Advanced Search
Siam - Missionary Church
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE # 210021 Siam - man talking, missionary church, people in church and on street, school, Thailand. (Title sequence looks like that of another item that was produced by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, later Biola University.) Map shows Southeast Asia in the center. Older white man in business suit speaks to the camera (no audio). Man preaches from a pulpit; the window behind him forms the shape of a cross. The choir (all Asian) sings; so do the people in the congregation. (Church service; mass.) Asian worshippers leaving church shake hands with enthusiastic Caucasian minister (preacher, pastor, missionary). Smiles all around. Children, wearing school uniforms, walk into a building in orderly lines.
Blue Mosque - Istanbul Turkey
Greek changing of guards, mosque in Turkey
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #991619 Turkey - Istanbul, streets, mosque, harbor
Thailand, misc.
Aerials of mall
Vietnam - KY daily rc #1 on preview cassette 13590
Vietnam daily #2on preview cassette 13590
Vietnam - daily #2 on preview cassette 13590
Vietnam KY daily #3 on preview cassette 13590
Vietnam - daily #4 on preview cassette 13590
Vietnam - key #11 on preview cassette 13590
Tudo St. and night traffic #12 on preview cassette 13590
Vietnam - fofw #13 on preview cassette 13590
Southeast Asia/Vietnam (Reel 1 of 3)
746-1 Vietnam - dialy #14 on preview cassette 13590 (600') 746-7 Vietnam #21 (250')
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.28.50--Paul DUKE in studio] DUKE says that although the votes have been going against the President's allies, they have not given up the effort [PBS network ID] [promos for PBS programming-- 00.29.17, promo for a masterpiece theatre program, in which one man in burgundy velvet smoking jacket upbraids another, who smokes fiendishly, as a "utter SWINE"--it's really too bad that you can't use this, but take a peek if you want to laugh hard] [00.32.18--title screen for "Impeachment Debate"--DUKE in studio] DUKE says that the members are arguing over the language of the second ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT. [00.32.30--committee room] Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. I just have a question of the chairman. There are pending at the desk several motions to strike. The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Mr. WIGGINS. And I--by reason of not calling them up at this time in advance, of what we call a general debate with respect to the entire article, I hope that there is no waiver of that right. It would be my hope that we -would continue to discuss it under the 5-minute rule and at the conclusion of that, that a, member might be recognized for an appropriate motion to strike if that be his intention. The CHAIRMAN. Well, the gentleman may at any time, be recognized for. that motion to strike. The amendments are at the desk now and the, motion to strike, if it is THE gentleman's desire to be heard on the motion to strike at this time, the gentleman will be recognized in preference to recognition of the members on the question of debate on the substitute. Mr. WIGGINS. Well, it is going to be done sooner or later, Mr. Chairman. I call up No. 2. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. The clerk will read the amendment. it The CLERK. [reading] Amendment by Mr. Wiggins. In the Hungate substitute strike subparagraph (2). [00.33.46]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.39.21] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. Mr. WIGGINS. Let me just finish my sentence, and then I shall yield to Others. Those wiretaps were in each case approved by Mr. Hoover, who -was then FBI Director, and in each case was approved by the Attorney General. I would hope the debate hereafter will focus on the, debate -with respect to the President's intentions with respect to the installation of those taps. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kastenmeier. is recognized for or 4 minutes. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Actually, the debate to on this section was really already begun this morning by the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. Hogan. I think this particular section of article II is central to the. whole theme of abuse Of power. As a free country, we have no higher course. than to protect really our people against this sort of abuse of power which can come in a modern age in terms of a police state. What we did as a Congress in fact as a committee, in 1969 to limit the use of electronic surveillance and wiretapping is as follows: In the Omnibus Crime Control Acts of 1968 which came out of this committee 6 Years ago, we Said that if any lawful authority is to conduct wiretapping or, electronic surveillance. it must have a court order except, except. and I shall read. that the power of the President, to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the -Nation against the following threats, mind you: (1) the actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, (2)) to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, (3) to protect national security information against, foreign intelligence activities, and lastly, to protect the United States against overthrow by force or other unlawful means or against any other clear or Present danger to the structure or existence of the government. Now there have been a number of classes of wiretaps. some of which have been alluded to by the gentleman from California. Mr. Wiggins, not necessarily in order of time. The one referred to by the gentleman from Maryland back in 1970 by the Secret Service on Donald -Nixon, which I agree, any reasonable man has to assume occurred with the knowledge and consent and by the direction of the President himself. And subsequent wiretaps and bugging, whether in the Watergate case or implicitly in, the Huston plan. or those undertaken for the President by Mr. Ehrlichman in terms of Mr. Liddy, or Mr. Kraft abroad, Or the 17 wiretaps point to a pattern of use of taps which do not conform to the law as posed by this in 1968. And I submit they are not otherwise authorized by any other decision of the court or by law. Let us go back to the very beginning. How did we ever get there in the first place? How did the President happen to start engaging in wiretaps without any court order in such a mirage of activities? As you know, in any event, the procedure was that all taps would go through the Attorney General of the United States for his approval, whether or not these are warrantless wiretaps, and would be recorded, carried out by the FBI and fully recorded. And as the fact was, later in the year 1971, sensitive about these taps, Mr. -Mardian delivered this list of special White House taps to the White House itself in fact to the Oval Office to be secreted in a safe by Mr. Haldeman. In 1969, apparently following a New York Times article- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. Does the gentleman from California wish to yield? [00.44.19]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.51.09] Mr. EDWARDS. But that is the fact. I think it is really more important to point out -what was done with the information that resulted from these taps. Mr. Hoover, the Director of the FBI, would send them to the White House, to the President. There was a total from 1969 to 1971--and they went on for more than 2 years--of 104 summaries sent. And what happened? It was found that there had been no leaks of confidential information from these 104 summaries. Nobody went, to jail, nobody was charged , nobody lost their job , nobody was transferred. There were six or seven members of the National Security Council who had their telephones tapped. Four newsman later were tapped, and several White House employees, Most of these people, had no access to any confidential information -whatsoever. And as I pointed out earlier, these summaries indicated that no leaks were going on. Well, how was this information used by the White House? On December 29, 1969, Mr. Hoover wrote to the President and said that former Secretary of Defense, Clark Clifford, was about, to write, an article for Life. magazine attacking Mr. Nixon on his handling of the Vietnam war, and part of Mr. Clifford's attack was to be regarding Nixon's criticism of President Thieu. Well. immediately this triggered political action by the White House. Presidential assistant, Butterfield wrote Magruder: "The name of the game, of course, is to springboard ourselves into position from which -we can effectively Counter whatever Clifford takes." The suggestion suggested method of countering Clifford's article was sent by Haldeman, the chief political adviser to President Nixon, and included a proposed discrediting of Clifford by use of his prior statements or a counterarticle. Haldeman directed Magruder to be ready to act and suggested finding methods of free action. 'Mr. Haldeman concluded "the key now is how to lay groundwork and be ready to go, and let's act.,' Mr. Ehrlichman characterized the Clifford information as "the kind of early warning we need more of," and he, noted to Mr. Haldeman, "your game planners are now in excellent position to map anticipatory action. The basic nature of the material developed from these 17 wiretaps and sent to the, White House, was political and personal. There were no leaks. The FBI was sending what the White House wanted, and certainly the flow of the information was not, stopped by the White House when the character of the material became, obvious. The material, in addition to the political information on Clark Clifford, contained reports On how certain Senators were expected to vote on legislation, on the activities of critics of the administration's administrative agencies, on the campaign plans of Senator Muskie. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. EDWARDS. Could I have 3 more minutes, please, -Mr. Chairman, of the 20 minutes? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 4 minutes Mr. EDWARDS. Four minutes, and I will take 2. The CHAIRMAN The gentleman in is recognized for 2 more minutes. Mr. EDWARDS. And information on the social habits and political plans of White House employees. The material had no conceivable relevance to national security, but only could have had political value. I personally reviewed many of these summaries that the FBI sent to the President describing, what was Said over the home telephones of these people under surveillance, and I want to be careful not to describe any of the information in such a way that could get back or be traced to the. people Involved. Suffice 'It to say the conversations were those of citizens, their wives, their children, chatting on the telephone With acquaintances and close friends, confiding their joys, their' sorrows, their anxieties about their personal lives, and in some instances their observations about political and. social events of the United States. These telephone calls were like any calls between close friends where personal disclosures were made, only for the ears at the Other end of the line, and Some of the information would be terribly embarrassing if it, were heard by third parties. The summaries themselves are the strongest evidence of the wisdom of Mr. Justice Holmes' description of wiretapping as "a dirty business." The President authorized these wiretaps. He did not stop it, when they almost immediately proved to be nonproductive. He. knew about them. He discussed them with John Dean on February 28, 1973. He was talking about two of the men who were being tapped, and he said to John Dean, "Incidentally, didn't Muskie do anything had on these? To share with you how the FBI felt about it, this is what two agents said in a memorandum on October 20, 1971. They were talking about why there were no regular records kept of these tapes by the FBI. This is what the two FBI agents said: it goes without saying that knowledge of this coverage represents a potential source of tremendous embarrassment to the Bureau and political disaster for the Nixon administration. Copies of the material itself could be used for political blackmail and ruination of Nixon, Mitchell, and others. [00.56.55]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.09.40] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from California has 4 minutes remaining. Mr. WIGGINS. I yield the 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized. Mr. DENNIS. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman. First I would like to call attention to exactly what the Keith decision, which had not become law at the time we are talking about, held. 'The Keith decision stated that it -was necessary to get a. court warrant before instituting wiretaps in matters which involved only the domestic aspects of national security, That was not handed down at the time we are talking about, which was back in 1969, and the general assumption in governmental circles was that you did not need a prior court order to institute wiretaps for the domestic aspects of national security at that time. The contrary had never been held. But, it is important to know what the Keith decision did hold, even when it was handed down, and I read from the opinion of the court. We emphasize before concluding this opinion the scope of our decision. As stated at the outset, this case involves only the domestic aspects of national security. We have not addressed and express no opinion as to the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents. And in the footnote they say for the view that warrantless surveillance though impermissible in domestic security cases may be constitutional where foreign powers are involved see United States v. Smith and so forth. Now' a great many of these wiretaps here. were cases -where foreign were certainly involved and where foreign powers were certain affairs were certainly interested and where some people might even have been agents of foreign powers and even under this decision would still in all probability be lawful? Addressing what the gentlelady from Texas said, the. court said further, "Nor does our decision rest on the Language of section 2.511 or any other section of title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. That Act does not attempt to define or delineate that the powers of the President to meet domestic threats to the national security." It did not apply to it. It had to do with ordinary crime. So they did not take any guidance from the act. They did not speak where foreign people were involved. And they then held for the first time that strictly domestic national security required a court order. Now, back In 1969 there -were -a lot of important leaks. In early March--and I am using now the books of our testimony. both the President's presentation and our own presentation-- in early March of 1969, and this is from the President's presentation to our, committee, a decision was reached to conduct B-52 raids into Cambodia. They were conducted secretly and we had it in our testimony, too, to maintain the tacit approval of Prince Norodom Sihanouk. However, on May 6, 1969. William Beecher accurately reported these raids in the. Now York Times, jeopardizing the relationship with Prince Sihanouk. On April 1, 1969, the Department of Defense made a troop study about withdrawing troops from Vietnam. It had not yet been discussed with the South Vietnamese Government. Before, it was discussed with the South Vietnamese government, on April 6, 1969, Mr. Frankel ran an article in the New York Times, which jeopardized our relationship with the South Vietnamese Government. Mr. Kissinger so testified in an affidavit which he filed. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman--- Mr. DENNIS. And other similar matters all happened in 1969, and, to finish my sentence "Dear Mr. Hoover. Agent Sullivan wrote May, 1969, "1 thought you would like to know that Colonel Haig called me this morning to advise that they are, releasing X today. At least this is one leak that will be stopped." Respectfully, W. C. Sullivan." [01.14.26]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.21.44] The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The clerk -will report. The CLERK. Ten members have voted aye, 28 members have voted no. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is not agreed to. I recognize the gentleman form from Maine for purposes of the offering an amendment. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment The CLERK. [reading] Amendment by Mr. Cohen. On page 3, subparagraph 4, strike line 7 and insert in lieu thereof the following new language: "National Committee and the cover-up thereof and concerning unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-Elect the President. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized . Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I might just briefly indicate, this is the long-awaited amendment put together by Mr. Butler and myself, calling for greater specifies in the subparagraph 4. 1 think we all agree, at least I do and Mr. Butler, that the statement was too general. I want to commend Mr. Wiggins for drawing our attention to it and Mr. McClory for perfecting it, but I think those are the, specific areas that would warrant inclusion under that subparagraph and I would urge, urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. HUNGATE. Would the gentleman yield Mr. COHEN. I -will yield to the gentleman from Missouri. Hr. HUNGATE. I will be pleased to accept this as an improvement in the language and accept it, move it. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine. All those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] The CHAIRMAN. Opposed. [Chorus of "noes."] The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is agreed to. The gentleman from California is seeking recognition. Mr. WIGGINS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a motion to strike subparagraph 3 at the desk. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment. The CLERK. [reading]: Amendment by Mr. Wiggins In the Hungate substitute, strike subparagraph 3. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California. Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. Mayne. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. MAYNE. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. This particular paragraph is the one which make the charge of setting up the special investigations unit, in the White House, so- called Plumbers unit. Now, I think that in considering this charge, it is necessary to think of the background under which the President made this decision and part of that background is what the gentlewoman from Texas has referred to as the climate of leaks, There is no question that there had been a series of very damaging and serious leaks for several years. One has already been referred to by Mr. Moorhead as the leak in 1969 of the secret estimates of the U.S. Intelligence Board of Soviet strategic strength, and particularly of Soviet first strike power. This was a highly confidential document, but it was released by some official, leaked to a reporter and appeared in the New York Times on June 18, 1969, stating our estimates of Soviet first strike power. [01.26.27]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.32.04-- cut to Chairman RODINO after recess] The, CHAIRMAN. At the time the committee recessed, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne, had consumed 5 minutes in support of the amendment. I recognize the gentleman an from New York. Mr. Fish, in opposition to the amendment, for 4 minutes. Mr. FISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I think this article II dealing as it does with the abuse of the enormous power of the Federal Government against the citizens is an issue that is particularly abhorrent to a democratic people. The illegal activities of the Plumbers is the subject of the third provision which we have before us a motion to strike. I know there are several who want to talk on this paragraph, and I will attempt to be brief. As we know, on June 13, the New York Times published the first installment of the Pentagon Papers. The President, through Haldeman, directed Mr. Colson to prepare a memorandum stating his recommendations on the Pentagon Papers issue. The memorandum of Mr. Colson, dated June 25, recommended that the investigation and successful prosecution of Ellsberg was an opportunity for or political gain for the President by publicly discrediting Mr. Ellsberg. As we know also, Mr. Ellsberg was indicted on June 28. The genesis, I suggest to you, of the Plumbers was the Pentagon Papers and in a meeting between the President, Mr. Ehrlichman, and Mr. Mitchell on July 6, We have the discussion on forming a "nonlegal group in connection with the Pentagon Papers affair." So there is no question here, of Presidential knowledge. The question has been raised, and will be raised again, however, that the issue was national security from the start, that, this legitimized the formation of the Plumbers and the effort to publicly discredit Mr. Daniel Ellsberg. Mr. Jenner, I have asked you during this break a few minutes ago to find for, me certain citations I recall of conversations between the principals in this matter that showed to me clearly that it was a public relations effort they had in mind and that national security in the Pentagon Papers was not the issue. Could you refer to those citations please? Mr. JENNER. May I, Mr. Chairman ? the CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jenner. Mr. JENNER. The following items appearing in the Ehrlichman notes which, by the way, will be delivered to all of you tomorrow with a covering memorandum, I -will read without comment. I think they speak for- themselves. On July 1, 1971, a meeting of the plaintiff, Mr. Ehrlichman, at 10:15 in the morning and Mr. Colson. Did I say the President ? If I didn't, I should have. Item No. 8 reads, "Leak stuff out." "This is the way we win." The next is -also July 1 at 1 p.m. a meeting with the President. It bears the following entry labeled item No. 1. "Espionage not involved in Ellsberg Case," Did I say 21-29. His case, Breach of security, Willful disclosure with intent to commit espionage. The same meeting later, note No. 30.---- [01.36.17--TAPE OUT]
Operation Deny Flight: Search and Rescue (SAR) operations
00:00: Medic apply simulated wounds and makeup to "victims," who are briefed on how to react; also shows "wounds" in shipping case ready for selection. 02:26: A Royal Air Force officer "survivor," sitting beside remnant of bunker and holding a radio communicator. 03:17: French Navy SA 321 Super Frelon helicopter in low fly-by, turning and circling over "survivor," who uses a strobe blinker signal. Helo lands nearby and French SAR team approaches "survivor" and gathers around him to prepare for evacuation. 08:28: SA 321 hovers above SAR team and "survivors," as team attaches itself to a lift line and is evacuated, dangling in mid-air beneath the helicopter. 11:06: SAR team is lowered to the ground by SA 321, then lift line is retracted back into the helo. The chopper lands, SAR team and "survivors" get on board, and it takes off again. 13:28: "Wounds" in shipping case, ready for selection. 13:33: Medics apply simulated wounds and makeup to victims, who are briefed on how to react. 16:35: Interview with Captain William Both, U.S. Army, describing the SAR exercise and elements involved. 22:02: RAF officer with simulated injuries uses radio while waiting for SAR team. 24:39: SA 321 helo in low fly-by, turning, hovering. SAR team ropes down to the ground, gathers around a "survivor" and runs to the location of another "survivor." 29:37: SA 321 on ground, then takes off and hovers above SAR team, who attach themselves and "survivors" to lift line. They are evacuated from the area. 33:6: SAR team and "survivors" are lowered to the ground by a helo. They detach themselves from the lift line, then the SA 321 lands. SAR team and "survivors" run and board the helo, which takes off. 34:47: Three "survivors" in the field use a radio, describing the "threat" in the area. [green-colored night vision shot]. 37:57: MH-53 Sea Stallion helo flies and hovers. [green-colored night vision shot]. 39:22: SAR team approaches "survivors" and escorts them to MH-53 on ground. Helo takes off, then the same exercise is repeated. [green-colored night vision shot]. 43:27: Two "survivors" in field use radio as MH-53 approaches with strobe light flashing. Helo lands nearby, SAR team approaches and the entire group returns to the helo. 48:59: "Survivors" being carried onto HC-130 Hercules air transport and treated for "injuries." [NOTE: in addition to the night vision shots, some of this footage was shot in low-light conditions.]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
[00.06.21] Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. I rise of course, in opposition to the motion for strike and I must observe that for the second time in a row we have clauses that have attempted to persuade the American People and our colleagues in this immediate vital judgment that national security itself -was, a justification for illegal activities emanating directly from the White House and I am very sorry to say from the authority and the condonation of the President, of the United States himself. And I think that we cannot here today make this record too replete with the documentation that says once and for all that the bugaboo of national security will no longer suffice to intimidate the Congress or scare the American people into condoning activities of the kind that we have heard here in article II in these proceedings. I want to assert, and I am sure my other colleagues that follow, me will, that the President was in fact directly responsible for the creation of the Plumbers. It is documented in our evidence. The President publicly admitted it, that he approved the creation of a special investigative unit, the Plumbers. For the first time in our history the people this Nation. were treated to the spectacle of a secret 'intelligence unit operating not in the FBI, not in the CIA, nor the Secret Service, but, in the White House under the direction of White House employees reporting directly to the President of the United States. John Ehrlichman in his own trial, the Domestic Affairs Adviser of the President, testified that he asked the CIA, can you imagine, our foreign intelligence agency, to help and that he asked the CIA to help Howard Hunt at the direction of the, President of the United States. he said, "In my personal experience my requests of the CIA were always at the specific instance of' the President I never did make a step to ask the CIA to do anything without the President having authorized me to do so in advance." So the fact is that the President could and expected that the Plumbers, a clandestine secret organization, would in fact operate illegally. The President had, you -may recall, approved the Huston, plan a year before, knowing full well that it sanctioned admittedly illegal activity. According further to the notes of the President's former Domestic Adviser of his meeting with the President on July 6, 1971, the President asked "Could a nonlegal team on the conspiracy." Now, we have learned during these months in the euphemisms of White House parlance that stonewalling, modified hangout has a significance all its own and a nonlegal team suggests precisely that, and Ehrlichman' notes reflect the assignment of David Young, cochairman of the plumbers to a Special project. Mr. Ehrlichman testified further before, the grand jury that, the President of the United States had prior knowledge of the first trip by Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt. I am sure you remember those names from June, 17, 1972, to go to California to case the Fielding office. The CHAIRMAN. The 4 minutes of the gentleman have expired. The Chair calls attention to the fact that there is a rollcall vote, and the Chair will recess the committee until 7:30. And the Chair would also like to observe that at this time 8 minutes have been considered consumed by those in opposition to the amendment and 5 minutes in support of the amendment and the balance of the time will be reserved opponents and the proponents. The committee is recessed until 7:30. [00.11.22--DUKE in studio] DUKE describes day of "lawyerlike work" on perfecting amendments to refine the language, and the limiting and striking amendments offered by the PRO-NIXON side. However, the votes of the morning session indicated that the PRO-IMPEACHMENT side was strongly in command, and that the second ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT would be approved. LEHRER says that in fact the second ARTICLE was approved at the end of the evening session by vote of 28-10.. Says that more articles will be introduced in the next day's session, none of which are expected to get broad support, and some may not even pass. Signs off for DUKE. [title screen--NPACT screen--PBS network ID] [00.13.20--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.30.24--Paul DUKE in studio] DUKE says that the next order of business will be to debate the ARTICLE proper [00.30.35--PBS network ID--promos for PBS programming [00.33.46--title screen "Impeachment Debate"--DUKE in studio] DUKE announces that the debate will focus on NIXON's refusal to honor the committee's subpoenas. [cut Chairman RODINO] The CHAIRMAN. And the amendment is agreed to. There being no further amendments before the desk, the Chair wishes to announce that there is 1 hour and 20 minutes remaining for purposes of debate on the article itself, and the Chair would like an expression of those who -wish to speak on the article so that the time may be evenly divided between the opponents and the proponents of the article. Would those who wish to speak in favor of the article please raise their hands. [Show of hands.] The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClory, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Fish, Mr. Mann, Mr. Danielson, Mr. Drinan, Ms. Jordan, Mr. Thornton, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Eilberg, Mr. Hungate, Mr. Kastenmeier, Mr. Edwards. All those who wish to speak in opposition? [Show, of hands.] The CHAIRMAN. Mr., Cohen, Mr. Butler, Mr. Froehlich, Mr. FROEHLICH. No. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Froehlich does not Seek recognition . Mr. Latta, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Smith , Mr. Sandman, Mr. Railsback, Mr. Dennis, Mr. Moorhead, and I did announce Mr. Moorhead and Mr. Maraziti, Mr. FLOWERS. I think we have got a problem posed here. We have 30 minutes of debate on the amendment in which everybody got 5 minutes, and it seems to me like the article is more important and we are going to be restricted to -what -will not be time to discuss the points that I 'Wish to raise. I -wonder if we could reorder these priorities a little bit here this morning. [00.36.09]