Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.52.41] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr. SMITH. How much time did I have? The, CHAIRMAN. Three minutes and 35 seconds. Mr. SMITH. I thought, our side had more time than the other. I have 4 minutes, is that not so, Mr. Chairman? Mr. RAILSBACK. Yes. He is in opposition. The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. I am sorry, the gentleman still has 25 seconds remaining. Mr. SMITH. Well, Mr. Chairman. I hope you did not take that out of my time. Of course, it will be said that this impeachment proceedings is not, a criminal case and, of course, it is not. But we must, admit it is in the nature. of a supercriminal case, since it involves charges of "treason, bribery. or other high crimes and misdemeanors," and the punishment, on conviction, requires removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy an office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States--truly a staggering punishment for any citizen. So, in the background of any court action to enforce our committee subpenas and, indeed, in the background of any proposed article of impeachment based on the President's partial 'failure to honor our subpenas there are at least the implications of the fifth amendment, that, the accused shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself. The CHAIRMAN. The time, has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin Mr. Kastenmeier, for .3 minutes and 35 seconds. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this article of impeachment to preserve the power of impeachment which the Framers placed in the Constitution. Without the power to subpena papers, materials. things necessary. the Congress cannot meet its constitutional responsibilities. I submit that for a Chief Magistrate to prevent the Congress from meeting its congressional duty, its constitutional duty, is no different than when the President himself violates the Constitution. The offense is just as grave. It is a high crime in the classic sense which the Framers intended when Mr. when they used that phrase in the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, before it was indicated that the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory. in presenting this article might, have been inconsistent in the sense that, whether or not he now feels or anyone feels that we need the material requested by this committee and statement would find affirmatively in fact on articles of impeachment claiming that, the, President had not given us material which we now would by implication say is unnecessary. In response to that I would say that this committee made a determination at the time we voted the subpenas and we voted the subpenas in May, in April, by votes of 37 to 1, 29 to 9, 34 to 4. This committee said at that time we, needed this material. The President at, that time said he would refuse to turn the material over to us. So we measure this particular article in the time in which it is seen, not, in terms of whether subsequent to that fact we have or have not acquired sufficient evidence to make the determinations we are set upon today. Furthermore, it has been suggested that in many areas we may not have sufficient evidence even to this date. Articles of impeachment which could be in areas such as ITT, dairy, and other areas, may not well be endorsed by this committee for the reason in fact that we do not have the materials which we found necessary to our inquiry but which the President has rejected. This article is the only answer this committee can give. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. [00.57.00]