Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
[01.17.04] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mezvinsky for purposes Of debate only for a period not to exceed 15 minutes Mr. Mezvinsky. STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MEZVINSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IOWA Mr. MEZVINSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that I am one of the last speakers but I shall not have the last word because, we all know that the last word belongs to the Constitution.My colleagues and I who have anguished over this task know this all too well. You can tell it from the words they have spoken, whatever side of the aisle they were on. I just hope that I am able to make a contribution to a further under Standing of our grave responsibility. Now, the American Presidency IS a rare trust. It is truly a culmination of national trust and confidence. And what we are all called on to do by our Constitution is to scrutinize the treatment of this sacred trust by Richard Nixon. By putting the impeachment process into motion, we have accepted the challenge laid down 200 years ago by Founding Fathers, the challenge to preserve the Government that they created. I think it is important for us to remember that the authors of that Constitution provided this process not as something to be feared by the Nation, but rather as -.in essential provision to reassure and protect the people from the abuse of the great powers of the, Presidency. The Founding Fathers really insisted that the President be held to the highest standard of accountability and we know that the impeachment process is really the Ultimate guarantee of that accountability. The Congress is called on to enforce that guarantee. And for this reason it is not only Richard Nixon that is on trial So are we, every member of this committee, every Member of this Congress. We are asked to judge whether Richard Nixon should be called on to account for his actions, and tried in the Senate for the abuse of the great trust reposed in him. The question before us is whether Richard Nixon has abused that great gift, of the Presidency. That this question has had to be posed is disheartening for all of us who hold a deep respect for the Presidency. You can' sense that--it is evident in the remarks made last evening and throughout today. I take a look at my own background, a background where my parents were immigrants who were genuinely inspired by America, as they compared it to their homeland of czarist Russia and turn-of-the-century Poland. I grew up in Iowa with a great admiration for our Presidents, whether they be Republican or Democrat, and I now find it personally unsettling to be faced with the harsh evidence that Richard Nixon has abused the Presidency. But the committee must face the evidence and that is what it is. It is evidence. To do otherwise would be a grave dereliction of our duty. I want to focus on an area that is not now covered in the articles: That is the evidence on the President's taxes because I believe this evidence falls into a pattern of abuse which the committee Must consider and I think the tax question is especially important because it is so readily understandable. All of us pay taxes. All of us deal with the -Internal Revenue Service. Now, let us review the facts about the Presidential taxes. Here is the story. For the first year he, was President Mr. Nixon paid about $72,000 in income taxes. Now, that is a lot of money. But his income was over $460,000 and the IRS had ruled that he should have paid more than $220,000 in taxes. In 1970, on an income of almost $360,000, Mr. Nixon paid only $793 in taxes. I think that's worth repeating. His income was more than one- third of a. million dollar-, and he only paid $793 in taxes. That is less than the average family in My home State of Iowa paid. He should have paid more than $90,000 in taxes, more than 100 times the amount that he the President of the United States, deemed his Proper tax. Now, let us carry On the story. The next year, 1.971, Mr. Nixon paid $878 In taxes on an income of more than $250,000. Anyone else in his income tax bracket would have, paid it least $94,000 that year, but he only paid $878. And the story goes on. In 1972, our President paid a little over $4,000 in taxes. His income was over one-quarter of a million dollars and he should have Paid more than $90,000 in taxes.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
Now that means in 4 years Richard -Nixon. underpaid his Federal taxes by nearly $420,000. Earlier this year, the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation a committee that Is held in the highest respect of this Congress, and it issued its report on its review of the President's taxes for the years 1969 through 1972. It was this report that first laid bare the wide discrepancy between what Mr. Nixon owed and what he actually paid. One of the most significant findings of this report was that more than one-half of a million dollar deduction claimed by the President was improper. That disallowed deduction which involved the gift of Mr. -Nixon's pre-Presidential papers to the National Archives 'a gift made to build Mr. Nixon a tax shelter. By ducking 'Into that shelter, the President was able to substantially Pare his taxes for 4 consecutive years. but finally it came home to roost in 1974. The, story goes on. When Mr. Nixon's tax returns for those years received their first thorough review, the tax shelter collapsed because the deduction was found to be improper. Now 'Was it improper? Well, in 1969, the Congress closed the loophole which allowed tax benefits for such gifts Mr. Nixon knew about this law because he signed it. The President says that his gift was made before the loophole was closed and he has a deed that purports to show that the gift was made in time to beat the change in the law. Considering the date on the deed, the IRS first said that the deduction was legitimate. But we really know now that, that deed was, falsely backdated to indicate that the gift was made in time for the deduction. That deed was not executed in the spring of 1969 like it says but in a White House meeting- more than a year later. Based on the backdating of the deed and other evidence, IRS has ruled that the President had no right, no right to take the deduction he claimed. The evidence presents a glaring pattern of deception. just as distressing has been the President's response. He disclaims responsibility for his tax returns, He, says that if there is any problem, it is his tax lawyers and his accountants who are at fault. he would, like us to believe that he has had no part in the seamy circumstances surrounding the suspicious deed of gift. But, we know that Mr. Nixon generally paid close attention to his financial affairs; he -was well aware of the beneficial tax consequences of the gift. Can we really believe that Mr. Nixon didn't, know the facts surrounding this gift of over one-half of a million dollars, the largest gift he ever made in his life? Don't you think. every member his committee and everyone, that is listening don't you think that when a man, whose income is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, looks at his tax return and sees that he is only paying $'193, don't you think he has an obligation to scrutinize his return and make certain that every deduction is proper? Especially if he is the President of the United States? There is a good deal of evidence on this matter and it is disturbing evidence. But probably what is the most disturbing of all is that when the joint Committee sent the President questions about these matters, he never even bothered to answer them. One of the witnesses that come before this committee, -was the former head of the Criminal Tax Fraud Division of the Department of justice. He served in that office for 24 years under many Presidents, including President Nixon. He considered the evidence that we had, and he testified on the President's taxes. He said that if the Justice Department had that much evidence on any ordinary taxpayer, you or I, and that taxpayer refused to answer the questions, the Government -would seek to indict the taxpayer and send him to jail. But, Mr. Nixon tells us that he is not responsible for what is on his tax returns, even though he is the one who signed "under the pain of perjury " on the bottom line. it 'Was not his tax lawyers who signed that return. It was not his accountant who signed the return. Richard Nixon is the one who signed on the bottom line. After the reaudit by IRS, which found these problems, the President was required to pay back taxes for 1970, 1971 and 1972. And then he often reiterated after that that he would voluntarily pay his back taxes for 1969, even though our laws can not reach back that far. But, you know, he has not paid those taxes yet. There is still a $148,000 bill outstanding from our Treasury. The $148,000 he should have paid by April 1970, is still unpaid today.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
Now, I think this committee has to face up to the question of whether Richard Nixon has willfully evaded his taxes. I believe this matter falls into a pattern of abuse of office because it is evident that the President entertained an expectation for and took advantage of favorable treatment by the IRS. I view this as a grave misuse of a serious violation of public trust that demeans the Office of the Presidency. Our tax system is based on impartiality, and everyone is supposed to be treated fairly under our tax laws. Now, some Of MY Colleagues such as Tom Railsback, whose district is right across from mine On the Mississippi, they have already discussed the disturbing practice of making up friends and enemies lists in the White House and sending them over to the IRS. for special attention. You have to wonder when you look at the friends list whether the President wasn't his own best friend. As we look at this area, we cannot concern ourselves solely with the question of willful evasion of taxes. We have to consider the President's unique position in our country. ; He is looked to for leadership and his respect for and adherence to our laws is supposed to set an example for the rest of us. We must remember that if an average citizen cheats on his taxes, the Treasury only loses the money. But, the President deliberately fails to pay his proper taxes, we risk the corrosion of our entire. System. And really when we consider taxes or any of the other serious charges before us, we have to take a hard look at what Richard Nixon's conduct has done to our system of government. Mr. Chairman, as you so eloquently noted at the opening general debate, we are at the crossroads for America. Whatever committee decides, it will have a Major impact on the future of the country. What legacy shall we leave for the future? Will we condone Richard Nixon's Presidential conduct and sanction his claims that he, is the defender of that grand Office or will we record our abhorrence of the way he has defiled the Office? Will we, ignore the actions which have already brought so many our children to hold such a low regard for the highest office in our land, or will we make it clear to our fellow citizens that we cherish the Office of the Presidency and will take up the Constitutional challenge to protect it? As we proceed with the debate on these articles, on the question whether we are to bring Richard Nixon to account for the gross abuse of Office, I think we must all ask ourselves if we do not, who will?
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
[01.32.14] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has as expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of this committee, Mr. Hutchinson, for the purpose of general debate and for a period not to exceed 15 minutes. Mr. Hutchinson. STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD HUTCHINSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At, the beginning of this meeting last evening the chairman invited me to make some introductory remarks following introductory remarks made by him. And in order that it, might not appear that I was trying to make two speeches so closely in a row, - it was understood I would not be, recognized in this general debate & would waive seniority and be recognized at the end of the roster instead of at the head. My eloquent & distinguished colleagues have expressed a wide range of views on the impeachment process, and after this many hours Of thoughtful speeches I would be most hesitant to speak at all or to risk trespassing upon the endurance of all of those who have listened to this committee's deliberations, were it not for the gravity of the subject matter at hand. I have great respect for the man who occupies the office Of the President, but my respect for the Constitution is even greater. All Americans should be grateful for our Splendid Constitution. and for the foresight of our Founding Fathers in providing through impeachment a means for removing a President during his term Of office when circumstances necessitate so doing. The Constitution places the responsibility for initiating proceedings for the removal of a President in the House of Representatives. In this case, the House has demanded of this committee a report with a recommendation concerning whether the House should exercise its impeachment power directed at the removal of President Nixon. I have listened attentively to my colleagues, and learned Men and women all, who have argued with great intellect in favor of impeachment of the President. I remain unconvinced by their arguments. I believe their case is weak & I am unconvinced as well by their view of the impeachment process itself. As the thrust is placed in Congress to safeguard the liberties of the people through the awesome and extraordinary powers to remove a President, so must Congress' vigilance be fierce in that the thrust is not abused. The proper use of the impeachment power depends upon our Understanding of its proper purpose under the Consititution. The Constitution provides that a President may be impeached and tried, convicted, and removed from office for the commission of treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors. The meaning of the words treason and bribery are self-evident. They are crimes, high crimes directed against the State. To me the meaning of the words, other high crimes or misdemeanors, is equally obvious. It means what it says, that a President can impeached for the commission of crimes and misdemeanors which like other crimes to which they are linked in the Constitution, treason & bribery, are high----- [01.36.01--TAPE OUT]