Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.07.29] Mr. BROOKS. I would be delighted. my distinguished friend. In May of 1973, the GSA somewhat reluctantly, under pressure from the press. said that. they had spent about $39,000 on those properties. on certain parts of it that they asked about, Then in June of that same year they found that they had spent $1.9 million. And a little bit later, by August of that same year, 1973, last year they got the number up to $3,700,000. And then a little later there was considerable pressure. and we announced hearings in another congressional committee and when it became obvious that a hearing was to be held then the White House announced that all agencies totaled about $10 million expenditures at Key Biscayne and San Clemente . Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. BROOKS. And when the hearing was over, it, was $17 million. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield? That expression has to be corrected. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan has 23 minutes remaining. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne. Mr. MAYNE. I Yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California, Mr. WIGGINS. Well, in fairness Mr. Brooks. you should indicate that the numbers that you mentioned, the $17 million, were not improvements On the President's property, but included that entire military office complex at San Clemente. Now, is that not a fact? Mr. BROOKS. Would the gentleman allow me to respond? Mr. WIGGINS. Well, Well, I know the answer. If you would affirm it then we can move on to the gentleman's time. That, is the correct state of affairs. Mr. BROOKS. I wish you would give them the, breakdown on it. it would be helpful. Mr. WIGGINS. You know you are not talking about the President's property. That property is owned by the Coast Guard out there. I yield back to this gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The 30 seconds of the gentleman have expired. Mr. MAYNE. May I proceed? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa. Mr. MAYNE. Thank you, 'Mr. Chairman. I think I would set a higher standard even than the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling. It seems to me ladies and gentleman, that a President has a very high obligation to set a good example to the American people in carrying Out his personal as well as his public responsibilities and that is especially true of the way in which he claims deductions and declares income On his Federal income tax returns. Regrettably to Me this President has set us a very sorry example in the way that he has performed this basic obligation of American citizenship. Even if it Were technically legal, I think it was highly questionable for him to claim such huge deductions for his personal papers. And for that, matter. it, was a very grave mistake by this Congress of the United States for it to ever authorize such a, deduction in the first place. I was not in the Congress when that action was taken, that, law was passed, but I was here in time to vote for its repeal in 1969. 1 think we have to accept the fact though that this provision was not law and the President tax adviser did advise him to take, advantage of it. I wish they had not and I certainly wish he. had not taken the advice. But. much as I deplore the way in which his tax affairs were handled, the, question remains did he commit criminal fraud in Connection with his taxes after listening to the evidence very carefully, and it, is my considered judgment that proof of criminal fraud is certainly insufficient in this case. And I was particularly impressed by the testimony of One of the few witnesses who was permitted to appear and testify before our committee, in person. That was Herbert Kalmbach testify who related how he, was present when the first, tax return in which this deduction was claimed was read to the President. by, his tax attorney. Mr. DeMarco And 'Mr. DeMarco went, through the return page, by page. They said it took about 10 minutes and then Mr. DeMarco did assure the President that this was a legitimate and valid tax deduction, not only for that year but for 4 or 5 years in the future. So the evidence does indicate that the President, like many Americans, relied on the advice of his tax advisers. Now, even if criminal fraud had been proved, and I think quite clearly it is not, then -we would still have the question whether it is a high crime or misdemeanor sufficient to impeach under the Constitution, because that is why we are here, ladies and gentlemen, to determine whether the President should be impeached, not to comb through every minute detail of his personal taxes for the past 6 years, raking up every possible minutia which could prejudice the President on national television. I certainly do not believe that Madison and the. Framers of the Constitution had in mind any such recital as we are hearing here tonight. They did not want the President, to be removable simply because he did not enjoy the support and confidence of a majority in the Congress. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. [01.13.43]