people of this country. The constitution, and my own oath of office, demand that i bear true faith and allegiance to the principles of law and justice upon which this nation was founded. And i cannot, in good conscience, turn away from the evidence of evil that is, to me, so clear and compelling. My friend from iowa, mr. Main, details some of the allegations against prior administrations. And i dont in any way question that. I agree with them, that there was wrongdoing on the part of previous president s. Maybe all president s. But i was not in a position where i had to take a stand, where i approved or disapproved of blatant wrongdoing. And i am in that position now. My friend from new jersey, mr. Sandman, said last night he wants to see direct proof, and some of my other friends on this side of the aisle have said the same thing. But i submit that what theyre looking for is an arrow to the heart. And we do not find in the evidence an arrow to the heart. We find a virus that is that creeps up on you slowly and gradually until its obviousness is so overwhelming to you. Now hes asked for direct proof. I think its a mistake for any of us to begin looking for one sentence or one word or one document which compels us to vote for or against impeachment. Its like looking at a mosaic and going down and focusing in on one single tile in the mosaic and say, i see nothing wrong in that one little piece of this mosaic. We have to step back and we have to look at the whole picture, and when you look at the whole mosaic of the evidence thats come before us, to me, its overwhelming beyond a reasonable doubt. Lets look at the president s own words. He uses the words coverup and cap on the bottle, and the plan, and containment, and hes concerned about what witnesses have said, and what they will say. Hes concerned about where the investigation is going. Now lets focus in on the thing that everybody talks about, the hunt payment. Lets look at this as reasonable and prudent men. What did mr. Hunt intend . His payments and demands had been relayed through his wife before her death. After his wife, he had to make them directly. So what did he do . He called coulson to make demands. And we have a transcript of what he said and i want to quote. This is a long haul thing and the stakes are very, very high and i thought that youd want to know that this thing must not break apart for foolish reasons. Were protecting the guy s who are really responsible, but at the same time this is a twoway street. And as i said before, we think that now is the time when a move should be made, and surely the cheapest commodity available is money. And then he went and he talked to colesons lawyer, bitman, and to bitman he told him the same thing, that commitments were made, and he would blow the lid off the whole thing unless the money was paid to him. And then he went and saw obrien, the attorney for the committee to reelect the president , and he said to him that he had to have 60,000 for legal fees and 75,000 for family support. He said if he didnt get it, he would reveal a number of seamy things that he had done for the white house and if things didnt happen soon, hed have to review his options. The man that was making those demands had over 200,000 dollars in the bank that he had collected from his wifes insurance. So i ask my colleagues on the committee, what would the reasonable and prudent man assume that he had in mind . Its obvious he intended to blackmail the white house. Well now lets go inside the white house. And lets see what they say. They talk about this, can we raise a Million Dollars . You know, is this the way to go . There will be other demands from him . How were the payments made in the past . These are the president s own words. He says, well can we handle it through the Cuban Committee the way we handled it before . Indicating he already knew about the previous payments made. These are his own words. And then he says, wasnt that handled through the Cuban Committee . And john dean says, well, no, not exactly. Thats not the way it was. And the president say, well thats the way its going to have to be. Is this an urging to conceal the truth or is it not . So the payment was made to hunt and it doesnt matter to me whether the president approved it before it was made. A conspirator is all we lawyers know can get in on a conspiracy at any point, even after the fact. So its immaterial whether or not the point in time when he said okay, i approve it, you pay it. The fact is, and the thing thats so appalling to me is that the president when this whole idea was suggested to him didnt in righteous indignation rise up and say, get out of here, youre in the office of the president of the United States. How can you talk about blackmail and bribery and keeping witnesses silent . This is the presidency of the United States, and throw them out of his office and pick up the phone and call the department of justice and tell them theres an obstruction of justice going on. Someones trying to buy the sigh lebs of a witness. But my president didnt do that. He sat there and he worked and worked to try to cover this thing up so it wouldnt come to light. And the fbi is conducting an investigation, so he says publicly, i want to cooperate with the investigation and the prosecution. But privately, all his words compel a contrary conclusion. He didnt cooperate with the investigation or the prosecution. And its already been said by some that Henry Peterson called and he said initially in the conversation, well its not going to go any further. I know i have to keep this secret. He had no sooner hung up the phone when he was telling the defendants about whom this damaging information was made. What they could do to counteract the case that the prosecution had against him. Well i could go on and on and on. Im surprised that some of my colleagues, the telephone call from pat gray. Pat gray was a man who did many things wrong. He was loyal to his leader. But at some point his conscience bothered him and he wanted to tell the president of the United States that his aides were destroying the presidency the time of the gentleman has expired. Give the gentleman an opportunity to finish his sentence. I appreciate that, chairman. Pat gray called the president to tell him that his aides were destroying the presidency, and instead of the president saying well give me more information about this, i want to know if my aides are doing anything wrong, i want to know, and pat gray says in his testimony, there was a perceptible pause, and the president said, pat, you just continue to conduct your aggressive and thorough investigation. He didnt have to know because he already knew. And he consistently tried to cover up the evidence and obstruct justice. And as much as it pains me to say it, he should be impeached and removed from office. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Two years ago when i was elected to serve in this capacity as the representative of the people of maine, i had no idea that id be called upon to pass judgment on the president of the United States. Its an assignment that i really did not anticipate, or request. But a responsibility from which i cannot retreat. Whatever that ultimate impact might be upon my own life, and that of my family. Every member last evening, today, has expressed the anxiety with which hes approached this impeachment process. And ive shared in that anxiety and that apprehension. I know that there flowers of alabama has even developed an ulcer over this particular matter. But we take some consolation in the knowledge that throughout the ages, men and women have always approached the impeachment process with same apprehension and sense of awe. Talked about how good a job our staff has done, indeed they have. One of the first quotes that i recall reading was from lord chancellor sommers back in 1691, when he remarked that the impeachment process was like goliaths sword, ought to be kept in the temple and not used but on great occasions. And the question that we have to decide is whether this committee should recommend to the house that that sword be taken from the temple, and handed to the senate, in order to protect and preserve the integrity of the constitution of the United States. Selection of the president occupies a very unique position within our political system. Its the one act of which the entire country participates and the result is binding upon all of the states for four years. The outcome is accepted. The occupant of that office stands as a symbol of our National Unity and commitment. So if the judgment of the people is to be reversed. If the majority of the will is to be undone, if that symbol is to be replaced through the action of the elected representatives, then it must be for substantial and not trivial offenses supported by facts and not by surmise. Weve heard a great deal of debate, and you will hear more, devoted to the question of the construction to be given to that phrase high crimes and misdemeanors. Its been suggested the phrase is limited to violations of statutory crimes. Well thats an interpretation that i cant accept. Because the purpose of that constitutional provision was to prevent the chief executive from engaging in the gross abuse of that tremendous power invested in that office, to protect the people against the diversion of the rule of law, and of fundamental liberty, no matter how silent or how subtle that subversion may be. One constitutional scholar very recently in his book pointed out that if the president of the United States were to refuse to appoint any member of the catholic faith to a governmental position, there would be no violation of our criminal laws. But surely there would be a violation of the constitution with says there shall be no religious test for office. Its an exaggerated example, perhaps. But i think it makes rather clear that the impeachment process involves a determination as to those acts which strike at the very core of our constitutional and political system that must be judged. Its within this framework that i have conducted myself in an attempt to search out in a very dispassionate, objective, and nonpartisan fashion for the past six or seven months. A number of people have written to me over those months, calls, letters, asking that we place the president on trial immediately, based upon what they had read in the newspapers, and what they had watched on television. But the american system of justice demands much more than that. And basic and fundamental fairness to the president demands much more than that. The search for truth has been long and painful but i have not been prepared to put the president or his country through the ordeal of a trial unless the allegations leveled against the president were established by clear and convincing evidence to my satisfaction. An weve had more than 50 allegations leveled against the president , and upon examination, investigation, reflection on my part, i found many of them to be simply without any factual support. Others have been very serious, and theyve been mentioned before. The secret bombing of cambodia, the impoundment of funds appropriated by congress, the expenditure of tax dollars for the personal benefit of the president s home in california. But in each of these cases and areas after giving full consideration to all the factors involved i concluded they would not support the president s removal. There are two major allegations of which i a