honestly believes that 67 out of 100 senators are willing to accept this kind of evidence. i don't think so. and i think this is why we're here. this remaining someone, somehow will point out the fact that i'm only human and i'm not infallible. maybe i overlooked something. maybe there is a tie-in with the president. all right, there's 37 of you. give me that information. give me the tool, because up to this moment, you haven't. thank you. >> i recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. ralsback for purposes of debate only not to exceed 15 minutes.

mr. railsback? >> chairman, thank you, and members of the committee -- by saying that you, mr. chairman, i think in a rather difficult assignment with you because you know on many occasions i think you have handled yourself very well. and i think i can say for the most members of the committee that during these six months through the 38 volumes of evidence, the listening to the live witnesses morning, afternoon and night that i can be proud of my judiciary colleagues, most of them. i feel badly as charlie sandman did about the leaks, the selective leaks, some of which i think the newspapers made a mistake in playing.

although i know they have a job. i used to like to be on the house judiciary committee when we were worried about penal reform and juvenile delinquency, trying to improve some very important things in our country that needed improving, but i'm about to reconsider my assignment now that we have had amnesty, abortion, impeachment and now a bomb threat. let me say that i'm one of those that has agonized over this particular inkwquiry. i think it would be difficult for me -- impeaching a democratic president i regarded as an awesome responsibility, one that i don't relish at all.

that are considering impeaching a man richard nixon, who has been in my district twice campaigning for me, that i regard as a friend who only treated me kindly whenever i have had occasion to be with him. i'm not one of those that would try to demean his record. in my opinion, richard nixon has done many wonderful things for this country, particularly in the field of foreign affairs and some day the historians are going to recognize the contributions that he's made. let me say that i have been asked my members of the press whether my arm has been twisted because i'm one of the six or seven republicans that have been undecided. and i can answer that with an unequivocal no, that the republican national chairman, george bush, is one of the most

decent, honorable men and one of the great national chairman of this party. john rhodes has treated me only decently, honestly, sometimes we have had differences of opinion, and i can say the same thing about my colleagues on this committee. the gentleman who sits to my left, who i regard as one of my best friends -- except on the golf course, who happens to disagree with my views on this particular important matter. let me say our job as i view it is to try to push aside partisan considerations to try to be fair, to try to be judicious, to try to see that the president is afforded the same opportunities that have been afforded to other respondents in recent impeachment cases. there have been occasions that

we have had substantial party divisions because some of us on the minority have not plooefed that the president has always been treated fairly procedurally, but i'll tell you, with some democrats on the other side has acquiesced and given the right to cross examine, the right to call the witnesses that he wanted to call. i have two serious areas of concern in respect to the allegations of misconduct that have been levelled against the president. the case has been made on the issue of the bribery charges on i.t.t., the bribery charges from the tapes that i have heard, the evidence that i have heard. i disagree with my good friend henry smith. i don't think cambodia. i don't think this president

should be held to account for a bombing in cambodia when those of you who have read the best and the brightest have read probably the greatest indictment of the two previous administrations about untrue distortions, statistics that were not accurate. i want to share with my colleagues, i want to share with my constituents my concerns. they relate to what i would call the abuse of power. i can't think of an area where a conservative or a moderate about the state of our government. on september 11th, john dean called the commissioner of internal revenue to his office. commissioner walders, where he committed a so-called government contributors and government

supporters and ordered the commissioner to audit those people. the commissioner didn't want to audit those people. he said he would have to check with secretary shultz. on september, entered into a conversation with john dean that began at 27 minutes after 5:00 and lasted until 17 minutes after 6:00. we have a tape recording of that conversation up until 6:00. 15-minute segment has not been produced according to a subpoena. it's been subpoenaed by jaworsky, the special prosecutor to again listen to that 17-minute segment to e see if it perhaps might not be relevant. the judge in his reconsideration determined that 13 of the 17 minutes were indeed relevant.

according to john dean's testimony, which has not yet been released but will be released, you will learn that according to john dean, and i think john dean knows that tape is going to be made public, that the president knew about this ordered audit. it was his impression that he knew about it beforehand. the president made some derogatory remarks about secretary shultz and called him something like a candy ass. i didn't send him over there to be a candy ass. if there is anything that's going to affect adversely our democracy, our individual e freedoms, it's the misuse of a sensitive agency or the cia. let me just tell you a little bit about watergate. what concerns me about on august 2th, the president held a news

conference where he stated that he had had the department of justice, the fbi, he said he directed his on counsel. john dean to investigate water gate to determine if there was any white house involvement. as far as we know it, the evidence john dean had never reported to him, had never been with the president, the white house logs show that. john dean's testimony is to the effect he didn't even know about such a report until the president's press conference. what was john dean -- june 19th he was meeting with mitchell mcgruder at which meeting jeb mcgruder was told to have a fire, to burn some documents, incriminating evidence. then on june 23rd, they decided

when it was reported to them that there was some money involved that had perhaps been laundered in mexico that money had that had gone to the creep, what did they do? when the president got ahold of the cia to determine if the cia shouldn't influence the fbi, not to pursue that because of covert activities. for awhile the cia agreed. they found there was absolutely nothing to hide. they went back. dean still persisted and wanted them not to interview witnesses that were relevant. what did they do on june 23rd? they established john dean. pat gray on july 6th, the

director of the so incensed that after a meeting with walders, e he first called mcgruder and then the president called him and pat ray felt compelled to tell the president some of your top staff are mortally wounding you. . then we go into the poerd of the 15th. the president finally did meet john dean. the president after talking to holderman congratulated him for plugging leaks and talking abdomen containment and something about cutting losses or something like that. then you go into the next period, march 21st. then me say that i don't think the president directed the payment of hush money. i don't think we can make that allegation. but let me tell you what happened. the president on march 20th ordered john dean.

things were beginning to get a little hot. the president on march 20th ordered john dean to conduct a report, another report. this is the second dean report. he says, that's right, this is the president speaking, try just something general like i have checked into this matter. i can categorically based on my investigation the following. halderman is not involved in this. that and the other thing. mr. so and so did not do this. mr. blank did not do this, right down the line. if there are any further questions, please let me know. the next morning john dean advised, john dean advised the president that ur lick man was implicated, halderman was implicated, that john dean himself was implicated. what did the president do at that point? that afternoon i won't say what he said about the hush money. they talked about the million dollars and the $120,000. it's important that we get that right away, isn't it?

john dean says it's important we send a signal. so the president said, well for christ's sake, get it. then there is another conversation as my friend from new jersey said, which kind of leaves that up in the air. but later on that afternoon, again, the president referred to a report that he wanted dean to write. only this time the president had knowledge of who was allegedly involved. and he says this it, i don't want to get all that expletive specific. i'm thinking now in far more general terms having in mind that the problem with the specific report proves this one and that one and that one and you just proved something, you didn't do it at all. but if you make it general in terms of your investigation indicates that this man did not do it, this man did not do it. and so forth. what happened after march 21st. the president ordered john dean to go to camp david to make a

report. john dean could not make that report. on september 5th the president had a press conference. this was after everything had kind of blown up. the president in his press conference went back to the john dean report and said when it became apparent to me that john dean couldn't make a report, i assigned it to john urlicman. now what was the status of john at that point? john had already been implicated in the watergate coverup himself by john dean on the morning of march 21st. john ur lickman denied he had made any investigation a the that point. then we have john dean blow iin the whistle by going to the the u.s. attorneys on june 8th followed by mcgruder on june 13th. then finally said, he said on june 14th the jig is up.

the u.s. attorney called henry peterson, the head of the criminal division, and he said a, henry, we have broken the watergate case. henry peterson contacted, finally this began the mid-april meetings with henry peterson. what happened at this mid-april meetings with henry peterson? on april 16th, from 1:39 to 3:25, the president met with henry peterson. the president promised to treat confidential any -- the president emphasized that it peterson, you're talking only to me and there's not going to be anybody else on the white house staff. in other words, i'm acting counsel. the president suggested that only exception might be dick moore. when peterson expressed reservation, the president said, let's just better keep it with me then. in an afternoon conversation in that same day, a telephone conversation when the president

called peter son, he said, henry, feel free to confide in me. i'm going to keep it confidential. i know the rules of the grand jury. what did he do with the information that henry peterson gave to him? henry peterson, who was taking the place as really the chief investigator in the watergate case, the president on april 17th met with halderman who had been implicated again by information that was given to henry peterson and henry peterson had revealed it to the president and the president advised at that point halderman that he better get together with john and map out some kind of a strategy on the money. then there's the big deletion. i don't know what the material deleted is. then he comes back and says what about calmback?

what's he going to say about the money? he says, you better get ahold of calmback and tell him that larue is speaking freely. i just wonder myself, i'm concerned about the president's actions not so much -- not about the break-in or what happened earlier. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. i recognize the gentleman from missouri for purposes of general debate any. >> i yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague. >> he's recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me just try to finish very briefly. it was shortly thereafter that on april 24th and april 25th, and i believe on april 26th that the president ordered halderman -- that the president ordered halderman to listen to

certain tapes that i think only he and halderman knew had been made in the white house. halderman listened to tapes that were made in february and march. he reported to the president on april 26th and he spent, i think, it was five hours with the president. we have subpoenaed that tape. baz we think it's relevant and had support from both republicans and democrats and that's one of the tapes where halderman was reporting to the president after spending two days listening it these tapes chrks we don't have. i just kept help but wonder when you put all this together and n that kind of perspective, i am concerned. and i'm seriously concerned. i wish the president would do something, i wish he would come forward with the information we

have subpoenaed. some of my people say that the country cannot afford, that we cannot afford to impeach a president. let me say to -- many of these are good supporters and friends. let me say to them i have spoken to countless others including many, many young people. and if the young people in this country think that we're going to not handle this thing fairly, if we're not going to try to get to the truth, you're going to see the most frustrated people, the most turned off people, the most disallusioned people and it's going to make the period of lbj in 1968 look tame. i hope we keep our eye on trying to e get to the truth.

thank you. >> recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, father drinan, for purposes of general debate only for a period of 15 minutes. father drinan. >> members of the committee, in the long summer of 1787 at the constitutional convention in philadelphia, the delegates from my own state of massachusetts consistently opposed including impeachment in the constitution. massachusetts argued on july 20th of that year that american law unlike that of england would provide for a genuine separation of powers, judicial review and the regular elections by the people. hence it was argued the remedy of impeachment, which had been frequently abused in england would not be necessary in america. the delegates reasoned on that day that impeachment would

impose a penalty in the absence of any specific statute, which would make known to those -- to all citizens the punishment that they would expect for their offenses. massachusetts in that year wanted america to aspire to the idea already stated in the constitution of massachusetts a government of laws and not of men. only south carolina voted with massachusetts to omit impeachment from the constitution. massachusetts then as so often stood almost alone. during this summer, mr. chairman, i have wondered countless times whether or not the delegates from massachusetts from 1787 were, after all, correct in their judgment. that impeachment was unnecessary, unwise and indeed dangerous. my concern over this question has deepened as i have witnessed the process of selecting

articles of impeachment on the basis of whether they will fly. i have been deeply troubled because the process of choosing articles of impeachment is not necessarily done in the order of their gravity, but to some extent on their capacity to play in peoria. there's been no shortage of facts on which to focus in this inquiry. but only history will discover why the greatest deception and probably the most impeachment offense of richard nixon may not become a charge against him. i speak of the concealment of the clan decent war in cambodia. i do not reach the claim merits of the bombing. i speak only of its concealment. we see in this series of events the same abuse of power and the same techniques of coverup employed by the president and

his associates in the aftermath of watergate. like the gentleman from new york, i am profoundly disturbed at the massive coverup of the facts during and after the secret bombing raids where b-52s went over cambodia during a period of 14 months from march '69 to may 1970. i remember well my absolute con city nation on july 16, 1973, when the cambodian bombings were revealed for the first time. i learned on that day that president nixon had misled me and the entire nation when he had said three years prior to that time on april 30, 1970, that quote, for the past five years we have provided no military assistance whatsoever and no economic assistance to

cambodia, unquote. the calculated coverup, like watergate, unravelled by dent. we heard about it because a foreign correspondent happened to report on his discovery of the thousands of craters made by american b-52s. there was no justification for maintaining secrecy about that war. the cambodians knew, everyone knew except the people of america, and this information was withheld from them until is happened to come out. the only reason for the deception of congress and the country was the president's political objective of deceiving and quieting the anti-war movement. the president orchestrated a conspiracy to keep the lid on cambodia until after the

election of 1972. the facts of this presidentially-elected conspiracy do not come from taped conversations or mere infrances. they come from a testimony of general earl wheeler, head of the joint chiefs of staff. he testified in july 1973 that the president told him not once, but at least a half dozen times that the bombing of cambodia must never be revealed. he also acknowledged that the pentagon was following the president's command of secrecy when the pentagon invented the deceptive system of dual reporting by which airstrikes in cambodia were recorded as having vietnam. james madison stated that the power to declare war in congress must include everything to make

that power effective in the congress. congress and congress alone had the right and the duty to judge whether the united states was justified in making or not making war in cambodia. president nixon usurped that right. can we be silent about this violation of the constitution? can we impeach a president for unlawful wiretapping but not impeach a president for unlawful war making? can we impeach a president for concealing a burglary, but for not for concealing a massive bombing? many deceptions were carried out on the congress itself. in april 1970 the secretary of the army told a senate subcommittee that no military aid had been given to cambodia. in may 1970 general wheeler gave

misle misleading testimony to a committee of this house. in 1971 the secretary of the air force reported to the senate that no bombing strikes had occurred in cambodia prior to may 1, 1970. those who assert that the president has the power to bomb cambodia and keep it secret for years has the burden of justifying the deception of congress to the falsification of documents, and three, the statement of the then secretary of defense to the effect that the air raids over cambodia should have been revealed in 1970. to these persons who would justify the nature and the secrecy and the conspiracy, do they have an answer to the statement made by senator stewart simonington? senator simonington asked the

question, the congress authorized $130 million for warfare in vietnam, but they never appropriated that sum of money for war in cambodia. in and around my congressional district in eastern massachusetts, there lived the descendents of those who fought at lexington. those american revolutionaries two centuries ago took up arms in a desperate and determined effort to gain the precious right of knowing and participating in the processes of their own government. the men who fought in the revolution gathered in philadelphia from may to september 1987. they came together to create a government where no one ever again would have to enter into an armed rebellion to vindicate his right to be free of tyranny.

and for the framers of the constitution, the other tyranny was war. carried on illegally by the executive without the knowledge or consent of the congress. mr. randolph of virginia stated in the constitutional convention that the president under the constitution that they were writing would have great opportunities of abusing his power particularly in the time of war. against that other tyranny, the authors of the constitution adopted impeachment as the ultimate remedy. within a thousand days, we as americans will commemorate the 200th anniversary of that fight for freedom that began on the rude bridge at concorde. we will be worthy of those who fought on our behalf in 1776.

if we fight for the rule of law as they set it forth in what is now the oldest written constitution, still in use in the entire world. finally, mr. chairman, we will be worthy of those who brought freedom to america only if we continue to remember as we have that is impeachment is designed as the one way by which a president can vindicate himself. colonel george mason reminded the framers of the constitution that the impeachment proceeding is e designed to vindicate the rights of the people against a tyrant, but it is also provided so that there will be honorable acquitable for a public official should he be unjustly accused. whatever the outcome the american government would be

purified and strengthened and in that process, all of us would become, as never before, free men in a free society. >> purposes of general debate for period not to exceed 15 minutes. >> i wish to join my other colleagues in commending you for the matter in which you have presided over these hearings. i u believe that you have been fair to the republican minority in recognizing and calling upon them when their turn has come to speak. i believe on some issues we have been successful in improving the quality of these hearings in resolutions, which the minority has supported and has been adopted by the full committee. i do wish, however, to express strong exception in the manner in which the staff on some occasions have handled these hearings. for one thing, i believe that the decision was made early.

that instead of calling witnesses in a subpoena to take their depositions, the staff determined that instead they could call only those people who wanted to volunteer to be called and to have an affidavit presented to the committee. now i understand the reason for this because they didn't want to get the president's counsel having the right of cross-examination, which i believe was absolutely necessary in order that the committee get a well rounded version of what had happened. any witness that has not subjected to cross-examination certainly is able to supply self-serving testimony. i believe also that the staff was incorrect in the decision they made not to call a larger number of witnesses before this committee for the committee's interrogation. i read most of the material in

the 39 volumes that had been presented to us, i'm not going to say i read every single word. i read 95% of it. it could take you days just to get through it. but most of the materials that were contained in those volumes were testimony from other hearings, opinions, memorandums that had been secured from one place or another. hearsay evidence, materials that would not be admissible in a court of law. and i want the testimony and the affidavit and the materials that we consider to be such that it would be admissible in a court of law and something that we and the american people could count on for its validity and i just don't believe that the contents of those 39 volumes can be judged in that manner. we had nine people that aperiod

before this committee. we had some very important witnesses, although there were some very important ones that we didn't have. i thought two or three of those witnesses were exceptionally candid and valuable to these hearings. i thought mr. kohlson did an excellent job in presenting his point of view and covering a great deal of ground we needed to know about before we made a decision. and in the end his testimony was almost all excull pi toir of the president. the only area there was question about presidential responsibility was that the president had ordered him to release materials pertaining to mr. elsburg. it's true that mr. coalson later pled guilty to obstruction of justice on the grounds he

released such materials. but he testified to this e committee that every single word that he released was true and that the reason for releasing that material was that dr. elseburg was engaging in a bat toll deceive the american people and that it was necessary for the administration to bring out their sides so the people who have a full picture of what was going on. the trial didn't take place until 20 months later. and he in giving the reasons for his plea told us that he was so concerned with the rights of a defendant to have a free trial that he wanted to be able to come to this committee and tell us everything he knew without jeopardizing his trial and by making an example for anyone who in the public print would hurt

any defendant who had been indicted and prior to trial. half the press were be in jail if that were a criminal offense in which a person could be guilty. i was also impressed by the testimony that was given by mr. butterfield. he talked to our committee about his job in great detail about where his particular office was in connection with the oval offi office. it happened to be right outside the door. his job was to carry all the materials that the president was to see that day into the president's office. act more like an inbox and to get all the materials that the president was sending back out with his notes and comments that he had made during his peruse l of materials. mr. butterfield, when

interrogated, testified that he had that total access and e he also testified that he knew by the president in the watergate before it happened and on questioning or was involved in any coverup and he said, oh, no, absolutely not. you are correct. we have other testimony that exonerates the president so far as culpability. mr. mitchell was testifying before the committee as a live witness. he was asked by mr. doran did you have any discussion with him in respect to this payment for attorney fees? mr. mitchell, absolutely not. attorney fees, absolutely not. did the president say anything to you about that?

no, sir. will h you my previous occasions discussed with the fact that money was being paid? no, sir. now mr. mitchell was the man to whom larue turned for permission to pay the last money. apparently from the testimony and whether it was on the 20th or 21st of april is not -- march, i'm sorry, is not totally clear, but mr. larue had come to the office where he had talked to mr. hunt to mr. dean and asked his authorization to pay the $75,000. mr. dean told him he wasn't dealing with money matters and that he would have to talk to mitchell. in the conversation with mitchell, larue told mitchell that more money was needed for

attorney fees, $75,000, and another sum for the maintenance of the family of mr. hunt while he was in prison. well, the total amount was rejected and a figure of $75,000 was approved by mitchell. but the insurance it looks for attorney e fees. the president didn't know and then going to dean's conversation with the president immediately following which was the first time that the president of the united states has been thoroughly briefed on what had been going on, supposedly, dean failed to tell the president this very most important fact. i would submit u to you it's the

most damaging evidence against the president and yet dean has failed to tell the truth so many times during these proceedings not just to us but in other hearings that you almost lose count. for instance, we were told before this committee, his testimony was very good, that on december 22nd, 1972, he interrogated mr. dean for three solid hours as to what had happened to the contents of the safe. dean told him about the things that had been turn ed over to m. gray, told about the things that had been turned over to the attorney general's office but denied any knowledge of anything further including these note pooks that were missing and discussed in the press. then mr. dean apparently between that time and the time he app r

appeared before the senate watergate hearing, although the exact time is not clear to e me, he got these two notebooks out of his safe and destroyed them. he appeared before the watergate committee, told them absolutely not one single word about this most important fact of his personal involvement. when he came to our committee, he told our committee that he had destroyed those documents and when asked why he hadn't told the senate watergate committee, he said it wasn't in his consciousness at the time. how could a man forget something so very important of his own personal involvement when he remembered everything else under the sun. and how can we believe him in the testimony that he's given against the president of the united states when he as the president's personal counsel didn't bring him up to date

fully about dean's personal involvement and about the most important fact that the steps were motions to pay the $75,000. i know we all are seeking the truth. and i'm most concerned that we do everything possible to make this government the most honest government on earth. i believe in a high moral standard for our government, for our president, for our congressmen. it is a matter of highest concern to me. when i make the decision on the matter of the impeachment of the president i want to make the decision that i can live for for the rest of my life. i fully believe that this decision is far more important than my political career. as all of us have, i have had many threats from people who want impeachment saying they will walk the streets against me

if i don't vote for it. but when i consider how i'm going to vote on this matter, no how important it is to me and the country that we make the right decision, i have to kind of look to see what kind of a man i think richard nixon is and to see who i believe in this proceedings. i have to be sure that the testimony that's going to be offered has a strong enough value to convince me that he has been guilty of a major crime against this country. in each instance as we get right down to the final point, there's a big mote that you have to jump across to get the president involved, and i cannot jump over that mote. i know it would be easy to vote for impeachment here tonight. everyone here practically saying, hard to be against something so many people are for. when the press is united before us, when the magazines are, the media of all kinds when a

majority of american people go in that direction. but i could not vote for impeachment and give up what is so important to e me, my own conscience of what i believe is right and wrong, and i believe this thing is wrong. and i believe that to come to the conclusion that the staff has come to, they have had to be guilty of coming to a false conclusion in so many of these individual instances. i don't agree with our chairman when e he says there's only one side to this case. there are two sides. the most important virtue of our country, of our constitution is the right to take a different point of view. the right to stand up for the thing that you believe in. i don't criticize any of my friends to come to another conclusion. but i think that the president

of the united states has in most instances although i deplore any elements that we see in the tapes of moral knowledge or feeling in some instances, but i believe that the president of the united states have tried to come to the best conclusions that he could for our people. i don't stand for any coverup. i think that coverup is wrong. the men that could be convicted should be kwibted. i don't think we should ever keep things from our people. it's perhaps all of us have said the most important and most tough moment of our lives as we go over all of these matters and i listen to the arguments on both sides. but i have heard these tapes and i have watched to see what's happened later and in so many instances in listening it to the tapes, you're dead sure something is going to happen and

exactly the opposite takes place. the president orders findings to fire the man that's in charge of the i.t.t. case. what happened? two or three days later, appeal is taken as the vegs will be fired, they go forward and a decision is made by agreement with i.t.t. that's absolutely contrary to the interest of i.t.t. and goes absolutely in the other direction. thank you for hearing my point of view. i hope and pray that god guides this committee to make the right decision for our nation's future. >> i thank the chairman and i thank my colleague from illinois for his discussion and i hope that history will record you received the clearest explanation of this problem on the time of the gentleman from missouri. mr. chairman, it has been my privilege to serve on this committee for ten years and

never have i been prouder of this committee and the privilege of serving on it than i am during this period of its most supreme testing. for weeks, even months, we have has come for decisions. further delay is unjustive eyable. the time consuming task of impeachment must go forward. should richard m. nixon be found guilty of obstruction of justice. yes. should nixon be found guilty of abusing the powers of his office yes and guilty of contempt and defiance of the courts. yes. we hear a great deal today about the presumably grim consequences of impeachment. an endless public trial.

people divided. the government paralyzed. the nation disgraced. suppose the house should decide not to impeach. it should have consequences too. refusal to impeach would be a decision as momentous as impeachment himself. it would alter the historic relationship of presidential power in the constitution system of accountability for using that power. our mess age to posterity, failure to impeach would be a vindication of a new theory of presidential nonaccountability. many would shrink from this trying constitutional responsibility.

shrinking from impeachment derives from the difficulty of visualizing oe februariess. perhaps it is more easily conceived if put in more simple terms. number one, suppose your mayor approved a plan by which the chief of police of your city could illegally map your phone, open your mail, burglarize your office or apartment. suppose your mayor tapped the local reporter covering city hall, directed the fbi to investigate a newscaster. suppose your mayor withhold knowledge of a burglary trying a case with which that knowledge was important or secretly taped conversations in his office between city hall and public officials like yourself. when a confirmed court order

required him to turn over nine of these tapes. he disobeyed. suppose your mayor tripled his wealth while serving as mayor in your city. suppose he paid practically no income tax for several years. suppose your mayor certiused up fun funds. suppose your mayor selected and supervised distrusted top officials of his administration. 10 men and women who pled guilty.

should we have a lower standard of action for the president. the founding fathers wisely made impeachment a constitutional remedy. they did not want to make it easy to get rid of presidents but they were determined to make it possible. if we wish to restore the accountability of presidents, the means and nixons are at home accept once every four years we usher in a imperial policy, we transform the balance and character of constitutional order. impeachment may have grievance consequences, refusal to impeach will have disastrous consequences. the transcripts have diminished him imtooth that of an amoral man who withheld the shocking

truth about the mess he and his administration were in. he shows a lack of concern for reality and principal which make the white house a supposed exposure. he is suspicious of his staff. his loyalty is minimal. his greatest concern is to create a record that will safe himself and his administration. the high dedication that americans have a right from a president is missing from the transcript. i do not know how one of sound mind can read the transcript as think that mr. mixon upheld the principals. the question is not of that of democrat or republican or

conspiracy to get the president, in the words of a presidential defender, mr. nixon took a principal role of a disgusting performance. this is a matter of right and wrong. tra perhaps this old mys issouri. constitutional and parliamentary shows an official may be removed losing his ability to governor activity. the distinguished gentleman mentioned james madison. on may 19th, 1789, in the debates mr. madison said, quote, i think it absolutely necessary that the president have the power of removing his subored

naets from office. it will make him in a peculiar manner subject to their conduct and subject him to impeachment himself. if he nuts chooses to check you components. that risk must be accepted. the ultimate arbiter is the people. public reaction today is clearly revoltion. the evidence against mr. nixon is in his own words made public at his own direction. there can no longer be a charge he was railroaded out of office by vengeful democrat and a hostile press. the fundamental questions have

been answered. let's assume you were president of the united states and possessed normal standards of honesty. one of your assist abts comants do you remember the burglary at the water gate we're spending your money on the people caught in the burglary to pay their legal fees. what would you say or do? would you examine at all of their legal fees as mr. mixon would say they are perfectly legal or would you think that that money was used to re-elect the president of the united states. nobody in this going to use it to support burglars. you know a man who is not a crook is not necessarily an honest man. we do not have too to find out

that the money was being used to support burglars. would i have said that would be perfectly legal and kept quiet for 40 days. ask yourself whether you think richard nixon is worthy to occupy the highest office and the gift of the people. it's their office of the it's hard not to appear silly or disconest when you have to speak about the subject from opposing points of view. so with president nixon and water gate, it's evidence for a man trying to use a government to insist one year gautergait is enough. when administrator and suspect are one, it's hard to say anything without the appearance of self serving dishonesty. as a result mr. nixon is forever saying contradictory things for instance he's cooperating fully with the special prosecutor even

though he's denying tapes that the prosecutor needs. there's a way out. he can plead the fachbifth amendment. add to this that he is innocent until proven guilty you have the best strategy he might have. you know the president spoke about law and order in 1968 saying it's time to have a new attorney general in the united states. he says mr. nixon says i pledge you that our general attorney will launch a war against organized crime in this nation. respect from law can come only from people who take it into their hearts and minds and not into their hands. i believe in a system necessity which the appropriate cabinet

officer gets credit for what goes right. i believe any 70 of government providing besful change. mr. mix nixon said the only way attack crime in america is the way crime attacks our people without pity. >> mr. nixon said? final one, you tell you what happens when you go to a police state. you can't talk why your bedroom. you ha hear about going out and talk in front of the garden. you can't even talk in front of a shrub. i'm simply saying there are police states and we don't want that to happen in america. adds long as i'm in office make sure no one engages in that

activity. to become congressman and woman we took the same oath to uphold the constitution that richard nixon took. if we have to be careful, we must sign this. >> secretary william cohen you were a member of congress in the 1973. explain what happened? >> republicans demanded of our chief counsel and minority counsel at that point was bert jenner, a terrific trial lawyer from chicago. i believe it was congressman wig inns who really took the case. they said quote iryou're allegi abuse of power and obstruction

of justice. where are the specifics so he went point by point. they had a point. i think it rocked the committee back a bit. there was very broad gauged language that doesn't have a lot of specifics. i think the chit ee thought they were on their heels. we went back to our offices and i did receive a call with the meeting with tom railsback and others. they said why don't you like to write, bill, so why don't you see if you can put these things -- these facts together in a way that can be persuasive so i was charged with organizing arguments for the articles of impeachment and then had to that case the next day. i would answer specifically why

this charge is included specifically, specifically, specifically. so that was a legitimate for those supporting the president. >> who were some of the key players in the committee? who did you work with? >> well, i didn't work with anyone until that moment that i met with tom railsback and the seven who met in his office. i didn't work with anyone until they came back and said you have to argue these issues and that was the only interaction i had with any of my colleagues at this point. >> at what point did you think that president nixon was going to be impeached and forced out.

>> i could tell by the oepening statement where it was going to go. i was surprised by some. for examplexample, the congress from wisconsin and congressman maryland also voted for impeachment because they were prap perhaps two of the more critical questioners behind closed doors. i wasn't surprised by any of the other kill r about as i had been telli

telling x about a. did all of that work in the summer of 1974. >> you have to remember what the country was going through. in a ten year period of time, basically a decade we had the assassination of president kennedy, the assassination of bobby kennedy. at sa asse aassassination and water gate. it was a heavy load that the american people are being asked to show. it showed in the expressions of the members. tom railsback was under enormous stretch because he was a strong supporter of president nixon. he lost his voice and never regained it. congressman flowers was suffering from bleeding ulsers.

>> those who would come to public sessions, he would come with an individual named rabbi korve and made it known they were opposed to where the committee was going. >> were there a lot of personal things that were going on in the lives of individuals that perhaps were never known to the public but in the committee. >> did you have a sense of how riveting the events were and how much americans were watching. >> before we opened it up to the public, no. we had been meeting day after day after day, of course the press is trying to get information. it was pretty closed.

i know i would brief members of the press from time to time on context or removing in the right direction in terms of getting evident. there were never any breaches of confidentiality in materials of what was going on in the committee. series of sessions. i don't think any of us had the -- any notion of what the impact was going to be that way. >> a month later richard nixon resigns. did you have a sense it was going to happen that quickly? >> no. i thought it would go to the house. the house would vote to recommend articles of impeachment and the senate would have a trial. looking at the clock, looked like it was a way for the president to run out the clock because it was summer time.

congress is out in the summer timelected, looking at it from a gaming perspective, the president may have tried to run the clock out on the impeachment process. a very key missing tape was disclosed. that shifted opinion on the part of the republicans who were his staunchest defenders. i will never forget the book that theodore white had written, breach of faith. it was had white had a beautiful way of describing how you can take a

french man, take him out of the context, his dna is french or dna is chinese but every country having its myth, they said the myth that binds america together is that we're all equal under the law. if you take that maj lou, you basically unravel the knitting together of so many different ethnic secular groups in this country. that myth that you described it was that everybody is bound by the law and nobody is above it. when you say the president is above it it unraveled. it was basically a breach of faith. you believe you will not abuse it. he will not take his position to

interfere with the flow of justice and to use neutral ib strewents of the government like the irs that any way interferes with the due process. i think the country being able to here all the evidence and then come to the conclusion saying we're persuaded that he has in fact either authorized the bake in or personal the cover up. we were persuaded beyond a convincing case that he should stand trial in the political sense of having to have a trial in the senate but nobody felt great about it. most people get burdened. they didn't want to.

we felt there was no alternative. we were the elected officials and had a duty to see whether the highest officer in the country had breached his duty. >> william cohen, 1974, a republican member of the house judiciary committee. thank you for being with us. >> thank you for being with us on cspan's 3 american history tonight. tv 8:00 eastern time sunday evening we will continue our look at house judiciary committ committee. our coverage of the 40th anniversary of water gate continues including debate over article two which charge nixon of abuse with power. you will also hear from the

forrer director of the library and museum and explains how the committee's vote affecting our understanding of presidential power today. american ht, water gate 40 years later. saturday noon, a live call in program with author and judgist john feral on nixon's life and water gate skapdal that 40 years ago in july the house judiciary committee began hearings to consider articles of impeachment against president

nixon. up next a selection of opening statements delivered by committee members, including barbara jordan, william cohen, strength lott, and committee chairman peter rodino. first a brief conversation with william cohen. he was a republican member of the committee in 1974. now he gives a behind-the-scenes account of the proceedings. secretary william cohen, in july 1974, you were a freshman representative from maine, a republican, a member of the house judiciary committee and after months of closed door meetings the public session and the articles of impeachment were about to introduced before the committee that you served on. what was happening? >> well, republicans were gathering, obviously, and caucusing. i assume the democrats were doing the same thing. there really was very little discussion among the members, i would say i didn't have a discussion until the night

before we actually went public. it was the day before. and i met with tom railsback in his office. he had invited a number of people to drop by for coffee, and it was at that meeting that i first saw what group might be willing amongst the republicans and democrats who were at least inclined to vote against impeachment who might come that morning. i was surprised. i met jim mann and talked to him for the first. robert flowers, i talked to him for first time. ray thornton was there, henry smith. and caldwell butler. we met at that point and said is there anything here that we really all of us could agree on? that would constitute either an abuse of process or abuse of

power, i should say or obstruction of justice. we went through all the evidence that we felt that was pretty convincing, and i think at that point i knew who was going to be voting for and who against, at least their inclination. then we went public the next day. >> so, you were a 33-year-old freshman and a republican. >> it was not a happy moment. frankly i was distressed throughout. i knew that this was going to be the most important decision i would probably ever be called upon to make, and i tribd as well prepared as i possibly could. i had spent the previous six years, three it as a prosecutor, three as a defense attorney and so my focus was on evidence and analyzing the evidence without

regard to political affiliation or partisan affiliation. i had very strong blinkers on and just looking at the facts. if the be facts justified impeachment resolution i would support it. >> there were a lot of factions on this committee or was it a black and whitish. did people have an opinion one way or the other? >> i think for the most part it was pretty partisan from the beginning. die not come from a partisan background. i had served on the bongor city council which was nonpartisan as such and mayor of bangor and never had to deal with hard political issues. when i got to congress i found there were deep resentments on the part of both democrats towards republicans and republicans towards democrats and i found that -- i found myself to kind of being naive in terms of let's find out what facts are and decide on the

merits. it was pretty clear that there were very committed democrats to impeaching richard nixon from the beginning and republicans were inclined to oppose it almost across the board. it didn't turn out that way but those were the two balancing forces on the committee. >> what kind of pressure were you under? >> well a lot of psychological pressure making sure we all stood together and that republicans tended to look at the case as being an objective, a partisan objective of the democrats to reverse the election and without merit it was simply a political ploy on their part to embarrass president nixon. some of the democrats look at it as a way to get at richard nixon because they really didn't like the outcome of the election and didn't particularly care for him. so it was in the middle of that

kind of crossfire, as such, that i found myself, and it was not a comfortable position to be in but one that i felt i was committed to trying to decide it on the merits. >> so, you were asked to play any particular role by the leadership or did you serve as a lone member of this committee, a republican who felt that the president should face impeachment questions? >> i was never asked to play any role other than just prior to going public. in some of the private hearings i certainly was as well prepared as any member and perhaps even better prepared than most members with some exception, chuck wiggins of california, terrific lawyer and great backer of president nixon and he was very gifted and knowledgeable. but i tried to immerse myself and i had peopmemorized the sen hearings and so when they came

before our committee i would be as well prepared as anyone to debate tissues and ask the right questions. i found from time to time even democrats would yield their time to me which didn't make it really comfortable in those circumstances where they would take two of their five minutes or three and then yield the balance of their time to me. that made it a little bit uncomfortable during that time. but, again, i was acting as an attorney, and as a potential prosecutor or defender, i was looking at what do the facts show, what does the testimony show, what can i draw from this and then i dedicated days to listening to the tapes. and i worked through the tapes with the transcripts to try and make a determination if something was omitted or there was laughter or swearing, expletives that were deleted to see if they were done in jest,

done as a threat, i associated myself with a very important case. >> during this time period, secretary cohen, did you have any contact with the nixon white house? did the president reach out the, his senior staff to say hey, these are the facts? >> i never had -- well i had one contact with president nixon when miss teenage of america was named the winner and i was asked to take her to meet with president nixon and i did. we obviously, didn't have any conversation about what was going on but it was also fairly uncomfortable, but he was very gracious and confiding to the winner and congratulating her. but that was it. then one other time when we were brought as part of a rally.

>> do you remember what the president -- >> he gave a stump winder about what he had accomplished and what he wanted to do and how this, this really was something that we had to stand behind him and i remember him saying, i may be a son of a bitch but i'm your son of a bitch and that's way the meeting closed out. >> we'll hear in a moment some opening statements from the house judiciary committee july 1974. he basically complained to our viewers who will be watching this in a moment the positioning between democrats and republicans on this committee and their opening statements? >> the tone was set by chairman rodi rodino. he tried to be as, appeal to the nonpartisanship as much as important, but clearly there were people on his side that were predisposed from the beginning to find richard nixon

guilty of impeachable offenses. i think we pretty much anticipated that. we could see from the way in which the private sessions were held who was doing the questioning, what was the tone in which they asked questions and so you could pretty much tell who was, who was going to go in which direction, at least, with the exception of some of the democrats from the south, who really found themselves in a difficult position because they came from districts that were -- where president nixon was heavily supported. so for them their careers were on the line as well and they tended to be fairly cautious during the course of the examinations. it was hard to tell. some were hard core for and some who were pretty tentative looking at the facts but understanding that they were in difficult positions as well. so, it was hard to know exactly who was going to vote which way in terms of the totality of the

groups but i think the night before, the day before when congressman railsback held that meeting in his office, when i saw the seven people who were there as such knew pretty much how they would vote. >> secretary cohen, thank you for your perspective. from the house judiciary committee the impeachment hearings. you'll hear the opening statements including that of congressman bill cohen, freshman republican from maine. will allow me a personal reference. throughout all of the painstaking proceedings of this committee, i, as the chairman, have been guided by a simple principle: the principle that the law must deal fairly with every man. for me, this is the oldest principle of democracy.

it is this simple but great principle which enables man to live justly and in decency in a free society. it is now almost 15 centuries since the emperor justinian, from whose name the word justice is derived, established this principle for the free citizens of rome. seven centuries have now passed since the english barons proclaimed the same principle by compelling king john, at the point of a sword, to accept the great doctrine of magna carta. the doctrine that the king, like each of his subjects, was under god and law. almost two centuries ago, the founding fathers of the united states reaffirmed and refined

this principle so that he or all men are under the law and it is only the people who are sovereign. so speaks our constitution. and it is under our constitution the supreme law of our land that we proceed through the sole power of impeachment. 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 two 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. last october, in the belief that such violations had in fact occurred, a number of impeachment resolutions were introduced by members of the house and referred to our committee by the speaker. on february 6th, the house of representatives by a vote of 410-4 authorized and directed the committee on the judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist to

impeach richard m. nixon, president of the united states. the constitution specifies that the grounds for impeachment shall be, not partisan consideration, but evidence of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. since the constitution vests the sole power of impeachment in the house of representatives, it falls to the judiciary committee to understand even more precisely what high crimes and misdemeanors might mean in terms of the constitution and the facts before us in our time. the founding fathers clearly did not mean that a president might be impeached for mistakes -- even serious mistakes - which he might commit in the faithful execution of his office. by high crimes and misdemeanors

they meant offenses more definitely incompatible with the constitution. the founding fathers with their recent experience of monarchy and their determination that government be accountable and lawful wrote into the constitution a special oath that the president and only the president must take at his inauguration, and in that oath the president swears that he will take care that the laws be faithfully executed. the judiciary committee has for seven months investigated whether or not the president has seriously abused his power in violation of that oath and the public trust embodied in it.

we have investigated fully and completely what within our constitution and traditions would be grounds for impeachment. for the past 10 weeks we have listened to the presentation of evidence in documentary form, to tape recordings of 19 presidential conversations and to the testimony of nine witnesses called before the entire committee. we have provided a fair opportunity for the president's counsel to present the views of the president to this committee. we have taken care to preserve the integrity of the process in which we are now engaged. we have deliberated, we have been patient, we have been fair. now the american people, the house of representatives and the

constitution and the whole history of our republic demand that we make up our minds. as the english statesman edmund burke said, during an impeachment trial in 1788, it is by this tribunal that statesmen who abuse their power are accused by statesmen and tried by statesmen. not upon the niceties of a narrow jurisprudence, but upon the enlarged and solid principles of state morality. under the constitution and under our authorization from the house of representatives, this inquiry is neither a court of law nor a partisan proceeding. it is an inquiry which must

result in a decision, a judgment based on facts which must stand for all time. in his statement of april 30th, the 1972, president nixon told the american people that he had been deceived by subordinates into believing that none of the members of his administration or his personal campaign committee were implicated in the watergate break-in and that none had participated in efforts to cover up that illegal activity. a critical question this committee must now decide is whether the president was deceived by his closest political associates or whether they were, in fact, carrying out

his policies and decisions. this question must be decided one way or the other. it must be decided whether the president was deceived by his subordinates into believing that his personal agents and key political associates had not been engaged in a systematic cover-up of the illegal political intelligence operation of the identities of those responsible and of the existence and scope of other related activities affecting the rights of citizens of these united states. or whether, in fact, richard m. nixon in violation of the sacred obligation of his constitutional oath has used the power of his high office for two years to

cover up and conceal responsibility for the watergate burglary and other activities of a similar nature. in short, the committee has to decide whether in his statement of april 30th and other public statements the president was telling the truth to the american people, or whether that statement and other statements were part of a pattern of conduct designed not to take care that the laws were faithfully executed, but to impede their faithful execution for his political interests and on his behalf. there are other critical questions that must be decided. we must decide whether the president abused his power in the execution of his office.

the great wisdom of our founders entrusted this process to the collective wisdom of many men. each of those chosen to toil for the people at the great forge of democracy, the house of representatives, has a responsibility to exercise independent judgment. i pray that we will each act with the wisdom that compels us in the end to be but decent men who seek only the truth. let us be clear about this: no official, no concerned citizen, no representative, no member of this committee welcomes an impeachment proceeding. no one welcomes the day when there has been such a crisis of concern that he must decide whether high crimes and misdemeanors, serious abuses of

official power or violations of public trust have, in fact, occurred. let us also be clear. our own public trust, our own commitments to the constitution is being put to the test. such tests historically have come to the awareness of most peoples too late, when their rights and freedoms under law were already so far in jeopardy and eroded that it was no longer in the people's power to restore constitutional government by democratic means. so let us go forward. let us go forward into this debate with good will, with honor and decency, and with respect for the views of one another. whatever we now decide we must

have the integrity and the decency, the will and the courage, to decide right. let us leave the constitution as unimpaired for our children as our predecessors left it for us. i now recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> i recognize the gentleman from california, mr. waldie. >> mr. chairman, i join, i think, with every member of this committee and the recognition of perhaps the unworthiness of almost everyone confronting this enormous decision in their ability to make a decision that will be perfect in all respects.

but i also want to make it as clear as i possibly can that i accept that responsibility and that i think it is part of the genius of this system that fallible human beings are called upon to exercise a judgment of this enormity. after having sat through these hearings through the long hours and days and weeks that we each participated in, i think there's no one on the committee that's not aware of how enormously fragile the liberties of this country are, and how deeply subject to abuse they are by those who exercised great power indiscriminately and it is with that recognition that i find myself quite willing to accept

this responsibility and, indeed, anxious to perform this responsibility in the manner that i deem it must be performed in that manner is to state my conclusion prior to my case by the impeachment of the president of the united states and by his removal from office. the last time this nation had an opportunity to be exposed to the condition of the presidency was last summer during the urban committee hearings in the senate and at that time i think the general perception of the country was that the executive branch of this country and the president in particular was in deep, deep trouble. that there was something seriously wrong with the highest levels of our government, and that there was something seriously lacking in the moral make up of those who occupied

those positions, and the question that plagued post of the people in the country was posed constantly, persistently and eloquentally when senator baker asked what does the president know and when did he know it. that question was still left unresolved although the to cut and anxieties and frustration for not resolving that question persisted. the reason it was left unresolved because of the failure of the president of the united states to provide the answer to those basic questions, what does the president know and when did he know it? well, we now know what the president knew and when he knew it. because of events that have occurred subsequent to the urban committee hearings which the

nation had great familiarity and those events were contrary to the president's desire he was forced by law and by the anger and wrath of the american people to relinquish the most vital evidence that had been withheld, the tapes of his conversations, the best evidence of what the president knew and when he knew it. but in the process of obtaining that evidence, there was almost a constitutional crisis, you'll recall, because the president in his consistent and persistent efforts to obstruct the pursuit of truth in the answering of those questions fired archibald cox and the deputy attorney general of the united states because they persistented to follow the remedies available them under the constitution to find the answers to that

question. the country rejected that attitude on the president's part and he conceded and he did relinquish tapes. but did he? he relinquished some of the tapes. we learned the vital information on the tapes, most vital, most instructive as to tans as to what did the president know and when did he know it, the june 20th conversation, two days after the june 17th break in of the democratic national committee, the conversation between the president and haldeman, his top adviser was non-existent. that tape was in the president's custody and that 18 1/2 minutes was erased by human erasures and the inferences is inescapable. i introduces a relugs of

impeachment by the president's dismissal of cox and his refusal to turn over the tapes to the proper authorities. thereafter, this committee convened to examine the question what does the president know and when did he know it? the next great avalanche of evidence involving that question was forthcoming when we pursuant to our subpoenas had a response, inadequate though it might be of the edited transcripts of the president to indicate what he knew and when he knew it in terms of watergate. that avalanche of evidence as it was altered as later to be determined to have been by the elimination of vital portions those of tapes and transcripts still was notoriously helpful in

answering that question that start it baker had posed, what did the president know and when did he know it. now we're at we're we're at today. has there been one shred of evidence exoonorrating ae ining exculpatory introduced by the president or anyone else since those senate hearings when senator baker asked that question? there has not been an iota of evidence. the president had it within his power if such evidence exists to bring it forth and to exonorrate him from these charges and exonerate the anxious that he pushed this nation into. in response to my friend on the other side of this committee, who suggest the evidence does not show that the president has

done anything, that simply is not so. there is a mountain of evidence showing that the president has acted to obstruct justice. hush money alone would be sufficient to demonstrate that thesis but before we analyze that what my friends failed to argue is that there's another duty on every individual in this country and particularly a president and that is to respond when there is placed before you information that duty compels you to act upon. and this president had that opportunity countless times pursuant to the transcripts that we have obtained edited or not, where he was told of perjury on behalf of his subordinates where he did nothing of that. where he was told about efforts to conceal evidence where he did nothing about that. where he was told of obstruction of justice on behalf of his highest subordinates, where he

did nothing about that. to this day there is not one single instance where this president has come before any authority with evidence or with his understanding of evidence to ask for clarification. the saddest part, the saddest part of all these transcripts was the president's own bewilderment in the march 22nd tape when he was talking about president eisenhower. and he said this. this involved his failure to understand how this thing was falling apart so rapidly and what he could do about it. he said that about president eisenhower, quote, that's eisenhower. that's all he cared about. he only cared about christ. be sure he was clean. both in the fun thing and the other thing. i don't look at it that way. we're going to protect our

people if we can. unquote. that is the saddest standard of conduct set forth in that entire page after page of transcripts that the president denigrates a standard of conduct that eisenhower set for his subordinates, we don't look at it that way and he doesn't look at it that way. he looks at it as necessary to cover up. when the president said in that same conversation i want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the fifth amendment, cover up or anything else if it will save the plan that's the whole point. and then he said, as my friends on the other side pointed out, on the other hand i prefer you do it the other way. leaving aside for the moment the argument as if, as to the fact that he probably was referring to "it" as being a plan for mitchell to come forth and take

all the blame and there by get the president and his men off the hook. leave that aside. examine his words to determine what they did do and what he did do from march 22nd. did they come forth? did they describe? did they tell all or did they stonewall it? did they cover up or did they do anything to save the plan from march 22nd to this very day they are doing anything to save the plan including the last day of evidence that was submitted to this committee when mr. sinclair had gone through all the tapes that were still not provided us pursuant to our subpoena and came up with one shred of exculpatory evidence, tapes that the president had heretofore said borno evidence to

watergate, one shred evidence that was not exculpaer to at all in examination it dealt with hush money. now the president made a big point of determining what use the defendants would put the money to which he was paying them. to determine its legality or illeg illegality. that isn't the question. the question is for what purpose was it paid not to what purpose it was put. common sense tells you that a president of the united states does not condone the payment of over $400,000 to seven people occupying a d.c. jail cell because they have committed a burglary unless he wants something from them. that isn't compassion. that isn't a charitable institution, particularly when it's done surreptitiously.

it bought their silence. you can't look at this case without feeling a deep sadness, but a deeper anger, a deeper anger that this country was jeopardized to the extent it has been in the past two years and you can't look at the evidence in this case and the totality of what confronts us in this case without understanding that unless we fulfill our obligations as these fallible human beings in this genius of a governmental structure, our obligation and our duty is to impeach this president that this country might get about doing its business the way it should do and pursuant to standards that have been set for this country since its beginning. thank you. i recognize the gentleman

from mississippi, mr. lott for general debate. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> for a period not to exceed 15 minutes. >> thank you. this has truly been an awesome, time consuming and exhaustive task and i wonder if any of us can really appreciate what this moment in history can mean to the future of our country. while at various points along the way i've been somewhat disgusted with this committee proceedings such as when we spend an hour earlier this week trying to decide not whether or not we should have television cramps but whether or not to have lights for the television cameras i must admit in alcan didness it has been very fair and i must thank the chairman for his consideration of this particular member. also, mr. chairman, i was particularly impressed with several of the comments that you made in your opening statement last night. i would like to refer to those. 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. i believe that. further quoting, for almost 200 years every generation of americans has taken care to preserve our system and the inat the griffith our institutions against the particular pressures and emergencies to which every time is subject. i subscribe to that. quoting further, the founding fathers clearly did not mean that a president might be impeached for mistakes, even serious mistakes. these quotes i would like to direct some of my attention to. but first let me go back and put our present situation into the proper perspective. we're now in the final stages of review of some 15 months of the most intensive investigation of any president of the united states. perhaps of any man. the senate select committee or watergate committee spent some 18 months and over $2 million in

its investigation. the grand jury is in washington, d.c. spent over $225,000 in their proceedings since june of 1972. the special prosecutors have been at their task since may 1973 at a cost of over $2.8 million and the house judiciary committee staff of some 100 have been working since january at a cost of over $1.17 million. there are reams of paper, grand jury evidence, other congressional investigation paper, transcripts, tapes, lotion, handwritten people months and on and on. the sheer weight in pounds is overwhelming. could any man with stand such scrutiny, could any maniago through all of this without some evidence of a questionable statement under pressure or while frustrated or even without revealing some mistakes?

i submit no. and where was a similar counter balancing presentation of the other side of the story? was the whole picture revealed properly? was it in the senate watergate committee? no. was it in the grand jury or even in this committee? in this committee the staff was nonpartisan, and i must give credit where credit is due for a fair presentation until, of course, very recently and that's understandable. but except for a last minute shift in the minority counsel the arguments against impeachment, the crimes the other side of the story would not have been presented. yes, the president's counsel james sinclair was properly allowed to sit in this presentation of evidence and eventually to participate on a limited basis. his was the only argument on behalf of the president until the last presentation by mr. garrison. however he was the president's counsel not the committee's counsel, not my counsel. there was not a staff structure

for a balanced presentation, in my opinion, and perhaps i share the blame for that. interesting aside is the fact in a get into procedures is that last night at 7:30 we received a proposed articles of impeachment the night the debate began. quite often we've been faced with being hit at the last minute with what we were fixing to vote on. regardless of that we're preparing to vote on articles of impeachment. i tried to maintain a restrained position because i think it's been incumbents on every member to listen and keep his mouth shut until he had enough to make his decision. but i must also be frank in saying i've approached this task from the standpoint that the president was innocent, like any man, under such proceedings should be presumed innocent until there was clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. you can't impeach a president because you don't like his prove

or contradicted evidence. in my opinion, you cannot impeach a president for half a case or on the basis of parts of several cases put together. we're not faced with impeaching john dane or john mitchell or any of the others we're faced with impeaching the president. the line must be drawn directly to the president, clearly to the president. this has not been done. the president had several aides that served him and this country poorly. the legal processes are now dealing with them. but for every bit of evidence implicating the president there's evidence to the contrary. what is at stake here is the presidency and this is what has worried me all along. in my part of the country we do worry about these institutions. we do still hold institutions that made this country great dear and important. we have to consider the best

interest of this country now and in the long run. we cannot allow political considerations or circumstantial evidence to be the basis for impeaching the first president of the united states in over 100 years and in so many ways the best president in that period of time. i think this is classic example here of how perhaps all of us in this committee have gotten so deep in the forest that we lost sight of the forest we're now analyzing every diseased tree and i think we got to look beyond that. let's take at that look at a couple of specifics. there's not one iota of evidence that the president had any prior knowledge whatsoever of the watergate break in. and i don't want to get into quoting half of passages. i guess we can do that on and on. that's my point. so much contradicting evidence. the president himself in transcript of march 13, referred

to the watergate break in like this. what a stupid thing. pointless. that was the stupid thing. the president did not participate in watergate cover up. true, he did not immediately throw all possibly involved immediately to the wolves. would you? without knowing all the facts dismissed your principal aide? upon learning from dean on march 21st the real seriousness what happened he took a serious of actions to find out truth, the whole story. the president on march 22nd said hunt could not demand blackmail money. he instructed dean to prepare a report for him of what had really gone on. he never got that report. the attorney general was advised to report directly to the president. members of the white house were instructed to go the grand jury and to tell the truth. i think it is important you got to look at what eventually happened. you must consider the fact that

the president waived executive privilege for his closest aide including his counsel. that's what happened. we can go on and on. with regard to the psychiatrist break in, charles colson testified that the president did not know in advance of the break in. i make no comment on the part of the article that deals with contempt of congress charge because i think it's so ludicrous that it deserves no comment. now what is really the genesis of all this? what was the beginning of the whole thing? i'm not saying other things weren't important and i had my difficult moments, particularly the conversation of march 21, which i satisfied myself the president didn't order that. but the beginning really was with the bombing of cambodia and impoundment of funds. look at that, the bombing of

cambodia toledo the eventual end of the longest war in this country. an impoundment, presidents have been impounding funds since president jefferson. i think it's interesting that in recent article in "the washington post" august 2nd, 1971, it came out that under the kennedy administration through assistant attorney general there was a plan called stick to it mississippi. my home state. stick to it mississippi. remember that. what was involved was the impoundment of funds on some three dozen projects to force mississippi to comply with certain justice department decrees and court decrease. it's impoundment. it's impoundment whatever way you look at it. when it's impoundment in a different area then it's a different horse. now many of those here have talked about the youth of

america and although identify gone i'm still the youngest member of this committee. i'm concerned what impact watergate would have on the young people of america. but i think maybe in the final analysis they see this more clearly than we do and i really think that young people i've talked to and i talked to a lot of them have dedicated themselves to making this system better by working within the system. and no matter what we finally do in congress, the presidency will be treated more carefully by future presidents. so i think we must take care to see that we don't do irreparable damage to the longest, single existing form government in the history of man. my question in be the final analysis will be this. as strongly as i disapprove of the policies of presidents kennedy and johnson, would i have voted to impeach them based on the evidence before this committee? thank you, mr. chairman.

committee will come to order. i recognize the gentleman from maryland, mr. hogan for purposes of general debate not to exceed a period of 15 minutes. mr. hogan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. more than a century ago in a time of great national trial, abraham lincoln told a troubled and bitterly divided nation we cannot escape history. we of this congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. no personal significance or insignificance can spare one or. the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the last generation. today we're again faced with a national trial. the american people are troubled