Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.13.43] Mr. MEZVINSKY. -Mr. Speaker, I know it is a sensitive issue and I don't -,want to have acrimony. I just want to make one point before I yield time to the gentleman from Texas. Let me say that I respect this Congress. I also respect the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation. I believe that they made, a conscientious effort, to look at the matter of the President's taxes. It, is serious. At a critical time they sent questions to the President, specifically regarding his personal knowledge about matters which had a bearing on the question of fraud. Mr. Nixon did not answer those questions. The Joint Committee did not rule on fraud instead referring that question to this committee. The IRS did say earlier this year, and this was cited by Mr. Sandman, that at that time, there was not enough evidence to resolve the, question of fraud one way or the other. But 7 days later what did they do? They sent a, letter to Mr. Jaworski saying let's pursue the case for possible, prosecution by the grand jury. But I want to bring out Mr. DENNIS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MEZVINSKY. I will be glad to take into account the gentleman's remarks in a few minutes. In the midpart of July I asked Mr. St. Clair, we sent a letter, too, but I asked Mr. St. Clair as the President's counsel, Mr. St. Clair, would you tell the President that we are concerned about his taxes and ask him whether he would respond to the questions that were submitted to him on the tax matter? I also asked whether or not the President would give an accounting of a special White, House fund that amounted to $1 1/2 million. I also asked if he would supply information as to his Now York State income taxes. I am sorry to report to this committee that the answer was negative to all these requests. He not only didn't respond to the Joint Committee but he didn't Care, to respond to questions directed by members of this committee. And I would Say that that kind of attitude can not be tolerated by this committee nor can the President's disregard for our revenue laws be tolerated by our tax system that is sacred to this country. I now yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. DENNIS. Will the gentleman yield for a-- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 16 1/2 minutes remaining. His time--no. The gentleman has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, would Mr. Brooks yield for 1 minute for a question? Mr. BROOKS. I would be delighted to if I have the floor now. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Brooks would you explain a little bit more please about the word "emoluments" and I read from the Constitution, This point bothers me, that what precisely does it mean, that the President shall not receive within the period of his Presidency any other emoluments from the United States and that is a word -we don't use very often and I have found no law on, particularly no law in relationship to impeachment. Now, do I understand correctly the exact sum that you are suggesting is the other emolument that -he has received? Is that at the $94,000? Mr. BROOKS. That is absolutely correct. Mr. DRINAN. Could you tell us more about any history of emoluments? Has the U.S. Government ever sought to get back any emoluments from a President? Has any President ever been challenged as to this particular section of the Constitution before? Mr. BROOKS. Not that I know of. but it has been on the books since 1789. And emolument in my judgment and I didn't even look it up, means do you get something that is good--money. My judgment is that anybody in this country, if you ask them what is an emolument of the office that you are not supposed to get any more of, it, means you are not supposed to get any more money. And I think that he did in that he received $94,000 worth of value which is the tangible value that -was assigned to the values of the improvements On his houses and for travel--not assigned by me, but assigned by the IRS. And they determined that he owed taxes on the $94,000. They said that $67,388 of that money--was for improvements to those properties and that, $27,291 was for travel expenditures. And then they Said very concisely that in view of the taxpayer's relation to the U.S. Government's Chief Executive Officer the above items constitute an additional Compensation to him for the performance of his services for the Government. And I thought that that met on all fours this provision in the Constitution that he shall not receive any additional money, any additional emolument. [01.19.11]