Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.18.49] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Butler. for 4 minutes. Mr. BUTLER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Whether the House of Representatives shall impeach or not, is in many ways a matter of discretion. We have a great deal of discretion as to whether or not we will impeach, and -within the framework of our decision as to -whether an impeachable offense exists or not, there is still the judgment which is reposed in us to determine. whether it is in the best interests of the country to impeach or not to impeach under those circumstances, In my judgment -we -will have placed after adoption of articles I and II by the House of Representatives. We -will have placed the issue of Presidential conduct sufficiently before the Senate of the United States for a determination of -whether, the President should be continued in office or not. And any additional articles -would extend the proceeding unnecessarily. We do not need this article. and it serves no useful purpose to pursue it, and I would recommend against it. The principal problem for me with reference, to this article is whether the conduct standing alone is ,in impeachable offense under the Constitution. I think not. I am concerned, however, that what we do in substance by article III is to impeach a President for a failure to cooperate in his own impeachment. and to me that is basically unfair. In ]my judgment the House of Representatives has a responsibility to go further down the road than we have at this moment before we impeach the President for his noncompliance with our subpenas. I would prefer that our determination be affirmed by the courts in an appropriate proceeding, or at least by a preliminary determination of a contempt in an appropriate proceeding before the House. The issue is also one of legislative responsibility. We are saying today, if we pass article III. that 20 members, a bare majority of the 38-member committee, can, for reasons, deemed as sufficient unto themselves, issue a subpena to the President, and recommend his impeachment, for their judgment as to the sufficiency of his partial compliance with the subpena, This article offends my sense of fair play, and I intend to vote against it. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maine if I may. The CHAIRMAN. The, gentleman has no time remaining. The gentleman's time has expired. I recognize the gentleman from' California, Mr. Danielson, for 3 1/2 Minutes. Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman, I support this article of impeachment and I would like to point out that the power of Congress to subpena any and every document from the President in the case of impeachment has been established as far back- as 1792 by President George Washington, and was restated in 1796, by President Tyler in 1843, President Polk in 1846, President Grant in 1876, President Cleveland in 1886, Theodore Roosevelt in 1909, and Franklin D. Roosevelt in an opinion by his Attorney General in 1941. I submit that we should continue to assert this very important right and responsibility of the House. Counsel, Mr. Jenner, has provided for me an excerpt from the recent decision in United States v. Nixon. By simply substituting the word or the equivalent of "House of Representatives" for "courts" and impeachment as a function, here is what you would find on pages 24 and 27 of the Supreme Court decision. "The ends of justice respecting exercise by the House of Representatives of its sole power of impeachment would be defeated if its judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts. The very integrity of the impeachment system provided in the Constitution and public confidence in that system depend on full disclosure of all facts. To insure that justice is done, it is imperative to this constitutional function of the House of Representatives that compulsory process be available for production of evidence needed by the House of Representatives." And on page 27: "On the other hand, the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in an, impeachment inquiry -would cut deeply into the guarantee of due processes of law and gravely impair the basic constitutional function conferred solely on the House of Representatives." That, ladies and gentlemen of the committee and Mr. Chairman, that is what the Supreme Court would probably state if this issue were before it. And I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory. [01.24.11]