Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974
[00.36.04] The CHAIRMAN. The, time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens, is recognized for 6 minutes AND 15 seconds. Mr. OWENS. Thank you Mr. Chairman. It, is true that no one is being fooled during the course of this debate, on the possibility of passing this article of impeachment. A vote for this article. I submit is responsible, is intellectually defensible, and I think it is merited by the facts, but it is obviously not going to pass. In order to execute the function to declare war, Congress must be Provided with accurate information by its Commander in Chief. This is a basic axiom with which I think almost no one agrees. In this particular situation--with which no one disagrees, I am sorry. the, gentleman from Maryland. In this situation, the President misled the public for 9 period of 4 years. Mr. Hogan, who just now corrected me, I correct him to say when he said there was no coverup that, there was a coverup for 4 years of the true. facts of this war in Cambodia. Others say this isn't necessary necessarily unique and some have said you are attacking the wrong person. It is President Nixon who wound down this war, a fact -which I admit, for which I am very grateful. But, I think it must be admitted and understood that the President ended this war only after being pushed into that resolution, into that solution by Congress. and it was last May, a year ago, May of 1973, I had the honor of voting to cutoff funds for the bombing in which resolution for the first, time passed the Congress as a which brought, about, some 60 days later the, final conclusion to the war in Southeast Asia. I think I would be less than candid if I did not admit quite openly that I think the last President of my party, misled the public in the same way. I think the publication of the Pentagon Papers indicated quite clearly that President Johnson misled the people, that the campaign of 1964 at a time when he was making speeches in one direction and representations in one direction, he was in -fact preparing to go another, and that the Tonkin Gulf resolution, supposedly his authority for fighting that, war, was attained at the cost of misleading Congress, purposely misleading Congress. How many impeachment resolutions, it has been asked quite recently in this debate, how many impeachment resolutions were introduced to impeach President Johnson, and I suppose the answer is none" but because none, were, brought against President Johnson and because he was not brought to account for his Misleading of Congress and -the Public. that cannot excuse this President. I am amazed, to use the terminology of the gentleman of New Jersey, that that argument can surface, that the sins or the impeachable offenses if they are, of one President can justify those. same sins of another President. This President indisputably ordered secrecy in the reporting and the nonreporting, falsification of documents of this war after having ordered the, war perpetrated. I have at my side 11 separate statements which President Nixon and his military advisers and commanders made to Congress, 9 to Congress and 2 to the public. Lies all. in absolute derogation of the President's obligation to Congress to provide them with adequate information, adequate and true information upon which they might fulfill their responsibility of whether we go to war or not. Committee members know that I, among others, keep harping that we, must find some lessons for the future out of this impeachment proceeding. I hope that -we. will set down a standard for Presidents and future wars. that something positive will come out of this sad--the history of this sad -war in Southeast Asia and the history of this sad proceeding. that put together -we -will say that if there are to be future wars, and I hope, as I know all members of the committee do with all our hearts that there will not be, that those wars will only be decided by the people through their Representatives in Congress just like the Constitution requires. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has yielded back his time? Mr. OWENS. Does the gentleman from. Maryland desire that I yield? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. Mr. OWENS. 1 yield to my colleague. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, could I make a parliamentary inquiry? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. SARBANES. IS there some way a member who, when we came here, was not prepared to declare himself at that time as either a proponent or- opponent and thought he ought to listen to this debate, can get some time to speak? As I recall, the time was parceled out on that basis and thus requires that the members, prior to listening to this 'debate, indicate and seek his time. I would like to ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 5 minutes which would be in between what was ,allocated to proponents and opponents. [00.42.05]