Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.19.39] Mr. DANIELSON. I thank THE lady from New York. And I point, out that since the issue has been joined' and is before us, we must not retreat from our responsibility, or this action will establish a precedent Which could bind the Congress on this very delicate point for centuries to come. Mr. SEIBERLING. Would the gentleman yield to me? Mr. DANIELSON. I yield. Mr. SEIBERLING. I am a little bit surprised by the argument of the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins. Mr. Wiggins is a very, very able lawyer, and he knows in a court trial you are entitled, the parties are entitled to all of the relevant evidence, not enough or barely sufficient to support a particular point of view, but all of the evidence because the more evidence you can get the stronger your case is and the better chance you have of prevailing. That is an argument which I think is so easily disposed of by any lawyer practicing in the courts that I am surprised that he would even make it. I yield back. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired and all time has expired in support of the amendment. There are 5 minutes remaining in opposition to the amendment. Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. RAILSBACK. Could I move the previous question? Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory. Mr. McCLORY. If there is no further request for time in opposition? Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I would wish to speak to the amendment, to the article. I am not interested in speaking to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time will be reserved. Mr. FLOWERS. Thank you. Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman? Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. There are 5 minutes remaining in opposition. I will recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens. Mr. OWENS. know that this amendment obviously is going to pass, but I oppose it. I suppose I feel stronger about this particular article than I do even about the other two that we have passed. I would vote to impeach on this basis on this article even if there were -no other evidence . I think that through it all, the power and the process of impeachment must come through unfettered. I think that the ultimate weapon against Presidential tyranny, which is the power of impeachment should be as clearly bottomed upon principle as it can be, and I think the wording of the McClory amendment is even better than that of the Thornton amendment. The committee I think- must say to the President, to future President's that impeachment will be automatic if the President asserts his unique power to stonewall Congress in a legitimate impeachment inquiry in the future. The, President is the only individual in this country who can refuse to honor a subpena, and that is quite simply because he is the Commander -in-Chief Chief of the Armed Forces and he is the head of the executive branch, and we have not the physical ability to overcome his resistance to a congressional subpena. I think the power to compel evidence in an impeachment inquiry must be considered absolute. We do not need to decide this morning the fifth amendment questions here because the President has not asserted his fifth amendment privileges. Mr. McClory said in his opening remarks that he hopes that we do not, have any more impeachment proceedings, and I am sure we all join him in that, and I think we may not, if out of all of this we Set down two basic principles. One, we set clear standards for impeachment based on fairness, an understandable standard which we are willing to apply for all Presidents. And two, we say that impeachment power is absolute and is bottomed upon the power to compel documents and evidence, and we do this by saying that a Presidential stonewall a' against a committee in an impeachment proceeding will bring automatic impeachment then if no other evidence is educed. Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. OWENS. Yes; I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. [00.24.12]