Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.57.00] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Edwards, is recognized for 3 minutes and 35 seconds. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I suppose that many times during the past few weeks all 38 of us had looked with envy upon parliamentarians in our sister countries where, by a majority vote members of parliament can just call a new election and indeed right now there are several of these propositions to amend the Constitution before the House Judiciary Committee but obviously will not receive attention this year. But a new election where a President gets into trouble is not provided in the Constitution. Our Founders talked about it but they rejected it for the stability that is inherent in a 4-year term. And they rejected it for the power that a 4-year term gives to a President. This 4-year term that can only be interrupted by death or impeachment. So, this power of impeachment that we have in article II, section 4, is all we have to protect the country from a President who gravely abuses his office. We can't have a nice, convenient election down the road by a majority vote of Congress. We can't, like our country to the north, Canada, or England or most European countries, call an election in a couple of months. We just have impeachment. We do have, of course, the power of the purse but that is limited. We do have to enact appropriation bills and the President does have the right to spend the money. So I suggest that we would be irresponsible if we don't enact this article III, that if we don't, we will diminish or destroy this only safety valve in our Constitution. And for this power of impeachment to operate, if it is to have any meaning at all, any vitality at all, we simply must be able to get the evidence. That seems very clear. The inquiry must be complete if it is going to be fair and we can* be fair and complete without the facts. Our subpenas all were carefully drawn, narrowly drawn. We weren't seeking information about national defense or any state secrets or personal information. So, in voting for this very important article III, I suggest that we can't destroy the only safeguard that we have to protect ourselves from a President who. misbehaves so badly that he becomes a threat to the country and should be removed either now or in the future. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman, is recognized for 4 minutes. Mr. SANDMAN. I would like to yield 30 seconds of my time to my friend from New York, Mr. Smith, to finish his statement. Mr. SMITH. I thank the gentleman. We -were talking about whether in the background there were implications of the fifth amendment--that an accused shall not be required to be a witness against himself--and I think the question which should be asked here is whether it is fair and according to our traditions to say to the President, in effect, "We don't yet have the clear and convincing proof we need to impeach you, so -we are requiring you to hand over -what we hope will be your confession, and if you don't, in fact, hand over the materials which we hope will be a confession, we shall peremptorily impeach you for failing to turn them over on the order of the Congress, even though the Supreme Court might have found that you have -good Constitutional reasons for not handing, them over." I thank- the gentleman. an. Mr. SANDMAN. Thank you. I think the outstanding point that is being raised here by my friend from Illinois, Mr. Railsback, who uses his time, and I want to yield to him in a moment, one of the things that I bear him musing about here which I think is so awfully appropriate is that this really is overkill tit its worst and I know he can talk about that -well. And that is about what this amounts to, a little Item of overkill. There are enough votes here to pass anything and you know it and I know it. But, -when you reflect the correction that the Thornton amendment tries to make, it rapidly brings back those two Wiggins' amendments, and then also it rapidly brings to your mind, too, a word that has been brushed under the counter here for so long, that word "direct," "direct evidence," It says there that these papers were needed to produce direct evidence. This is -what -we have, been complaining about. There isn't enough direct evidence. There isn't any, Then, of course, the Wiggins' amendments corrected in there, too' because he said it will provide the necessary factual questions relating to Presidential direction. Remember that in the Wiggins' amendments? These are the same people who voted against the Wiggins' amendments. The other thing in the, Wiggins' amendments, that it -would provide the knowledge on the part of the President. Those words should haunt people who now have a reverse in their opinion. And, you know, I don't think that-it seems to be the objective of some people here, unless we impeach, -we are not carrying out our constitutional duty. Impeachment is that course of last resort. It is not the course of first resort. And I think -we should start thinking about that once. in a while. I would like to yield to my friend from Illinois, Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have my own time and use it in connection with the time yielded to me and I wonder how much time I have. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 4 minutes of his own and 1 minute if the gentleman from New Jersey yields him that minute. Five minutes in toto. And the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let me say at the outset that I don't attribute any evil motives to my friend from Illinois for offering this resolution. Let me say, though, that I think this is a case where we, this committee has developed a rather fragile bipartisan support of two rather substantial and serious articles of impeachment, and is now about to engage in what I call political overkill. There are many Republicans, I can tell you, on the House floor that have been impressed with the evidence that has been adduced in respect to the, very serious obstruction of justice charge, and also the abuse of power charge. Now, what is this committee about to do? We are about ------ [01.04.09--TAPE OUT]