Advanced Search
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference on spending. Conference Chairman, US Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) recognizes a statement from US Representative Barber Conable (R-NY). Rep. Conable discusses the role of The House of Representatives regarding the proposed spending legislation and the unorthodox circumstances that have led to the conference. Conable hopes that this conference will help refine issues for The House regarding spending legislation. Conable commends the legislation Sen. Dole has brought to the conference. Conable hopes to improve the equity, revenue raising potential, and success of Dole's legislation. Caucasian male and female Congressional staff in BG; one man wearing a bowtie and smoking a pipe; Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY).
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.52.41] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr. SMITH. How much time did I have? The, CHAIRMAN. Three minutes and 35 seconds. Mr. SMITH. I thought, our side had more time than the other. I have 4 minutes, is that not so, Mr. Chairman? Mr. RAILSBACK. Yes. He is in opposition. The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. I am sorry, the gentleman still has 25 seconds remaining. Mr. SMITH. Well, Mr. Chairman. I hope you did not take that out of my time. Of course, it will be said that this impeachment proceedings is not, a criminal case and, of course, it is not. But we must, admit it is in the nature. of a supercriminal case, since it involves charges of "treason, bribery. or other high crimes and misdemeanors," and the punishment, on conviction, requires removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy an office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States--truly a staggering punishment for any citizen. So, in the background of any court action to enforce our committee subpenas and, indeed, in the background of any proposed article of impeachment based on the President's partial 'failure to honor our subpenas there are at least the implications of the fifth amendment, that, the accused shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself. The CHAIRMAN. The time, has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin Mr. Kastenmeier, for .3 minutes and 35 seconds. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this article of impeachment to preserve the power of impeachment which the Framers placed in the Constitution. Without the power to subpena papers, materials. things necessary. the Congress cannot meet its constitutional responsibilities. I submit that for a Chief Magistrate to prevent the Congress from meeting its congressional duty, its constitutional duty, is no different than when the President himself violates the Constitution. The offense is just as grave. It is a high crime in the classic sense which the Framers intended when Mr. when they used that phrase in the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, before it was indicated that the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory. in presenting this article might, have been inconsistent in the sense that, whether or not he now feels or anyone feels that we need the material requested by this committee and statement would find affirmatively in fact on articles of impeachment claiming that, the, President had not given us material which we now would by implication say is unnecessary. In response to that I would say that this committee made a determination at the time we voted the subpenas and we voted the subpenas in May, in April, by votes of 37 to 1, 29 to 9, 34 to 4. This committee said at that time we, needed this material. The President at, that time said he would refuse to turn the material over to us. So we measure this particular article in the time in which it is seen, not, in terms of whether subsequent to that fact we have or have not acquired sufficient evidence to make the determinations we are set upon today. Furthermore, it has been suggested that in many areas we may not have sufficient evidence even to this date. Articles of impeachment which could be in areas such as ITT, dairy, and other areas, may not well be endorsed by this committee for the reason in fact that we do not have the materials which we found necessary to our inquiry but which the President has rejected. This article is the only answer this committee can give. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. [00.57.00]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.13.43] Mr. MEZVINSKY. -Mr. Speaker, I know it is a sensitive issue and I don't -,want to have acrimony. I just want to make one point before I yield time to the gentleman from Texas. Let me say that I respect this Congress. I also respect the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation. I believe that they made, a conscientious effort, to look at the matter of the President's taxes. It, is serious. At a critical time they sent questions to the President, specifically regarding his personal knowledge about matters which had a bearing on the question of fraud. Mr. Nixon did not answer those questions. The Joint Committee did not rule on fraud instead referring that question to this committee. The IRS did say earlier this year, and this was cited by Mr. Sandman, that at that time, there was not enough evidence to resolve the, question of fraud one way or the other. But 7 days later what did they do? They sent a, letter to Mr. Jaworski saying let's pursue the case for possible, prosecution by the grand jury. But I want to bring out Mr. DENNIS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MEZVINSKY. I will be glad to take into account the gentleman's remarks in a few minutes. In the midpart of July I asked Mr. St. Clair, we sent a letter, too, but I asked Mr. St. Clair as the President's counsel, Mr. St. Clair, would you tell the President that we are concerned about his taxes and ask him whether he would respond to the questions that were submitted to him on the tax matter? I also asked whether or not the President would give an accounting of a special White, House fund that amounted to $1 1/2 million. I also asked if he would supply information as to his Now York State income taxes. I am sorry to report to this committee that the answer was negative to all these requests. He not only didn't respond to the Joint Committee but he didn't Care, to respond to questions directed by members of this committee. And I would Say that that kind of attitude can not be tolerated by this committee nor can the President's disregard for our revenue laws be tolerated by our tax system that is sacred to this country. I now yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. DENNIS. Will the gentleman yield for a-- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 16 1/2 minutes remaining. His time--no. The gentleman has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, would Mr. Brooks yield for 1 minute for a question? Mr. BROOKS. I would be delighted to if I have the floor now. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Brooks would you explain a little bit more please about the word "emoluments" and I read from the Constitution, This point bothers me, that what precisely does it mean, that the President shall not receive within the period of his Presidency any other emoluments from the United States and that is a word -we don't use very often and I have found no law on, particularly no law in relationship to impeachment. Now, do I understand correctly the exact sum that you are suggesting is the other emolument that -he has received? Is that at the $94,000? Mr. BROOKS. That is absolutely correct. Mr. DRINAN. Could you tell us more about any history of emoluments? Has the U.S. Government ever sought to get back any emoluments from a President? Has any President ever been challenged as to this particular section of the Constitution before? Mr. BROOKS. Not that I know of. but it has been on the books since 1789. And emolument in my judgment and I didn't even look it up, means do you get something that is good--money. My judgment is that anybody in this country, if you ask them what is an emolument of the office that you are not supposed to get any more of, it, means you are not supposed to get any more money. And I think that he did in that he received $94,000 worth of value which is the tangible value that -was assigned to the values of the improvements On his houses and for travel--not assigned by me, but assigned by the IRS. And they determined that he owed taxes on the $94,000. They said that $67,388 of that money--was for improvements to those properties and that, $27,291 was for travel expenditures. And then they Said very concisely that in view of the taxpayer's relation to the U.S. Government's Chief Executive Officer the above items constitute an additional Compensation to him for the performance of his services for the Government. And I thought that that met on all fours this provision in the Constitution that he shall not receive any additional money, any additional emolument. [01.19.11]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, May 9, 1974
[00.22.14] Mr. CONYERS. I ask for a rollcall vote Mr. Chairman., Ms. HOLTZMAN. Parliamentary inquiry. the CHAIRMAN. The lady will state it. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank I-oil. Did I understand the gentleman's motion was to close the hearings & receive this portion in the executive Session for the first phase, or only this meeting? The CHAIRMAN. For the initial phase of the hearing. Ms. HOLTZMAN. I thank the Chairman. I Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. As I understand flip House rules, we must vote at each session of the committee whether the committee shall be open Or closed. Is that correct? Therefore. we are really only voting On today's session? The CHAIRMAN. This the Chair will again state. the session that Would be closed, of course would relate to today,it any subsequent and, time the Chair could entertain another, motion. But the motion that put to the Chairman this time is a motion to close this hearing in order that we hear this initial presentation in accordance with rule 1127M, which suggests that Where there. Is the possibility that any information may tend to degrade or defame that, the session be an executive session. Therefore- Mr. SEIBERILING. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may pursue this inquiry just a little bit, it Is my intention to support the motion. However, it is my understanding of the rules that at the next session of this committee, if it is to be a closed session. a similar motion will have to be made and approved and that at, each subsequent which isdesired to be el closed? of The CHAIRMAN. The question that the gentleman is propounding suggests that we will be continuing & we are going to be continuing this hearing. We will be recessing from time to time Mr. SEIBERLING. But each day, I mean at each day's session, at the start of each day, a similar motion must be, approved, as I understand the rules. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman. parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. McCLORY. Is it not, the rule of the House, that we are bound by and we do not need any motion, we do not need any action by this committee? All we have to do is comply with the rules of the House which is what the chairman is suggesting in the action we are taking at the present time. Mr. RANGEL. Parliamentary inquiry. Parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is absolutely correct. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. I will recognize the gentleman from New York for a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, under this motion, on the, requirements of confidentiality, does the staff of the President of the United States, who are now present, are they governed by these rules? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has Mready stated that, the counsel for the President and his assistant are governed by the rules of confidentiality and the rules of procedure. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Chairman, do I understand since there is no access on the part of the committee to the materials, do I understand that the Chair is representing to the committee that these materials do, in fact, tend to degrade or defame? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is stating that in accordance with the rules, all that has to be suggested in the motion is that they may tend to defame or degrade, and not that there is a finding of fact. Mr. WALDIE. Well, may I ask if the Chair is suggesting that the materials may tend to degrade and defame? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is merely acting on the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. WALDIE. Then may I make the parliamentary inquiry to the gentleman from from Massachusetts. Mr. DENNIS. Point of order. The CHAIRMAN. Parliamentary inquiry will not be directed to anyone else but the Chair and the gentleman recognizes that. However, I would state to the gentleman that the gentleman has Mready been told that this is the rule and that there is no need that there be a finding Of fact. Therefore, the gentleman's inquiry out of order and the Chair now puts the question.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.14.43] Mr. SEIBERLING. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DENNIS. I reserve my time, The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman cannot reserve his time. Mr. DENNIS. I do not yield. I The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman refuses to yield. The Chair notes that there is a rollcall vote in process on the floor and the Chair will recess the committee and continue the debate on this question and the recognition of members at 2 o'clock. AFTERNOON SESSION [01.15.29--dissolve to committee room after the recess] The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. At the time the committee recessed we were still considering the McClory article, III, as amended, and at the time there were eight members to speak in opposition of the article with 31/2 minutes for each member, and six members to speak in support. So, I will recognize now Mr. Eilberg for 31/2 minutes. Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Chairman, I think there is no justifiable defense for the President's refusal to comply with subpenas, I respectfully submit that if members now considering voting against approving this article of impeachment did not think the President should be disciplined or punished for refusing to comply with the subpenas, why did they vote for them in the first place? Is it not true that subpenas are, demands backed up by the threat of punishment for noncompliance? If not by impeachment, how can the President, as a practical matter, and I emphasize practical matter, be disciplined or punished for noncompliance? At no time has any reasonable argument been advanced for the President's refusal. His lawyer argued that the President has executive privilege in this matter. He said disclosure of these conversations could endanger the principle of confidentiality and threaten the ability of the President to conduct his business of his office. But, during, the impeachment of Andrew, Johnson there was a far-reaching inquiry into the conversations between that President and his aides. No information was withheld from the committee making that investigation and it could not' be argued that this resulted in any way in limiting any subsequent President's ability to communicate with his aides. No argument has been made which justifies any right of executive, privilege in an impeachment inquiry. No legal scholar of which I am aware, past or present, has argued that the President has the right to limit an impeachment inquiry into his conduct in any way except possibly by pleading the fifth amendment. However, the President's lawyer, James St. Clair said at his press conference. last week that the President would not claim the fifth amendment. By failure to adopt article III, we shall be unleashing a Presidency which has no limitations. The Framers of the Constitution put the power of impeachment into the Constitution to provide a check on the President. They knew that a President who could not be called to account for his actions might become a dictator-, and if we do not impeach Richard Nixon for - not cooperating with this investigation. we shall be giving up at least some of Congress' right to question the President's actions. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. [01.18.49]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference on spending. Conference Chairman, US Senator Bob Dole (R-KS). Sen. Dole says this legislation does not increase the tax burden on the average American; it targets areas where taxes are due and not paid; areas with loopholes and unjustified preferential treatment (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982). Dole discusses major provisions of the bill, mentioning the individual minimum tax.
Chairman Ichord of the House Committee on...
U.S. Representative Richard Ichord (D-MO) at podium for press conference regarding The House Committee on Un-American Activities investigation into the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Off-screen male reporter asks whether establishing a Communist link in the demonstration will exonerate Hubert Humphrey and Mayor Richard Daley and increase Humphrey's chances for election. Footage resumes, Ichord speaking: "Mayor Daley has not asked me for an invitation, nor have I extended an invitation to Mayor Daley." Ichord and reporter thank each other and Ichord leaves podium.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Washington DC
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Washington DC
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Washington DC
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.42.25] Mr. DANIELSON. So what do they say? They are talking about Herb Kalmbach, and there was a much used person if I ever saw one. If anybody who heard his testimony did not have his heart go out to him, a man who was used, abused, from one end to the other, but Herb had been called in to raise the money for these burglars and the President is a little bit worried. The Los Angeles Times had been running stories on Kalmbach and so forth, and his skin is getting a little thin perhaps. But Dean I said, "No, Herb's tough now, He is ready. He is going to go through. He is hunkered down and he is ready to handle it, so I am not worried." The President: "Yeah. Oh, well, it will be hard for him. This is the President. "It will be hard for him because it will get out about Hunt," What will get out about Hunt? What else was there except the payment up to that time of something like $200,000, The President said "I suppose the big thing is the financing transaction. They will go after that, how the money got down to the Bank of Mexico and so forth that kind of stuff." And, of course, Dean concurred. Now, in February 1973--this is not March 21. You know, on -March 21 the President admits he was finally told all about it. On March 21 dawn broke. All at once he was told about Watergate. But here on February 8, through some type of prognostication, he is discussing the Hunt financing transaction in which his good friend and loyal friend of many years, Herb Kalmbach, was used to raise money. Let's move along a little ways. On March 21, and I am not going to repeat this conversation, but on March 21 the President of the United States, speaking from the "Oval Office, tells Haldeman and John Dean that John "had the right plan before the election, he contained it all, and now we have got to have a new plan from here on out." That is March 21. And you say the President did not-, know what he Was talking about? Then again on March 22, just the next day, after having known, after having known about these, activities since at least -June 17, and out of his own mouth having known about them since June--September 15, he is talking about whom? His chief executive officer for law enforcement, the Attorney General of the United States; Richard Nixon, the President, talking to the Attorney General of the United States. Mr. Kleindienst and he did not tell him one word about this illegal activity. The CHAIRMAN. The time Of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. FROEHLICH. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Froehlich. Mr. FROEHLICH. Thank You, Mr. Chairman. Members of this committee. when we adjourned late last night, thought we had some, type of vague understanding that the proposers of the Article of Impeachment, members of the staff and other interested committee members would get together possibly if necessary take all day today the to work out the specifics and details of the subparagraphs of article I. But as is so Often the case in this committee, the signals change as the moments go by and this has not happened. But I understand now that this is a backup article, Mr. Doar. There are some specifications in back of the subparagraphs that have been prepared by staff and made available to certain members of this committee. Is that, correct? Mr. DOAR. Some Of the---there is back-up material on some of the-- We, are working on all of the paragraphs. Mr. FROEHLICH. Well, when these articles are prepared, can they be made available to all members of this committee and to the minority so that responses can be prepared by those that want to prepare responses? Mr. DOAR. Well. I certainly--these were prepared at the request of particular members, at the request of the chairman, and I presented them to the chairman, but certainly it seems to me that this material should be available to all members of the committee I think that--I have no question about it. Mr. FROEHLICH. Would you direct. Your staff to make those available to all members of the committee that want them and to the minority staff immediately? Mr. DOAR. Certainly I will. Mr. FROEHLICH. Thank you. Mr. LOTT. Would you yield? Mr. FROEHLICH. I yield. Mr. LOTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am quite interested in the various and repeated mentions of ashtray being thrown across the room, by the gentleman from California, by Mr. Waldie and now by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. So, Mr. Chairman, I may want to reserve a few minutes at some later time to offer an amendment to insure that we include the President's throwing of an ashtray as an impeachable offense. I do not understand the significance of this ashtray and why being repeatedly mentioned. -Now, I found the gentleman's statement from Maine most interesting and very informative, but there are several items as we went along that I feel could be rebutted. If I could have the advantage of having this material and the specifics, perhaps from Mr. Doar, it would very helpful so that we, can debate the specifics and the points, in Support of these various sections. I urge the committee staff to give us this opportunity. In many areas that were mentioned I think again it is the aides' actions that are being referred to not the President's. So I reemphasize again, the line has got to be, drawn to the President and we cannot impeach him on the basis of his aides' actions. I thank the gentleman for yielding. [00.48.10]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.10.08] Mr. LATTA. Objection, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the gentleman from Ohio said. This particular issue has been debated at length, I think really 3 hours is too long. I wonder if we cannot cut it down and make it 1 1/2 or 2 hours. The CHAIRMAN, Well, does the gentleman from Illinois revise unanimous consent request? Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman. I am not interested in prolonging debate on this. If we do not adopt this unanimous consent proposal, then, of course, we would be operating under the 5-minute rule as I understand, which would give all 38 members 5 minutes to discuss the article in general and then we would be at the amendatory stage which, of course, could further prolong this. I do not like to limit or restrict person's opportunity to speak on this. If it is more acceptable, I would revise my unanimous consent request to limit the time not to exceed 2 hours. Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman?, The CHAIRMAN. IS objection heard? Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for reducing the time and I think it is a wise move. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The policy will be, again that perfecting amendments will be recognized in order of precedence. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, if there is no Objection, I would like the unanimous is consent to proceed for 10 minutes Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if we have only 2 hours, I think 10 minutes for the author may be a little bit, excessive. The CHAIRMAN. . Is the gentleman objecting? Mr. DENNIS. Oh, I will -not, object, but I hope the Chair, will recognize me for about 2 minutes' time. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. The, gentleman is, recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In presenting this article, article III> it seems to me we. are getting at something very basic and very fundamental insofar as our entire impeachment proceeding and inquiry is concerned. I think it is well for us to recall that the Constitution rests in us. the House of Representatives, and us. the House Judiciary Committee which has been designated by the House of Representatives, to conduct this inquiry, with the sole power of impeachment. Now. implicit, in that Sole power of impeachment is the authority to make this inquiry, to investigate the office -which is under investigation. In this case it happens to be the President, of the, United States, There have been a total, I believe, of 13 impeachments in the House of Representatives. and a total of 69 cases which have been referred and where there has been some action taken of one kind or another with regard to the subject of impeachment. Now. implicit in this authority to conduct an impeachment inquiry is the authority to investigate the actions that take place in that office. If we are without that authority, or if the respondent has the, right to determine for himself or herself to what extent the investigation -shall be carried on, of course, we do not have the sole power of impeachment. Someone else is impinging upon our authority. So it seems to me implicit in this authority that we have a broad authority to conduct an investigative inquiry. This has been recognized in our proceeding, as a matter of fact, in that the House of Representatives delegated, to us the authority to Issue subpenas relevant and necessary to our inquiry, and as a result of that, we. have issued eight subpenas to the President requesting information. Now, prior to the time that we issued these subpenas we directed letters 'to the President requesting information and these letters requesting information were sent by the chairman after consultation with the ranking minority member. In Other words, we have the joint authority and the joint expression of Republicans and Democrats with respect to the information that we have requested. Now, the President, Of course, did not respond to the. requests that we directed to him in the course of Our letters. and so we. exercised the authority which was granted to us by the House resolution to issue subpenas. Now, with respect to the subpenas the vote was 33 to one on one, 37 to 1 on two, and 34 to 4 on the fourth one. In other words, the action of the committee was bipartisan and it -was overwhelming that we wanted this material, that we wanted this response to the requests for information which we felt were necessary and relevant to our inquiry. [01.15.38]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974
[00.14.14] [Chairman RODINO continues with his solemn address to conclude the round of general debate.] But beyond them, I want to applaud the members Of this committee my colleagues. They have demonstrated a capacity to work behind closed doors, if you will, for a period of time searching out the truth, belaboring and toiling and wrestling with the facts, without seeking acclamation, or applause of any sort, because there is none, at the end of the trail, except a sure knowledge and a sure reward that right will be done. And I believe that each of you is deserving of the highest accolade because you reflect upon this body, and especially the Judiciary Committee, the highest, and carry on in that great tradition of this body, notwithstanding those who would have criticized the, work of this committee, you have left no stain upon your effort. And I am sure that history will record that what you have done you will have done as a matter of conscience and conviction, worthy of the great responsibility that is yours and that IS ours, bringing, as I stated in my opening remarks, the collective wisdom of men and women, a total dedication, and recognizing the terrible and tremendous burden of having to make a decision which will be lasting and for all time, which will prove to the American people. And as I said on February 6 before the House of Representatives in Seeking authorization for This committee to pursue its inquiry, that whatever the result, whatever we conclude, we proceed with care and with fairness and -with decency and with honor, so that all Americans who come after us, will able to say: That was the right course. There was no other way. And I applaud each and every one of you. And I know that tomorrow when we consider the articles that were before us that we will search and try to find those articles that will truly deal with the impeachable offenses, on what this body has found based on the evidence and the facts, so that a recommendation having been made by this committee in a report being, Presented to the House of Representatives, we can justify what we have done. And on this basis, and on this note, let me say to you, that I am proud to be of you. This has to be and shall be one of the greatest experiences of my life, and as I said I revere the Presidency of the United States of America. I have revered all Presidents and I have searched within my heart and my conscience and searched out the facts and when I test the facts I find that the President of the United States, in accordance with the tests that I feel we must confront, I find that the President must be found wanting. And so tomorrow I shall urge, along with others, the adoption of articles of impeachment. I shall do so with a heavy heart because no man seeks to accuse or to find wanting the Chief Executive of this great country. But, we have had responsibility to meet, and as many of us have said and I Only echo the sentiments Of each of us, this has not been a responsibility that we sought, but it has been one imposed upon us and I hope, and trust and pray, that what we do will for all time be that which has been right so that our country may survive not only this test but tests for all time. And with this, I declare this meeting recessed until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning. [00.21.37] [wide view of committee room as members stand to leave] DUKE begins to summarize the days events in voiceover [00.22.19--camera pullback to show LEHRER and DUKE in studio, view of committee room projected on screen] DUKE continues to summarize the hearings, saying that a clear majority appears ready to vote ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT against NIXON, with only ten members, all REPUBLICANS, indicating that they will not vote for the articles. Given the number of REPUBLICANS voting for impeachment, DUKE says that it makes the situation on the full HOUSE vote look less favorable for NIXON. LEHRER agrees with DUKE, saying that the only questions left are the final vote and what the exact content of the final Articles will be. Also, a crucial point is that the television coverage may influence public opinion in some ways, significantly that most of the Representatives are no longer anonymous figures to the public [00.25.33]
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference
US House Ways and Means Committee - Pre-Hearing; United States Congressional hearing room. Predominately adult Caucasian men conversing and walking around; Congressmen, staff members, and press. US Representative James R Jones (D-OK) talking. Chairman Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) asks attendees to take their seats. Rostenkowski welcomes US Senators in attendance. Rostenkowski discusses revenue legislation. Rostenkowski nominates US Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) as Chairman of the conference; commends Sen. Dole's legislation. Dole is made Chairman of the conference.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.38.07] LEHRER tells WILL and MURPHY that there is a break coming up, and asks them to prepare a list of nominees for Floor Manager for both the pro-impeachment and anti-impeachment sides in the FLOOR VOTE. [shot of empty committee room] LEHRER [v.o.] describes the order of business for the night as a vote on the MEZVINSKY article charging TAX FRAUD. LEHRER introduces LEWIS at Capitol Hill, to discuss her daily work during the hearings. LEWIS notes that she always stands for the camera at a mark designated for NPACT reporters, which is next to similar marks for the other stations in an entrance of the Rayburn Building that has been taken over by the electronic media. Notes that some print photographers are around and "bump into us when we're on the air", [camera pan over the area to shoe show the several cameras and reporters, loud sound of conversation.] LEWIS discusses the RAYBURN building infrastructure in detail, calling a "white elephant" in political circles because of its extreme ugliness. [DUKE/LEHRER in studio] DUKE corroborates the ugliness of the Rayburn building, notes that the Committee members have not yet arrived to begin, speculates that some of the members may be late because they are attending the annual CONGRESSIONAL BASEBALL GAME in Baltimore, noting that Rep. COHEN is the star pitcher for the REPUBLICAN team, and that COHEN shut out the DEMOCRATS in the last year's game. LEHRER says that NPACT staffer David WEINER has provided a report on the mail and phone activities of Committee members and their staffs. Discusses the results, saying most members reported a fifty-fifty split in response from constituents. Mentions Rep. SARBANES as reporting a 50-50 split, but says SARBANES reported the negative calls and letters he received [pro-NIXON] as "overwhelmingly obscene and abusive". Says that Rep. WALDIE reported a 3-1 ratio of approval in his mail, but that WALDIE, like other members, has received letters containing small stones and the Gospel admonition that "he without sin shall cast the first stone". Notes that WALDIE and his staff have been issuing Scripture rebuttals. LEHRER notes some geographical disparities in the responses. Says that Rep. RANGEL'S district in New York City and including Harlem, has given approximately 95% approval to the votes, while Rep. WIGGINS' suburban Los Angeles district reported a 2-1 ratio in favor of NIXON, but was not without some strong Anti-Nixon sentiments, including an accusation that WIGGINS was "a crook if you defend a crook". Notes that Rep. RAILSBACK has had to split his mail into national and local piles, with a national ratio of 5-3 in favor of his position, and 60-9 from his own district. Says RAILSBACK also has reported a fluctuation in the ratio, with weak pro-Impeachment majority giving way to Pro-Nixon majority, giving way since June 15th to a 60-40 Pro-Impeachment majority. LEHRER says that most committee members have indicated that mail or phone calls will not influence their votes, but that that has not prevented people from writing. Says that Rep. SANDMAN reportedly needed four hours to open his mail earlier in the week. DUKE says public opinion does have a role, although he himself believes that most members will vote on the basis of their own personal opinions and convictions. Notes that a couple of weeks ago, House REPUBLICAN leader John RHODES of Arizona said that he was unsure of how he would vote on the issue if the chance arose, and subsequent mail to RHODES' office ran at a ratio of 8-1 in favor of NIXON. Now, it is assumed that Rhodes would be a great defender of the President, has not publicly made a stance, and declined to attempt to influence other REPUBLICAN Congressmen. States that this must be regarded as a setback for NIXON. LEHRER asks whether it is also true that RHODES had planned to set up some small-group debates among HOUSE REPUBLICANS, offering a chance for a clash between Pro-NIXON REPUBLICANS and Pro-IMPEACHMENT ones. Reintroduces WILL and MURPHY to comment on their "nominations" for floor managers for the HOUSE vote on the Pro-NIXON and Pro-IMPEACHMENT side. MURPHY disclaims his predictions since he is a lawyer and not a political pundit, but he thinks that most effective for the Pro-NIXON side would be a team of WIGGINS, the articulate advocate of NIXON's interests as "captain", Rep. DENNIS for his more aggressive and confrontational speeches, and Rep. LOTT as an effective Southern spokesman. For the Pro-IMPEACHMENT side, MURPHY picks a bipartisan group with some sectional considerations consisting of COHEN, FLOWERS, and MANN. WILL says that it seems fairly safe that Chairman RODINO will not be among the spokesmen for the ARTICLES on the HOUSE FLOOR, but there will be different managers for different ARTICLES. For Article I, says that Rep. SARBANES, as the author, is a logical choice, since the DEMOCRATS chose him to take the lead in the Committee debate. ARTICLE II would be well served by Rep. BUTLER as a proponent, and Rep. McCLORY would be vital to the passage of ARTICLE III. [00.49.19]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.46.13] Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman will defer, the gentleman from Alabama has to ask unanimous consent. Mr. FLOWERS. I regret I passed over the most important thing I ask unanimous consent that the debate on this motion of mine be limited to 20 minutes, with 10 minutes going to the, proponents and 10 minutes to the opponents of the. motion, The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered, and the gentleman from New York. Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to support this paragraph No. 7 which deals with charging the President with disseminating information received from officers of the, Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of the investigation conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the Untied States for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects and in their attempts to avoid criminal liability. This is merely to suggest that one of the, most sacred institutions that we have in this country is the proceedings which take, place in the grand jury. It shocks my sensitivity to hear certain members of this Committee' indicate that an inference is drawn because the President shares information that he receives from the Acting Attorney General -with people that he knows are, being, investigated for possible indictment, where the Acting Attorney General has indicated that these people would be Indicted, that we can Say that the President' shared grand jury information with these people that we should draw two inferences One inference is that the President would want them to he and conform their story to one that would avoid liability, and one of the members suggested that we should consider the fact that that. perhaps in this particular instance the President wanted one of his' men to tell the truth. I submit that regardless of which one of these two the. President was suggesting, it was violating the secret, information which should have remained in the grand jury and should never have been shared in the first instance with the President. And the President should never have used this information regardless of for what purpose to share with other people. This is especially so when he went out of his -way to tell Henry Petersen that he -was going to keep that information confidential. But, this is all a part of a plan.. Most of you recall on March 21 when John Dean came to the, President to talk about the cancer that was growing in the White House that the President again recalled exactly what he, was being told on his Dictaphone and the President knew the people in the, White House had started this conspiracy rolling. Of course, at that time it was merely to gather political intelligence. The President had remembered some of the, political intelligence because CRP would give it to Magruder, Magruder would give it, to Strachan, Strachan would give it to Haldeman. and Haldeman has discussed it with the President and we have that on a tape. Now just where do you get political intelligence from your opponents? The record is very clear, because. the President responds, "Are we bugging -Muskie are we. bugging McGovern" and the, inference which I draw "or it just the DNC." Now, I don't know how the President would expect they would get this information because you are only a burglar if you get caught, and so when the President asked information of the Attorney General, and he directed Ehrlichman to tell Kleindienst that no White House personnel had prior knowledge of the break-in, it was strange how one, member said yesterday well, they didn't have prior knowledge. Well, in other words, I will accept what the member said. I don't really believe that Liddy and Hunt called the President of the United States and said we are going to bit on June 17. I do believe, however that Ehrlichman knew that, Haldeman knew, that Mitchell knew that, they had, gotten enough money together for' Liddy and Hunt. Liddy was transferred off the White House payroll to go to work for CRP. Hunt, still had his office in the White House, and Mr. Kleindienst, who is supposed to be receiving this report for the first time, saw the head of the burglary on the golf course, and he never told the FBI. So, the scenario which one member said, it's true they never had prior knowledge that the only knowledge people in the White House did not know was when they were going to hit. But, they certainly knew when they got information whether they were in San Clemente, whether they were in Washington, D.C. or whether or not they were in Key Biscayne, that. Liddy and Hunt were the people. As a matter of fact, the President says on one of the tapes that we received that he immediately suspected Colson. Let's find out what the plan is. Most of you heard that, it was suggested to Mr. Mitchell. He was the new plan, as Martha clearly pointed out, that they felt that if they could deliver Mr. Mitchell, then perhaps it would keep away from the White House and keep it away from the Presidency. I do not know why people insist that you read the whole paragraph after you talk about the stonewall and plead the fifth amendment, because the President is saying he would rather do it another way if it is going to come out at all. But, the President concludes to read the bottom line that whether you stonewall, cover up, and save the. plan, the last thing that he said to Mr. Mitchell is that: "You know, lip to' this point, the whole theory has been containment, and you know that, John, but they are shifting now, and the important thing is to protect the people. The important thing is to go to the grand jury, get the information and report back to those people who are the suspects by Henry Petersen." The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. I will recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne, for 5 minutes. [00.52.50]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
29.37 Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). We told the American people the importance, the awesomeness of this task. And now we are under the gun. We can't stop and take the time to write the specifics to everyone's satisfaction. Now not everyone on this committee is going, to agree, but it seems to me that we needed to take the time to put these specifics in detail behind each one of these Articles to at least the satisfaction of the staff and the people proposing the Articles, so then we could say then based upon this information "Yes, I will vote for it" or "No, I won t." But you re asking the committee members to really buy a pig in the poke. Many of us have tended to lean toward an Article of impeachment and obstruction of justice. We think it needs to be spelled out.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.54.29] Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you for yielding. inasmuch as Mr.--my distinguished friend, Mr. Sandman and others request specificity on many of these items I feel it is appropriate that It be provided. Within this field of the use of the Internal Revenue Service, there are other items than those, mentioned. by Mr. Brooks. For example, along in 1971, and 1972, Mr. John Dean, who had authority to work as liaison between the White House and the Internal Revenue Service, obtained confidential Internal Revenue in information about a rather large number of people and under his direction efforts Were made to have the. Internal Revenue Service conduct audits On certain persons who were low on popularity within the White House. This is borne out on March 13 1973, for example, in a conversation within the Oval Office. The President asked Mr. Dean if he needed anything from the IRS and Dean responded that he didn't at that time. He said he now had sources in the IRS and could get whatever he needed without any further trouble. 'In the spring of 1972, the political campaign was warming up and they thought down --John Ehrlichman and others in the White House thought it would be good to get some information on Lawrence O'Brien. who was chairman of the Democratic National Committee They had found that in an investigation of Howard Hughes there was information indicating a financial connection with Mr. O'Brien. So Mr. Ehrlichman, in 1972, instructed Treasury Secretary Shultz to investigate and interview O'Brien about his tax returns because the President was interested. Thereafter, because of the inquiry. the IRS did interview Mr. O'Brien and they furnished Shultz with the results of the, interview. It didn't indicate anything particularly bad, so on August 29, Shultz, together with--Treasury Secretary Shultz together with Barth and Walters of the Internal Revenue venue Service. decided this, that we do nothing further about O'Brien. They notified Ehrlichman that they -were, dropping the matter, and of course, Mr. Erhlichman strenuously objected. But they wouldn't leave it alone at that point. A couple of days later, in early September, Mr. Ehrlichman got in touch with Herbert Kalmbach the President's loyal personal attorney and fundraiser, and told Kalmbach to go up to Las Vegas, Nev., and plant the story with Hank Greenspun of the Las Vegas Sun, I believe it is. Kalmbach fortunately refused to do so. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has used his 2 1/2 minutes. Mr. DANIELSON. But this is a part of the pattern of misuse of the Internal Revenue Service. [00.57.12]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
45.57 Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). Now, some reference has been made to the committee report. Now, this has been referred to by the Chairman and by Mr. Doar, but the committee report, the report that s to be written is not the answer. The report is not a part of the Articles of Impeachment. Now if Mr. Doar is going to get the allegations and the facts and other matters that he wants to put in the report, that s fine. But let's have the allegations now as, the gentleman from Wisconsin has suggested. Let's have them when they are ready. Whatever time it takes, we should take, and certainly if is only a matter of a day or two. And then we can vote on the articles with the allegations. And Mr. Doar and the staff and the members can work on and put in the report whatever is to be put into the report.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (1/2)
[00.26.05] [continued speech of Rep. LATTA, R-Ohio] The truthful answer is you don't, and I am not about to represent the good people of the 5th Congressional District of Ohio or the people in this great Nation that you can do otherwise. Everybody on Committee detests wrongdoing. No one condones it, and by their very nature such things have always been repugnant to me, and I would be the first in line to punish any wrongdoer. the President of the United States included, once he's found guilty. I have said before & I say now, show me the hard evidence that the President is guilty of the many serious charges being leveled against him, and I will show you a vote for impeachment. This evidence must be clear & convincing. It cannot be based on inferences. I cannot make articles of impeachment against the President by attempting to infer that he had knowledge of wrongdoing that was going on in his administration and yes, lo & behold, in the Committee To Re-Elect the President. which was composed of Democrats, Republicans & independents alike. Neither can we try to make him responsible under the old theory of principal & agent, as some of these articles are proposing. To impeach there must be direct Presidential involvement, and evidence thus far has failed to produce it. This makes it imperative that this committee not rush to judgment at this hour without the benefit of knowing what is in the 61 tapes that the, Special Prosecutor is to receive under this week's Supreme Court decision. I for one believe very deeply in one of the cherished, and previous cornerstones of American Justice, and that is that a person in America is considered innocent until proven guilty, Every American citizen including the President, is entitled to this presumption of innocence, and contrary to what I have heard said," it is not incumbent upon the President to prove his innocence. It is incumbent upon I his committee, if it goes to the floor of the House, to Prove, that he is guilty to the satisfaction of the members, and yes; over to the Senate if that arises. It was unfortunate during our deliberations that the American people were denied their right to listen to the few witnesses who all appeared before this committee by a party line vote & are now only invited to sit in on these hearings. They should have been permitted to listen to the tapes, expletives deleted, of course, in order that they could draw their own conclusions from the total conversation rather than from the bits and pieces extracted here and there to serve a particular purpose.Hopefully before this matter is finally resolved, this opportunity will be given to them. Before considering the charges being leveled against the President by his chief accuser. John Dean, we perhaps should check briefly his Credibility as a witness in several instances. Make no mistake about. it. John Dean came up with the answers to questions propounded by the Senate Watergate Committee from a good memory & even bragging about it, When he appeared behind closed doors before this committee, knowing that we had listened to the tapes & had the transcripts before. us, his testimony reveals that his memory was not good as it was in the Senate & he then apologized To us for not having a tape recorder memory. When Mr. Dean appeared before the Senate Watergate Committee, he stated his March 21 conversation with the President relative to paying attorneys fees & family support was left hanging In appearing before a closed session of this committee, he Indicated he might have discussed the matter with the President at an earlier date, but by so doing his testimony immediately came into conflict with testimony in the Senate that his friend, Mr. Moore, attorney at the White House had chastised him on the 20th for not going in & telling the President all the things he had been telling him. Mr. O'Brien then appeared before our committee & disagreed with Dean's testimony in several respects under questioning by this member, he disagreed with Dean's testimony on three different' places on 1 1/2 pages of transcript. John Dean admitted before our committee that he became involved in the Watergate coverup almost from the very beginning. He also testified before our committee that he did not see the President after the June 17 break-in until Sept 15, and that the President never gave him any instructions to cover up anything. He also testified before this committee that he authorized Caulfield to offer clemency to Watergate defendants, assisted Magruder in making a false statement & initiated an unsuccessful IRS investigation of certain individuals prior to his Sept 13 meeting w/ Nixon. Quite frankly, these hearings gave me more information on the President's chief accuser than I had previously had. Certainly during this committee's deliberations, one of the more important questions to be resolved was whether to choose to believe John Dean or the President. 8 of the 9 witnesses before the committee testified they had hot discussed acts of wrongdoing w/ the President. Here again, John Dean stands alone. In conclusion, let me say if the committee decides to recommend impeachment of the President, based on the wrongdoing of others, the evidence is here, and it is clear and convincing :-if the committee decides to recommend impeachment based on direct evidence of Presidential involvement in wrongdoing, the evidence is not here. The case is that Simple.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.29.43] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Moorhead, for 4 minutes. Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, this particular article concerns me more than any of the others that have been filed against the President because I believe that a very important constitutional privilege-constitutional question is involved. The assertion by the. Congress that under the impeachment power it can exercise absolute power of impeachment or any ancillary matter in connection with impeachment without court review certainly would lay the groundwork for legislative abuse of power. I think that it is important that we do have a check and balance. Under our system, the courts are the final determiner of what the law is. There are many things about the power that was given to Congress that might well have to be interpreted by the court. There are other constitutional rights that have been set down under our U.S. Constitution. Those rights on occasion come into conflict with the power that -was given to the House of Representatives to bring impeachment proceedings. Those powers have to be weighed and balanced and it is the, courts that have been given that authority under our Constitution. I think that it is vitally important that this committee, before it considers impeaching a President for failure to follow their demands in a subpena, to take the matter to court as I and some of the other members on this committee voted to do. Some have said there no longer is a privilege of confidentiality in the President. But in the United States vs. Nixon the court said specifically as to the case they -were deciding: In this case we must weigh the importance of the general privilege of 'confidentiality of Presidential communications in performance of his responsibilities against the inroads of such a privilege on the fair administration of the, criminal justice. But they did not rule out the claim in all cases to the privilege. Later on they said: Moreover a President's communications and activities encompass a vastly wider range of sensitive material than would be true of any ordinary individual. It is therefore necessary the public interests to accord Presidential conversations confidentiality the greatest protection consistent with fair administration of justice. The need for confidentiality even as to idle conversations with associates in which casual references might be made concerning political leaders within the country or foreign statesmen is too obvious to call for further treatment. It is important that the President or any other citizen of the United States have a right to have a judicial determination of the validity of any section of the Constitution or any law before places himself in jeopardy of being impeached. I ask for a no vote.