Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Barbara Jordan.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Barbara Jordan. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. Barbara Jordan (D - Texas). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, when Mr. St. Clair, the President's attorney, started to present to us his closing summation of the case before this committee, he said as a matter of first instance that a President cannot be impeached by piling, inference upon inference. Now, I agree with that, but if the President had complied with the subpoenas for information issued by this committee, there would be no necessity for an inference to be drawn in the first instance. If the President had provided the best evidence which this committee sought, there would be no necessity for us to infer anything. Example. The June 20 conversation is important. The 18 1/2 minute gap is on the conversation that the President has with Mr. Haldeman. We subpoenaed, this committee subpoenaed conversations which the President had on the 20th of June with Mr. Charles Colson. He talked to Mr. Colson four times that day. Mr. Colson knew about the Liddy plan for intelligence gathering. If we had had compliance with the subpoena of this committee and had secured those four conversations, we may not have to infer what the President knew on the June 20 tape which was manually erased. The argument that this subpoena power of this committee violates separation of powers doctrine has no validity in my judgment in that the fact that we have three separate branches of Government does not mean that we have three Governments. They are independent, but relatively dependent. Consequently, this partial intermixture of powers gives rise to the whole workings and the whole functioning of the Government. If the President had cooperated with this committee, it would have been a part of the whole working of the matter of the impeachment, process as we have tried to go forward with it.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment
Caldwell Butler (R-Virginia). Who else does your list have? Elizabeth Holtzman (D-New York). Representative Arends, ranking Republican, Armed Services, cannot remember being told but in might have been. Caldwell Butler (R-Virginia). But the testimony of the Department of Defense was that Representative Arends was advised of it, yes. Elizabeth Holtzman (D-New York). That is their statement, yes. And Representative Rivers, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee of the House, is now deceased. According to the President, Representative Hebert, presently chairman of the Armed Services Committee of the House. Caldwell Butler (R-Virginia). Thank you. Elizabeth Holtzman (D-New York). But if I could - Caldwell Butler (R-Virginia). Did Mr. Kissinger also testify to the effect that selected Members of the Congress had been informed of the, bombing, strikes? Elizabeth Holtzman (D-New York). I am unaware of whether or not he testified to this but I think that the testimony of the persons is unclear as to exactly what they were informed with respect to the bombing.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Joseph Maraziti
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Joseph Maraziti Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Maraziti, is recognized for 4 minutes. Joseph J. Maraziti (R-New Jersey). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In a recent case, the recent case last week, the court decided that if the President felt that he must exercise a right or a privilege for the welfare of the People of this nation be should do so. And the President did exactly that in the Jaworski case, and the court decided. Now, contrary to what has been said here today, the doctrine of executive privilege is still alive. It is still a valid doctrine, and the court stated that the bare exercise, the vacant exercise of the privilege is not sufficient. There must be a showing of national security interests or diplomatic considerations and so on. So, the doctrine is still valid. Now, this committee certainly has the right to recommend and to decide to recommend any number of articles of impeachment to the House. But as Mr. Dennis has stated, this committee does not have the right, and thank God it does not, to decide all constitutional questions and just what the Constitution means in every particular instance. Now, here we have a dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch, and in cases of disputes between departments, the Supreme Court must decide and does decide. And I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this committee had a very, very simple solution to this dilemma. It was proposed in the Dennis motion several months ago, supported by some of us, to join the Jaworski application and make our application, get a decision, and let me say here and now that if the court had decided that the President should exhibit those tapes and deliver those tapes to this committee, and if he refused, I would have voted impeachment on that ground. But failing in that, this committee failing to take the action to support the Dennis motion and get a definitive decision, I cannot support this article of impeachment.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.36.23] The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks, is recognized. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman. there can be no satisfaction in impeaching a President of the United States, but it is essential to remove from our body politic any President whose actions threaten to destroy our System. The checks and balance system incorporated in our Constitution places this responsibility on the Congress. And the future strength Of our democratic form of government requires us to exercise this Power at this time. Under Mr. Nixon, the Constitution and the laws of the United States have been so abused, so distorted, so ignored, and so converted to personal use that continued respect and support for our system Of law and equality before that law demands that he who has so abused this process be, removed from office. We must demonstrate to future generations of Americans that no man, even the President, can put himself above the law. Now, Mr. Chairman, many people voted for Richard Nixon in. the last election. Most Republicans, and a lot of Democrats. I did not. But those who did had no way of knowing that the man in whom they had placed their trust would so abuse it. No one who voted for Richard Nixon need he ashamed of that vote for no one could have known what was happening or what was to occur. We have, been disappointed in him and I know that the vast majority of people who supported him do not condone the way he abused that power. Mr. Chairman, to permit such behavior to go unanswered can only have the effect of destroying the American people's faith in our constitutional form of government. I yield the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Fish, is recognized. Mr. FISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in the -way article I concerned obstruction of justice, article II as 1 understand it is based on abuses of power or expressed in the negative the constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. We heard quite a lot of discourse on this subject this morning and frankly I found it to be quite legalistic. Now, obviously to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as a mandate to the President doesn't mean that he personally executes all the laws. Well, what does it mean? I can't help but believe that this constitutional requirement is plain and understandable. Now, I would like to pose some, suggestions, some questions to you, Mr. Jenner, to see if we can't -work out in everyday language just -what this constitutional responsibility upon which this article rests means. Would you say that included in this responsibility is the duty on the President not to mislead his subordinates, not to put in motion a course of action by perhaps some loose language such as to order something be done indicating you don't care how it is to be done'? Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir, Mr. Congressman, Mr. FISH. Would you say that in addition there is a duty incumbent on the President to police his lieutenants, to see that they are, operating within proper bounds? Mr. JENNER. I think that is inherent in the clause. Mr. FISH. Would you further say that the President would have a duty to be alert to what is going on, such a duty as President -Nixon. manifests in his daily careful reading summary of the news that was brought to him? Mr. JENNER. I think that is a clear thrust of the clause. Mr. FISH. And finally, and maybe not finally, if you care to add more, but there is a fourth thought I will in put forward, that the President would have a duty to find out what is going on in those agencies of Government set up by the Congress and the people such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the CIA, and furthermore, a duty to disclose to them any information that he has knowing of their interest in that information? [00.41.05]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.56.55] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 2 more minutes; 10 minutes now are remaining for those in support of the amendment amendment, and 10 minutes remaining in opposition to the amendment. The gentleman from California, Mr. WIGGINS. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Maraziti, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. MARAZITI. Thank you. I support the motion of the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins. There was clear legal authority for the warrantless national security wiretaps at the time that the 17 taps were conducted. Now former Attorney General Richardson, referring to case law, has stated that the. Department of Justice is justified in relying on lower court decisions permitting national security wiretaps. And let me say that I certainly agree with what has been said here today that we must look at the circumstances to justify wiretaps On the, basis of national security. But, I believe that the circumstances surrounding these wiretaps demonstrate clearly that they involved national security. Now, as has been discussed, we know that the Government at that time, or we must look back, -we cannot look as of today, the Government was faced with massive leaks of sensitive foreign policy information When the President was just beginning to establish policies of future relationships with other nations, these leaks began in the spring of 1969, when President Nixon was exploring the solutions to the Vietnam -war. These leaks were damaging to the diplomatic efforts being made to end the war at that time. And I disagree with the gentleman from California, Mr. Edwards, that these wiretaps had nothing , to do with the Vietnam war. Let us listen to Henry Kissinger and see what Henry Kissinger thought. And here, is what Mr. Kissinger thought. "Each of the above disclosures were extremely damaging with respect to this Government's relationship and credibility with its allies. With the South Vietnam Government to hear publicly of our apparent willingness to consider unilateral withdrawals, without first discussing such an approach with them, raised a serious question as to our reliability and credibility as an ally." And they had a great deal to do with the Vietnam war, quoting Mr. Kissinger. And I think be is an authority in this area. Some of the most damaging leaks occurred with regard to the SALT negotiations, And despite what the gentleman from California states, the SALT negotiations were involved. On January 20, 1969, when the President first took office, be immediately directed that, in overall study be Undertaken regarding the U.S. strategic force posture for the internal USE! Of the Government and for the Use in the SALT negotiations. Now, notwithstanding the need for secrecy of the study, and it is obvious, the May 2, 1969, edition of a large newspaper reported five strategic options under study. These options were published in the press, in advance before they Were considered by the National Security Council of the U.S. Government. The damaging nature of these disclosures was summed up by Henry Kissinger again. He said, "-Each of these disclosures -was of, the most extreme gravity, as presentations of the, Government's thinking on these key issues provided the Soviet Union with extensive insight as to our approach to the SALT negotiations. I say, I say again, they, had reference, these wiretaps had reference to the SALT negotiations. Mr. EILBERG. . Mr. Chairman ? Mr. MARAZITI. Now, let, me say that the results of the wiretaps in several instances were fruitful. Now, we must realize that when wiretaps are placed, they certainly will pick up certain personal items that were not needed, but, in this Particular case the results -were, successful in a number of instances. The, FBI reported that several of the National Security Council staff members had extensive contacts with members of the press. In particular, two employees, X and L, discussed many aspects of the internal workings of the National Security Council with a newsman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Chairman ? Mr. MARAZITI. I ask for 1 more moment, to finish. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time is expired, the 5 minutes-'. Mr. WIGGINS. Well, I cannot yield at the moment, but I will see, you get more time. Mr. MARAZITI. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the motion to strike. We are told that national security is involved, but I would like to suggest that the mere assertion of national security not enough, The gentleman from Wisconsin has given the Criteria, and I think the members can read for themselves and see that the criteria have not been met. More importantly, they have seen the excerpts for themselves and I am sure that the memory of these excerpts is present in the minds of all of the members. Certainly I recall them very vividly, and perhaps have reason to. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Nixon himself on February 28, stated that the taps were a joke, that these taps were a Joke and that they never had proved anything. It, seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this was all adventure into the private rights of individual citizens, and I would like to discuss for a moment just -what- the use of wiretaps and secret listening devices means in a free society. I am sure we all remember the stories on television and the movies and books about Spying, which has gone into Nazi Germany and into the Soviet Union, and we have learned how in Russia you must never have a serious conversation without turning on the. water or the radio so that your conversation cannot be heard by the, secret listening devices. And it is also an axiom that the telephone is tapped in Russia so that everyone takes long walks in the park so that they can communicate. This has become an article of faith that in Russia Big Brother has arrived, that the secret police are always listening. Now we learn that in the late 1960's and early 1970's and possibly right up to this date, the secret police have been listening in------ [01.04.18---TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
(DO NOT USE images with Jim Lehrer) Paul Duke asks what is the likelihood of Nixon giving the tapes or transcripts directly to the Judiciary Committee.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (1/2)
And in fact Ehrlichman and Mitchell were indicted for committing perjury before the Watergate Grand Jury on the grounds they could not remember. It is clear to me that the President was approving or at least in hush money payments amount of over $400,000 to buy silence of Watergate burglars, The President discussed the matter paying Hunt 10 separate times in a conversation on March 21 and Haldeman and the last time the President discussed it he said and I quote:"That's why for your immediate thing you have got no choice with Hunt but the 120, or whatever it is. Right? Would you agree that's a buy time thing? You better damn well get that done but fast. Well, for Christ's sake. get it." perhaps some people find ambiguities in that conversation. I don't. on the subject of executive clemency, the, record is clear and convincing. For example, in April of 1973 the President was afraid that Magruder would reveal Haldeman's role in the Watergate break-in to the Special Prosecutor. President Nixon told his aide to soften Magruder's testimony by showing the President's personal concern for Magruder and thus suggesting executive clemency. These are the President's words: "I would say, 'Jeb, let me just start here by telling you the, President holds great affection for you and for your family-" Also, I would put that in so that he knows I have personal affection. That is how the so-called clemency has got to be handled." And Ehrlichman reported back to the President that. the clemency message was transmitted to Magruder. In lateMarch and April 1973, the President tried to obstruct the investigation by the Watergate Grand Jury and the Department of Justice. After John Dean had confessed to the President His own pre-break-in involvement and that of Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Colson, the President on March 27 instructed John Ehrlichman to tell the Attorney General of the United States, Richard Kleindienst, an untruth. These were the, Presidents directions to Ehrlichman : "I think you have got to say Dean was not involved had no prior knowledge Haldeman had no 'Prior knowledge. Ehrlichman had none. And Colson had none." And Ehrlichman transmitted the message. During the period from April 15, 1973,' to April 30 1973 the President personally spoke 27 times with the Acting Attorney General, Henry Petersen, who was in charge of the Watergate investigation. President lied to Petersen. The President obtained confidential information from Mr. Petersen which he then used to coach witnesses, despite all of the information President Nixon had about his aides' Involvement in Watergate he held back what he knew and told Petersen nothing.To this day, President Nixon has never told all he knows about Watergate to any investigating body. And to this day, President Nixon continues to impede an investigation, this time our committee's inquiry. He has given us partial documents representing them to be complete. He has given us tape recordings containing unexplained silences, and he has refused used to comply with our lawful subpenas for tape recordings and documents. This on top of the fact that he permitted a critical tape held in his sole possession to be erased--after a subpena for it was issued by the Special Prosecutor. In sum, since almost June 17, 1972, Mr. Nixon has tried to hide incriminating evidence about his involvement and that of his aides in the Watergate coverup. First, by attempting to prevent investigations taking place. And when he could not prevent such investigations from taking place, by encouraging witnesses to lie about the incriminating evidence. And when he could not get witnesses to lie about incriminating evidence, by withholding that, incriminating evidence. And when he could not -with hold that incriminating evidence, by allowing that evidence to be destroyed. And what is even more disturbing to me is that the illegal burglary and wiretapping, the obstruction of justice that is so painfully clear in the Watergate matter, was not an isolated instance of wrongdoing. have seen that the President authorized a series of illegal Wiretaps, for his own political advantage, and not only did he thereby violate the fundamental constitutional rights of the people of this country, but he tried to cover up those illegal acts in the very same way that he, tried to cover up the. Watergate. He lied to the prosecutors. He tried to stop investigations. he tried to buy silence, and he failed to report criminal conduct. And if this weren't enough, the President misused the CIA and the FBI by trying to get them to execute the plans for the illegal surveillance and burglary, and to carry out the coverup of these acts. Mr. Chairman, I feel very deeply that the President's impeachment & removal from office is the, only remedy for the acts we have seen. First because the Presidential coverup is continuing even through today.There is no way it can be ended short of the President's removal. And second, because the violation of the people's constitutional rights has been so systematic and so persistent, I must conclude that it is only through the President's removal from office, that we can guarantee to the American people that they will remain secure in the liberties granted to them under the Constitution. I yield back the balance of my time.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert Kastenmeier Statement
This being as far as the deliberation of the committee for many months is concerned a concluding episode. I would like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to our professional staff. I am proud to claim that John Doer and Richard Cates are from my home state of Wisconsin. And as well I would like to pay my respects to Mr. Jenner from the neighboring state of Illinois. These and others who have so ably counseled us these past months I m sure long after this matter has been put to rest that we are concluding in committee this week, can go to bed nights secure in the knowledge that they have been faithful to their conscience and to their country. Indeed if those legal advisors to the President in former times had such a view the President this proceeding and other proceedings might not have been necessary.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Peter Rodino Statement
We have reached the moment when we are ready to debate resolutions whether or not the Committee on the Judiciary should recommend that the House of Representatives adopt articles calling for the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon. Make no mistake about it. This is a turning point, whatever we decide. Our judgment is not concerned with an individual but with a system of constitutional government. It has been the history and the good fortune of the United States ever since the Founding Fathers, that each generation of citizens and their officials have been, within tolerable limits, faithful custodians of the Constitution and of the rule of law. For almost 200 years every generation of Americans has taken care to preserve our system and the integrity of our institutions against the particular pressures and emergencies to which every time is subject. This committee must now decide a question of the highest Constitutional importance. For more than 2 years, there have been serious allegations, by people of good faith and sound intelligence, that the President, Richard M. Nixon, has committed grave and systematic violations of the Constitution.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.57.47] Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. I believe the panel is laboring under what I believe to be the false impression that this substitute will be read in full and open for amendment at any point. The Chair has not made such a ruling and I would suggest that the parliamentary situation--I ought to ask the Chair's ruling if there an amendment proposed, it must, be proposed at the point the proposal would come up, and I do believe the panel is laboring under the impression that the he entire article Will be read and open for amendment any point. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is advised that the substitute is open for amendment at any point,. Mr. FLOWERS. Well, Mr. Chairman. I respectfully suggest that that is the, first time the Chair has ruled that way and if you are saying it is open for amendment as it is being read or it will be read--- The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Mr. FLOWERS. Well, it, is not open for amendment at any point you reach that point, then, is that, right? The CHAIRMAN. Well, the whole, amendment Or the, whole article would be read, but it would then be amended at any point, open for amendment at any point. Mr. FLOWERS. After 'he reading of the reading of the entire article. The CHAIRMAN. Correct. Mr. FLOWERS. THAT IS the Chair's ruling now? The CHAIRMAN. is the ]ruling Of the Chair. Mr. FLOWERS. I thank the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will proceed. The, CLERK. [reading]: Committed illegal entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, made it his policy, and in furtherance of such policy did act directly and personally and through his close subordinates and agents, to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible.; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this policy have included one or more of the following: (1) making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States; (2) withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States; (3) approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings; (4) interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force; (5) approving, condoning., and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing, the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such illegal entry and other illegal activities; (6) endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States; (7) disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability. (8) making false or misleading, public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been Conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Executive Branch of the United States and pertinent of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct; or (9) endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their Dee or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony. In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted In a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice the cause of law and justice and to, the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and removal from office. [01.03.45] [cut to Paul DUKE in studio] DUKE explains that Rep. SARBANES' motion was a compromise motion on the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE question, which Rep. SARBANES will defend in debate. [01.04.01--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 J. Edward Hutchinson Statement
Early in the inquiry the staff submitted a memorandum on what constitutes an impeachable offense within the meaning of the Constitution. But the committee took no action upon it, it being recognized that no definition could be drawn which would be agreed to probably by most members. Thus as of this minute the committee has not resolved just what an impeachable offense is. As the staff assembled evidence many of us thought that the Committee should decide and give some direction to the staff as to the scope of the inquiry. We thought the Committee should direct the staff into those areas of inquiry in which the committee itself determined that it might be merit so that time and effort would not be consumed in frivolous or otherwise non-meritorious allegations. But such a course of action would have required the committee to make decisions of substance. And no decisions were made. The articles of impeachment which are to be exhibited tonight are, like any legislative bill, merely a vehicle upon which the committee may work its will. They will be open to additions, to deletions, amendments and substitutions. Each member of this committee individually weighing the evidence against his own concept of what warrants impeachment will come to his own conclusion on how he votes on the articles in their final form. Each of us is struck by the enormity of the decision that we are called upon to make.
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. House Representative Gerry Studds (D-MA) proceeds to read out portions of the 1982 U.S. - Lebanese Agreement which was used as the basis for allowing U.S. forces to be sent to Lebanon; adult Caucasian female taking notes in BG. Rep. Studds: “Now, that appeared to be the case when this Congress was first presented with the administration's rationale for participation by our country in a multinational force in Lebanon. It is no longer even arguably the case. We have been under assault by more than one of the factions. The Government of Lebanon undertook to assure us that would not occur.” Rep. Studds argues that the situation has now changed, the agreement is no longer being adhered to, and so the Congressional authority to use U.S. military forces, contingent upon those original conditions, is no longer valid. He invites U.S. Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger to respond to his observations.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
19.27 Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman, Mr. Mayne. Wiley Mayne (R Iowa). I thank the chairman for yielding and I want to thank him also for his patience tonight. And to assure the Chairman that I am not trying to delay these proceedings but I ask for this time because I am very genuinely concerned whether the person charged here with very serious offenses, who happens to be the President of the United States, is really given adequate and fair notice of the nature of this charge. Which has been stated a number of times in this particular subparagraph it is that either personally or through subordinates and agents he has made false and misleading statements to authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States.
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. House Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) makes his case against the withdrawal of U.S. Marines from Lebanon, because that would send a message that the U.S. “is giving up on its efforts to bring about a stable Lebanon”. The Marines should remain to retain leverage for a peaceful political settlement and ceasefire in the country. He is thankful for Rep. Lee Hamilton’s (D-IN), statement and agrees with it. Rep. Hamilton jokes that Rep. Hyde’s statement was “unusually articulate”; Rep. Hyde (o/s) laughs. Rep. Hamilton recognizes Rep. Edward “Larry” Winn Jr. (R-KS), who states his concerns about a possible Israeli-Syrian clash. He asks U.S. Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger what the Israeli view is on the presence of U.S. forces in Lebanon. Eagleburger concurs with the opinion of Israel’s Ambassador Meir Rosenne, which he cited in his opening statement, that withdrawing U.S. Marines from Lebanon would be dangerous for the U.S.; adult Caucasian males seated in BG.
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. House Representative Donald Bonker (D-WA) responds to U.S. Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, drawing a distinction between implied actions and the fact that United Nations forces are in the Golan Heights, subject to renewal “every six months or so and have not been subject to a veto”. Rep. Bonker asks: “Unless we really take this matter squarely to the Security Council of the U.N., how do we know what the response would be? And do you not think it is worth the effort in any case?” Ambassador Richard Fairbanks explains the back-channel negotiations which originated from a "cryptic clause in the second section of the cease-fire agreement which calls for neutral forces". He explains the United Nations Treaty Supervisory Force was the obvious choice, but Syria, messaging through allies would not accept that. And a special emissary dispatched to the U.N. by Lebanon, found that the Soviet Union would reject a formal U.N. force; adult Caucasian males and females seated in BG.
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. House Representative Gerry Studds (D-MA) is taken aback, but not surprised, by the rhetoric coming from U.S. Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger when it comes to debate and dissent regarding U.S. foreign policy issues; adult Caucasian female stands in BG, taking notes. Rep. Studds: “My general observation is that I am not sure it is helpful constructive or realistic to suggest that Members of Congress withhold debate on a matter of substance and controversy simply because the President of the United States has made what unarguably is his constitutional judgment. We also have a constitutional responsibility as members of Congress. We would renege on that responsibility if we were to follow your advice and simply keep quiet.” Rep. Studds notes that, instead of being a strictly peace-keeping force, staying neutral, U.S. Marines now to seem to be supporting one faction among many in a complex civil war that currently exists within Lebanon’s government.
House Subcommittee Shreddergate Investigation
House Public Works and Transportation Committee conducting hearing on EPA shredding public documents. Committee Chairman U.S. Representative James J. Howard (D-NJ) introduces U.S. Representative Elliot H. Levitas (D-GA). Rep. Levitas introduces hearing's topic, the placement of shredders within the EPA office and the use of those shredders to destroy public documents. Rep. Levitas questions EPA General Counsel Robert M. Perry, asking who made the decision to preclude the Public Works and Transportation Committee from seeing the public EPA documents in question (the document was subpoenaed by the committee prior to being shredded). Perry claims the order to preclude the committee came from the Justice Department.
U.S. House Sexual Misconduct Investigation
U.S. House Representative Louis Stokes (D-OH) standing. Special Counsel to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Joseph A. Califano Jr. speaks to the full cooperation of committee members and commends the House of Representatives for submitting itself to such a thorough investigation. Califano Jr. then turns to the three instances of improper sexual conduct between Congressional Pages and Reps. Gerry Studds (D-MA) and Daniel Crane (R-IL).
Whitewater Hearings
17:25:01 Opens to close up of SARAH FRITZ of the Los Angeles Times who is analyzing Republican efforts in the House Banking Committee's investigation of Whitewater, she dialogues with Hearings host KEN BODE, and fellow panelist NINA TOTENBERG, they sit at blue desk with a curtain behind them, Fritz leaves and her seat is taken by NEIL LEWIS of the New York Times 52:40 Medium shot of the Committee taking their seats, shot switches back to panel 54:09 Hearing resumes, Chairman GONZALES and White House Counsel LLOYD CUTLER
U.S. House Sexual Misconduct Investigation
U.S. House Representative Louis Stokes (D-OH) continues listing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct’s recommendations to the whole House of Representatives which includes disciplinary action for Chief Page of the House, James Howarth, who is charged with having a sexual relationship with a female Congressional page in 1980, who was under his direct supervision, and was given preferential treatment. Howarth is also charged with purchasing cocaine on two separate occasions in 1979 and 1980. Once the committee has completed their disciplinary proceeding, it will report them to the whole House. Rep. Stokes clarifies that the investigation regarding sexual impropriety has concluded, but the investigation into illicit use and distribution of drugs is continuing and the findings will be made public once the investigation is complete. Rep. Stokes then introduces Rep. Floyd Spence (R-SC), ranking minority member on the committee.
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. House Representative Donald Bonker (D-WA), off camera, asks if the Soviet Union told U.S. representatives that they would veto any resolution; adult Caucasian males and females seated in BG. Ambassador Richard Fairbanks states that is the case and their defense is that they do not want “a green light established which would separate Lebanon”. Fairbanks: “Obviously, the intent of the cease fire agreement we negotiated was not there would be one simple line of observers, but rather the observers would be deployed on all axes throughout the region as I had said in the document.” To Rep. Bonker, it seems that the Soviet Union and Syria want the U.S. out of region, militarily. He suggests the United Nations peacekeeping force is still the best solution, and the Soviet Union should be put on the defensive by bringing the matter directly to the United Nations Security Council, where the Soviet Union would be forced to go on the record with their vote and show where they stand.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
DO NOT USE Jim Lehrer cuts Barbara Tuckman off, returns to ask questions of reporter Caroline Lewis at Capitol. Lehrer asks what has been the reaction from committee members at NIXON'S announcement of cooperation with teh request for evidence tapes.