| | |
| ||
|  REP. HYDE: The committee will come to order. Good morning. Aquorum being present, and pursuant to notice, the committee willreconvene to complete consideration of a resolution exhibitingarticles of impeachment. We will consider article four. And, timepermitting, we will consider a censure resolution after completing thearticles of impeachment issue. Are there any amendments to article four? The chair recognizesthe gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas. REP. GEORGE GEKAS (R-PA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have anamendment at the desk, which I hope the clerk will read in itsentirety. REP. HYDE: The clerk will report the amendment. CLERK: "Amendment to House Resolution offered by Mr. Gekas.Page 8, line 13, strike "repeatedly." Page 8, line 16, strike "laws"and all that follows through page 10, line 17, and insert thefollowing. "Authority of the legislative branch and the truth-seekingpurpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding in that, as PresidentWilliam Jefferson Clinton refused and failed to respond to certainwritten requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, falseand misleading sworn statements in response to certain writtenrequests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachmentinquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress ofthe United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failingto respond and making perjurious, false, misleading statements,assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exerciseof the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in theHouse of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry."Page 10, line 18, strike "in all of this" and insert "in doing this." REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized forfive minutes in support of his amendment. REP. GEKAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The intent of thisamendment is to delete paragraphs one, two and three from article fourand leave for our consideration, if this amendment be adopted, leavefor our consideration the paragraph entitled "four" which has to dowith the 81 questions. This foray on my part is focused on the question of executiveprivilege. The question of executive privilege has mixtures within itof the separation of powers issues, of comity -- c-o-m-i-t-y -- typesof issues, balance and fairness, all the things that have swarmedaround the consideration of the impeachment inquiry and beyond. I have always valued the separation of powers, and particularlywith respect to executive privilege. I believe that we should verygently probe around the edges of executive privilege no matter what wedo as members of Congress and to accord the president of the UnitedStates that extraordinary way of conducting the business of theexecutive and, within certain parameters and boundaries, of course, toallow that executive branch to function within its own sphere. In the case at hand, we note that the assertion by the presidentof executive privilege, although he did it excessively and he caneasily be criticized for perhaps the underlying purposes that webelieve, many of us, prompted the assertion of executive privilege,nevertheless, in doing so, he was simply uttering a privilege that wasaccorded to him and is accorded to him. I don't believe that the evidence that has been presented to usnor the contents of the referral give us the ability to second-guessthe rationale behind the president or what was in his mind inasserting that executive privilege. We may have a good idea. Thoseof us who have become suspicious about some of the actions of thepresident would have a right to enhance those suspicions.Nevertheless, we ought to give, in my judgment and the judgment ofmany, the benefit of the doubt in the assertion of executiveprivilege. On top of that, we ought to recognize that there are two settingsfor the assertion of the executive privilege which come into play andwhich have come into play during this inquiry and the one thatpreceded us in 1974 against President Nixon, and that is the executiveprivilege that is asserted during a criminal investigation or a grandjury investigation and the one asserted directly against Congress whenthe Congress makes certain requests or, in their hubris, demands ofthe president of the United States. In either case, it seems to methat we ought to give the benefit of the doubt to the president. We also are buttressed in our thinking on asking for the deletionof the executive privilege section the testimony of the counsel forthe president. In our questions and in the answers thereto, plus hisnarrative, he was sure and certain in pointing out that in most of theexecutive privilege assertions by the president, he was advised bycounsel. That ought to be taken into consideration by us. Secondly, in the cases that wound up in court, the executiveprivilege itself, the right to assert it, was sanctified and adoptedby the court, permitted by the court, but it had to yield only whenthe court also decided that the case made by the independent counselthat the needs of the grand jury investigation superseded theprivilege of the executive, then and only then, said counsel -- andthe facts and the record do support that -- then and only then wouldthe executive privilege be surmounted. So putting all of this together -- | ||||||||||||||||||
| | |
REP. MELVIN WATT (D-NC): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consentthe gentleman be granted five additional minutes to complete hispresentation. (Laughter.) REP. HYDE: Without objection, so ordered. REP. GEKAS: I thank the gentleman. There is another historicreason we should do this. We should be -- even though we are, in theexercise of the impeachment power, re-emphasizing the power of theCongress and the legislative branch -- we ought to, while we're doingthat, set down in history as well that we revere the office of thepresidency and that we want future presidents not to have to reinspectthe record of these proceedings to determine whether or not they havethe right to exert executive privilege. We want to sanctify today that we believe that future presidentswill be able, in looking back at these proceedings, to recognize thattheir executive power, although impeached on the one hand, that thepower of future elected chief executives to assert executive privilegeshall not be curtailed. My colleagues on the Republican side have joined me over theperiod of time since I announced my intent to do this, and we haveagreed to include in the removal from the text paragraphs one and two,which are self-evident in the text of the article itself. And so in the spirit of wanting to correct the record, as it were, onwhat we intend to do in these impeachment proceedings, we offer thisamendment. We feel just as strongly about leaving in number four aswe do about deleting one, two and three. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. (Pause.) Mr. Goodlatte? REP. ROBERT GOODLATTE (R-VA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.Chairman, I'd like to join in support of this amendment. I think thatthis is the appropriate thing to do. I think that no one should takefrom the decision to delete these three sections of the article oursevere approbation about the actions of the president in regard tothese sections. I believe that the allegations contained in them areall true. I believe the president of the United States did lie to theAmerican people. I do believe that the president lied to members ofhis Cabinet and others, and I think that he hoped that in doing sothey would carry forth his lies, and I think that's wrong as well.And I do believe that the president has improperly exercised executiveprivilege. But I also don't believe that any of these three items areimpeachable offenses, and as a result, I'll support this amendment. With regard to the executive privilege, I believe that thepresident has improperly used executive privilege here. I do,however, think that the argument set forth by his counsel, Mr. Ruff,bears some merit in his contention that the president was, inexercising executive privilege, attempting to narrow the scope of therequests for information submitted to him by the independent counsel,and that only after the judge, in reviewing that executive privilegerequest ruled in that fashion did the scope of request meet the terms.If there was public and private information, if there was informationsubject to executive privilege protection and information not subjectto executive privilege protection taking place at the same meetings,in the same documents, I think the president's entitled to exercisethat. Secondly, while I think it is abused in this case, I think it isnot at all uncommon for attorneys to exercise executive privilege onbehalf of their clients. I think that was done in this case, inseveral instances incorrectly, but I think the appropriate measure forthat are sanctioned by the court and not impeachment. I do, however, think that this committee should be outspoken inits condemnation of the misuse of executive privilege because in someinstances, that executive privilege power has been exercised wronglywith the Congress in other regards, and it is important that we notallow a continuing erosion of the abuse of the executive privilegepower. However, I think that the committee and the article are betterserved by removing these three provisions and going forward with whatI think is clearly impeachable and reprehensible conduct, and that isthe president's willful misrepresentation of the facts with regard tothe answers to the president's -- or the president's answers to the 81questions submitted by Mr. Hyde on behalf of the committee. Thoseanswers were submitted under oath. A number of those answers are, inmy opinion, lies and should be accepted by the committee as groundsfor impeachment. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. REP. STEVE BUYER (R-IN): I do have a question for you. I alsolistened to Mr. Ruff. The president seems to be letting his -- theoffice of counsel sign these executive privileges for him. Would itbe your assertion that not only now but, in particular, in the future,that if a president of the United States is going to exert executiveprivilege that it should be done so upon his own signature? REP. GOODLATTE: I think that is a special privilege reserved forthe president of the United States and the president of the UnitedStates, as with the signing of legislation submitted to him by theCongress, should sign directly those privileges. I agree with thegentleman. REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman fromNew York, Mr. Schumer. REP. CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'vealways felt that Article IV, the abuse of power parts of thesearticles of impeachment, was the greatest reach of all, when there arelots of high reaches going on -- or long reaches going on. The most absurd thing in this entire bill of impeachment is tosay that, when the president speaks to the public or his Cabinet,quote, "for the purposes of deceiving people of the United States inorder to continue concealing his misconduct," that that should be anarticle of impeachment. I think you could go down the list of every president of theUnited States, from George Washington to the present, and if thatarticle is significant enough for impeachment, if that reaches whatmany of us on this side of the aisle consider a high bar ofimpeachment, but I am afraid the majority does not consider it a veryhigh bar, then you could find people of goodwill and total honestyfeel that every president should be impeached under that article,every single one. And just go back and read the newspapers or readthe histories, and the Whigs may have thought that something ThomasJefferson thought was totally honest was misleading to the public. Soto me, if you want an archetype of what is wrong with this wholeproceeding, you look at that article. Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, to his credit, has knockedout that article and the others like it in his amendment. I'lladdress maybe the articles themselves when we go on to debate those.But he moves it, not from the sublime to the ridiculous, from the veryridiculous to simply the ridiculous. This committee submitted 81 questions to the president. Heknocks that part out, the part I mentioned -- submitted 81 questionsto the president. The president answered them in the way he saw fit.Admittedly, it was frustrating to many members of the majority.Admittedly, it was probably political damaging to the president. But to say that the president's answers -- not reaching a levelof perjury, because that is not alleged here -- (cross talk) -- shouldbe grounds -- is perjury alleged? Excuse me. (Confers.) Okay. Thento say that it is perjurious, to say that what the other sideconsiders false statements, as the president seeks to defend himselfbefore a committee, makes a mockery of this impeachment proceeding. Again, you may not like how the president answered. You may think he tried to deceive, mislead the committee. That is notgrounds for impeachment. I find it amazing. And then I would go back to the argument that the gentleman fromNew York and I made yesterday. What specifics -- which of the 81questions rises to the level of impeachment? Do all of them? Do someof them? Does one of them? Is it a misplaced modifier or a commathat's out of place? Or is it the whole article or something inbetween? The president has a right to know it. The House, when itvotes next week, has a right to know it. The Senate, if, God forbid,we move to an impeachment trial, as it seems we are, has a right toknow it. And again, there's just a lot of poorly drawn togetherverbiage here saying "we want that man out." So I guess I'd have a question for the gentleman fromPennsylvania. Since he doesn't move to knock out all of Article IV,which I think he should, even give his other strongly held beliefs,which I respect, I would like to ask him which of the 81 questions areperjurious, false and misleading, which are not? And if you just say,"Well, it's some of them," you are degrading this process, you aredegrading, in my judgment, what the Founding Fathers put together whenthey put that magnificent document, the Constitution, together. This is not -- I repeat -- this is not a game. This is seriousstuff, the most serious stuff that this committee has grappled with inthe 16 years I've been a member of it. And to simply say -- REP. : Mr. Chairman? REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. REP. SCHUMER: Just to conclude my sentence -- and to simply sayit's something in there that bothers us is not enough. REP. : Mr. Chairman? REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The chair yieldshimself five minutes. I want to make it very clear what we're doing here with thisamendment. We are deleting the allegation in Article IV that thepresident made false and misleading statements for the purpose ofdeceiving the people of the United States, not that we deny or doubtthat to be the fact, but we don't choose to make it part of Article IV, mostly because his statements weren't under oath, and there are somany others that he made that were false and misleading under oath, wechoose to emphasize the statements, the false statements made underoath and to delete the others. REP. SCHUMER: Would the gentleman yield for one question? REP. HYDE: Well, okay. What? REP. SCHUMER: Yeah, because I am -- I mean, what I'd ask thegentleman in all due respect, and I have such tremendous respect forhim and his fairness, I am glad you are deleting that. I have beenmaking a point of that, many of us have, for a while. How the heckdid it get put in to begin with? He wasn't under oath. REP. HYDE: Well, that's another topic for another seminar, but-- REP. SCHUMER: Okay, well I'll eagerly enroll in that class. REP. HYDE: Very good. Very good. The other thing we are deleting are "false and misleadingstatements made to White House aides," where he lined up his Cabinetand said things to them, and they went out on the hustings andrepeated them, which were patently untrue. We are taking that out.And the executive-privilege assertions, we are taking that out so thatthe only thing left in Article 4 are "false and misleading answers tothe 81 questions." And the reason they are staying in is the answerswere made under oath, and it is the significance of the oath thatcompels us to keep them in. Now, the gentleman asked which ones we are talking about andcomplaining of. And I will tell him now that the president did notrespond completely or truthfully to requests for admission No. 19.The president did not respond completely or truthfully to request foradmission 20. The president did not respond completely or truthfullyto request for admission 24. The president did not respond completelyor truthfully to request for admission numbers 26 and 27; also, No.34, No. 42, No. 43, numbers 52 and 53. Those are the ones we complain of, and we can amplify them if youwish. But for your information and in the interests of specificity,that is what we are talking about. And I yield back -- REP. NADLER (R-NY): A point of parliamentary inquiry? REP. HYDE: Mr. Nadler has another parliamentary inquiry. REP. NADLER: But which is the perjury? REP. HYDE: Well, we maintain -- REP. NADLER: (Word inaudible) -- is one thing; truthfully isanother. REP. HYDE: -- well, we maintain the statements were all falseand misleading. And whether they were perjurious or not, we don'tfeel is entirely relevant because if they were false and misleadingand made under oath, then they are actionable. I yield back -- REP. SCHUMER: But wait. Would the chairman yield for just aquestion? REP. HYDE: I'll yield for a question. REP. SCHUMER: Now that this is just related to perjurious, falseand misleading statements, why isn't this part of article -- I guessit would be Article 1 or 2? Why is it a separate article, now thatthe, quote, "abuse of power" parts of the amendment have been takenout, that the president used government and abused his power? REP. HYDE: Well -- REP. SCHUMER: I don't think this would be called an abuse ofpower, even if one ascribed to the viewpoint the gentleman -- REP. HYDE: Well, you can have that opinion, but this articlestands as an assault on the Congress because of the false andmisleading answers he gave to Congress under oath. That's why itstands alone as an article. You could draft it differently, but it comes out the same. I yield back the balance of the time, and -- REP. NADLER: Mr. Chairman? REP. HYDE: Mr. Nadler. REP. NADLER: Thank you -- thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strike --move to strike the previous word. REP. HYDE: The gentleman has five minutes. REP. NADLER: First of all, let me point out that in answer to mylast question, the chairman said that various statements or answersthe president didn't respond completely or truthfully. There's adifference between completely and truthfully. If he didn't respondcompletely, that's not a lie under oath, that's not perjury. If hedidn't respond truthfully, that would be a lie under oath or perjury,and so when we get to the main article and off this amendment, I hopeby then the Republican staff and the chairman will be prepared toanswer with specificity what the allegedly untruthful statements werefor which this article of impeachments -- not the incomplete, but theuntruthful, because there's a very big difference there, obviously,and we have to judge it. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania forshowing some respect for the rule of law by recognizing that the useof a legal privilege is not illegal or impeachable by itself -- (pause- off-mike question) -- a legal privilege, executive privilege is alegal privilege -- is not illegal or impeachable by itself byintroducing this amendment. Members of Congress have an absolute privilege contained in thespeech and debate clause which protects the work of every member ofthis committee from lawsuits and criminal prosecution stemming fromthe performance of artificial duties. I am, however, very concerned with the cavalier attitude thiscommittee has taken throughout this proceeding toward legalprivileges, including executive privilege, the attorney-clientprivilege, which this committee, by a partisan vote, elected todisregard last week. Even -- or two weeks ago -- even the newlanguage offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania still leaves inand still considers an impeachable offense the fact that the presidentdidn't answer the majority's 81 questions to the majority'ssatisfaction, including such insulting and silly questions which boildown to does the president admit or deny that he is the president. Which legal privileges will this committee attack next? Theclergy-penitent privilege? The spousal privilege? This committee hasopened a dangerous door -- REP. HYDE: Would the gentleman yield? REP. NADLER: Yes, I will. | ||
| | |
REP. HYDE: We've stricken that count. We're not attacking theassertion of privilege. Why consume our time debating somethingthat's not an issue? REP. NADLER: Reclaiming my time. The committee has strickenthese counts, but the committee specific voted down limitations --rather, voted down respecting the attorney-client privilege in some ofthe subpoenas we issued two weeks ago. REP. FRANK: Would the gentleman yield? REP. NADLER: Yes. REP. FRANK: Well, I would just remind the chairman, I know thatthe votes are never in doubt here, and the chairman knows exactly whatwe're going to do, but we haven't done it yet. I think we ought toobserve the proprieties. The chairman just announced that we havestricken this. I would remind him that the formality of an actualvote of the committee -- formality albeit is to you and your majority-- still hasn't yet occurred. REP. NADLER: I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time. This committee has opened a few dangerous doors, and thisamendment, while commendable in its purpose, does not fix the problem.The damage is not fixed, it is done, and we are still, in thisarticle, even with the amendment, alleging that the president, withoutbeing specific, perjured himself in answering the questions. I would also point out, although this doesn't affect theamendment, that the article that's still in here, that the presidentallegedly didn't answer these questions that we propounded to him,these questions, I will tell -- as far as I am concerned, wereillegitimate to start with. The president should have -- it wouldhave been within his rights to tell us, "I don't choose to answer"because they were an attempt to get the accused to condemn himself outof his own mouth; they were an attempt to shift the burden of prooffrom the accusers having to prove guilt to shift the burden of proofto the accused having to prove innocence. And I don't think theyshould have been sent because I think they were improper, and I don'tthink there's anything perjurious or misleading or incomplete in theanswers in any event. But the questions themselves were part of thecommittee's turning the entire process on its head and asking thepresident to prove his innocence rather than asking the accusers tobear a burden of proof of guilt. With that, I again commend the gentleman for his amendment, whichI support, for changing the absolutely indefensible to the stillabsolutely indefensible, but on fewer grounds. REP. COBLE: Would the gentleman yield? REP. NADLER: I yield back the balance of my time. REP. HYDE: The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble. I wishthe gentleman would yield very briefly to me? REP. COBLE: I will. REP. HYDE: I just want to say to my friend from New York -- if Icould get my friend's attention -- you talked about the presidentshouldn't even have answered these. Really, I think there is a dutyfor the president to cooperate with a committee of inquiry on articlesof impeachment. We could have asked him to come in and testify. We thought we'd submit written interrogatories, admit or deny;perfectly proper. You may disagree with the formulation of them, butthe submission of them is perfectly proper and everybody has a duty tocooperate, helping us get the information. So I think you protestethtoo much. The gentleman from North Carolina. REP. HOWARD COBLE (R-NC): Mr. Chairman, I'll be as brief as Ican. I move to strike the last word. In the waning hours last night,one of my friends on the other side implied that we on this side weretrying to get rid of the president and being vengeful. Well, we wereaccused of vengeance earlier in the week, and that's when I said those-- could meet me in the parking lot if they think I'm vengeance (sic).Unfortunately, I've had several calls inviting me to the parking lot-- (laughter) -- but -- one 83-year-old -- REP. : Did you go out, Mr. Coble? REP. COBLE: Just a minute. One 83-year-old woman in Texas whosaid she was frail, she said she would stand with me -- (laughter) --so at least that's the good news. But we are not being vengeful. There's no lynch-mob mentalityover here, and for the benefit of the gentleman who said that lastnight, I've had not said my gut all week because of this. Iapproached this, my friends, with very heavy heart and I'll have notsaid my gut next week when we cast votes. I don't take it lightly. Idon't take it gleefully at all. It's hard chore for all of us, onthat side as well as on this side. Many times they talk about polls,we're resisting the polls, ignoring the polls. I compared the knots in my gut this week with the knots I had inmy gut when we addressed the Persian Gulf War. We dispatched men andwomen to address a problem that was not of their own making and thatwas a heavy vote for me, as well. But I did not accuse one of mycolleagues who voted against that resolution for ignoring the polls.The polls, you will recall, were overwhelmingly in favor of our goingto war. But I equate these two, and I do indeed approach both of themwith a heavy heart and I resent the fact that anyone on this committeewould accuse a lynch-mob mentality of taking a hold on this side ofthis hearing room. It clearly is not true. We're doing itevenhandedly. My friend from Pennsylvania, I think, has taken anotherstep to indicate that -- ultimate fairness, and I, by the way, Isupport the gentleman's amendment. But I felt I'd be remiss if Ididn't at least respond to the charge that was handed down last night,and if Mr. Schumer was talking about me last night, he owes me anapology. I yield back the balance of my time. REP. FRANK (D-MA): Mr. Chairman? REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank? REP. FRANK: Mr. Chairman, I spent the last two years as theranking member on the subcommittee chaired by the gentleman from NorthCarolina. I know him to be a man of conviction and integrity, and Iam glad that he set the record straight. And I am glad, not simplybecause he is entitled to reaffirm his integrity, but because, Mr.Chairman, frankly I think his remarks stand in thoughtful contrast toyour own remarks late last night. I believe that part of what has been happening, in fact, is aneffort by some to explain away impeachment. We have had people say:"Well, wait a minute. We are not really throwing the president out.Wait a minute, we are not really doing much more than sending this tothe Senate." There has been an extraordinary constitutional wrench. Impeachment, the most solemn duty of the House ofRepresentatives, after declaring war; impeachment, which is theabsolutely essential first step for canceling an election and throwingan elected president out of office, a resolution which says in factthat, that Bill Clinton has done bad things and should be thrown outof office. This is not sending to the Senate a questionnaire; this isa statement the president should be thrown out. So the gentleman from North Carolina's reference to the tensionhe feels is entirely appropriate. This is as much as anybody in thisroom can do to kick the president out and undue the last election.And to suggest otherwise, to suggest that this is merely somebeginning of a process that's unclear, I think that degrades theconstitutional process. We have had people say, "Oh, you can't censure the president andthink it's meaningful because there will be no consequence." Well,what you are doing when you downgrade impeachment this way is, infact, to make it into exactly what you say you are decrying, becausethere have been arguments made -- and we know this -- for politicalpurposes, to get votes on the floor: "Don't worry. We are going toimpeach him, but it's not going to pass the Senate." Well, an impeachment in the House that doesn't pass the Senatehas no more actual force that the censure you decry, and in fact thecensure is a more rational way to censure. But that is why I was gladto hear the gentleman from North Carolina underline the gravity ofthis act. The gentleman from North Carolina is entirely right; we arenot here simply serving as grand jurors to the Senate. We are notsimply framing an issue for the Senate to deal with. We are notexpressing no views on this and letting the Senate try it. We are beginning the process of throwing the president out ofoffice. We are beginning the process of undoing the last electionbecause members in the majority feel that the president'stransgressions were so grave as to be one of those rare exceptionswhen you cancel the democratic outcome and say, "No, you can't haveit." And to try to downgrade that is a terrible error. And I think what's clearly happened, the gentleman says peopleare ignoring the polls. No, people aren't ignoring the polls, theyare trying to frame this issue to conform to the polls. There isclearly a desire to impeach the president. And what's become clear isthat the public -- infuriatingly to many on that side, infuriatinglyto the media -- the public simply hasn't changed its position thatimpeachment is wrong, and particularly that the president should notbe thrown out. So what we have people now trying to do is to have their cake andeat it too; to impeach the president and begin the process ofexpelling him, while denying that that's what they're doing. Becausethere are clearly members in this body who have communicated thattheir voters, the people who voted for Bill Clinton, don't want themto throw Bill Clinton out. And so what we have now is an orchestratedargument to say to them, "Well, don't worry, tell them that you justvoted that way, but it's not really going to happen." In effect, what we're having people say is, we are going throughthe anguish -- the gentleman from North Carolina mentions -- we'regrunting and groaning and fighting, but don't worry, the outcome isfixed. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it serves the Constitution -- maybeit's the influence of Jesse Ventura -- to treat impeachment as if itwas professional wrestling; to tell people that all of this energy andall of this stress and all this "sturm und drang", in fact, don'tworry about it, because we all know in the end it's not going to goanywhere. I think the gravity and anguish expressed by my friend fromNorth Carolina is a far more appropriate description of what we aredoing than an effort to try to make light of this and to act as if itis simply a way to express one's displeasure with Bill Clinton. Ifpeople want to do that, as many of us do, there's a way to do it.Twisting impeachment out of shape and changing the meaning of what wedo, and voting for a resolution and then claiming you don't believe inthe resolution -- because the resolution does not say, "Hey, Senate,what do you think?", the resolution says, "Kick him out" -- that is agrave error. REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith. REP. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to -- REP. HYDE: Would the gentleman yield to me briefly? REP. HYDE: Of course I will, Mr. Chairman. I'm just unwilling to let Mr. Frank define the argument as he hasbecause I think he's absolutely wrong. I just want to agree withBarbara Jordan, who made the point that the House accuses and theSenate judges. Now, I do not disagree with the significance of whatwe do. I don't want it bent out of shape. I think it is highlysignificant; it is the most significant thing we do, short of thedeclaration of war. But I also want to emphasize that ours is but a partial role in thedrama of impeachment. The trial, which has been safeguarded by ourfounding fathers to require a two-thirds vote, is held in the otherbody, and it is our function under the Constitution, and significantand solemn as it is, to decide if there is enough information, enoughevidence to warrant a trial in the Senate. That's the constitutionalrequirement, and that's what we're doing. In no way do we diminish ordemean the significance, the weightiness of what we're doing. We'renot twisting it out of shape. But, you, sir, when you imply that we are kicking him out ofoffice, go too far. That is not what the Constitution provides, and Ithank the gentleman -- REP. FRANK: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman? Would the gentlemanyield -- the gentleman from Texas? REP. SMITH: I'm sorry, I'd prefer that the gentleman use timegiven to him by his colleagues because my time is being used up, andI'd like to follow-up on a legitimate point that the chairman had justmade, and augment it by saying this: that the individual to whom hereferred, Barbara Jordan, then a congresswoman from Texas and aDemocratic member of the Judiciary Committee in 1974, was one of themost respected members of that committee at that time. And I want toread her exact words because I think the views that she representedthen represented the vast majority of the members of the JudiciaryCommittee at that time, and so far as I know, have not been refuted byanyone on the Judiciary Committee this year. Barbara Jordan stated, quote, "It is wrong, I suggest, it is amisreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that fora member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that membermust be convinced that the president should be removed from office.The Constitution doesn't say that. The powers relating to impeachmentare an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature,against and upon the encroachment of the executive. In establishingthe division between the two branches of the legislature, the Houseand the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to theother the right to judge, the framers of the Constitution were veryastute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the sameperson." End quote. Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go on and comment on the motionthat the gentleman from Pennsylvania has made, and say that I agreewith his amendment, particularly as it relates to paragraph three ofthis article. And I will have to say that the reason I think that the assertion ofthe various executive privileges by the president does not reach thelevel of impeachment in this instance, is because the president, quitefrankly, was acting just like a lawyer. He was, in fact, acting todelay, to stonewall, to postpone any way he could what I think was alegitimate investigation of his activities. Nevertheless, as I say, Idon't think it rises to the impeachment level. However, just as the president's being a lawyer in this instanceis a mitigating factor, I think it's an aggravating factor when weconsider the other articles of impeachment against the president. AndI say that because the president, as a lawyer, knew better than most,in my judgment, how important the rule of law was to a stable andcivilized and even democratic society. He knew more than most theimportance of saying an oath that required him to tell the whole truthand nothing but the truth. But the president, of course, was not just any lawyer. He hadbeen a law professor in Arkansas, he had been an attorney general ofthat state, and as president he is the chief law enforcement officerof the United States. So in these other instances, in these otherarticles and in the case of paragraph four of this very article, thefact that the president was a lawyer and knew better and was trainedto know better, I think is an aggravating factor. REP. : I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be accordedanother one minute. REP. SMITH: I appreciate the gentleman's offer; I don't think Ineed it. I will yield back the balance of my time. REP. HYDE: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman fromMichigan, Mr. Conyers. REP. JOHN CONYERS (D-MI): Mr. Chairman and members, this doessometimes to some people begin to take on the appearance of a coup.But we're -- and I'm getting the calls into my office about this.It's frightening, it's staggering. This is not in a developingcountry. We're talking about a polite, paper-exchanging, votingprocess in which we rip out the 42nd president of the United States.And this isn't a perception that I am giving to you, it's a perceptionthat is coming in to me from my constituents. We need to really think about where this is going, and I thinkthat we've hit on a sensitive nerve when those who think thatimpeachment is just our narrow slot and that it's given a lateral passover to the other body, and if two-thirds can make the grade, then hegets it, and if they don't, he won't. I think when you say that we're to remove him from office, that's asimportant a part as any in this process, and I would -- REP. FRANK: Will the gentleman yield? REP. CONYERS: -- I would think that censure may begin to lookbetter and better to more and more members of Congress. And I yieldto my colleague from Massachusetts. REP. FRANK: I thank the gentleman. I think we've seen some implicit bad history here. If mycolleagues were to be believed, the trial of Andrew Johnson was a merebump that had no real impact on history because all that happened wasthe House sent it to the Senate, the Senate ultimately acquitted him. I disagree with those who say -- and that includes BarbaraJordan, who was an able -- very able representative -- who say thatyou ought to do something as solemn and as potentially disruptive tothis country's ability to do business as impeachment, if you don'tthink the president ought to be thrown out of office. And let me say,maybe I am wrong. It is not my impression that there is at this pointa member on the other side who doesn't think the president should bethrown out of office. I have certainly gotten the impression fromlistening to them that the president ought to be thrown out of office.I think what we have are people who want to respond either personallyor to some political impulse or for whatever reason. They want tothrow the president out of office, but they don't want to own up tothe political consequences of taking that position. It is true by ourselves we can't throw him out of office. Butyou know what? As the House of Representatives, by ourselves we can'tdo anything. We can't pass a law. Nothing done in this House aloneis final. When we are debating major legislation, do we say, "oh, bythe way, American people, don't take this one as if it is really animportant thing. It's up to the Senate." We always need theconcurrence of the Senate. The Senate can sometimes do things withoutus, like ratify a treaty or confirm someone, but nothing we do goeswithout the Senate. And I have to say that I am struck and -- at theincongruity, and I have to again allude to the gentleman from NorthCarolina. Why has he got knots in his stomach? Just because he'ssending this over to the Senate to decide? He has knots in hisstomach, as he courageously articulated, because he understands whatwe are doing. He understands that you are trying to undo theelection. You are entitled to do that. You are entitled to say thatBill Clinton's transgressions, in your mind, are so bad he should bethrown out of office. I don't think lying about a consensual sexualaffair ought to do that. It does not seem to me members are entitled to do everythingwithin their constitutional power to impeach the president, to pressfor it, to lobby for votes, to do everything possible and thendisclaim responsibility for it. And the notion that we are simply here passing this along to theSenate is not good constitutional theory, it's not good law, it's notgood political science. It may just be good lobbying strategy for thefloor. It may be that there are members who are unwilling to vote forthis unless they can tell their constituents: "Well, don't take ittoo seriously. It wasn't really going to happen." But I think thatis a very grave misstatement of what the stakes are on this issue. REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman, to me, the shell game continues fromlast evening; a slightly higher level but not much. And so we arestill in the same quandary. I worry about this House of Representatives that cannot findenough members to come to the midground of censure, if they cannotturn this impeachment process away entirely. REP. JACKSON LEE (D-TX): Mr. Chairman, I ask that the rankingmember be given an additional two minutes that I might comment, that Imight ask him to yield to me? REP. HYDE: Well, is there any objection? Hearing none, thegentleman from Michigan's -- REP. CONYERS: I yield to the gentlelady from Texas. REP. JACKSON LEE: I thank the gentleman. I think it is quite comforting of my colleague from Texas to havecited a very fine contributor to this process in 1974, Barbara Jordan.But might I add additional comments of Barbara Jordan to the record? She said: "Impeachment is chiefly designed for the president andhis high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designedto bridle the executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed asa method of national inquest into public men. "The framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, toremove the president in order to strike a delicate balance between apresident swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation ofthe independence of the executive. The nature of impeachment is anarrowly channeled exception to the separation of powers maxim. TheFederal Convention of 1787 said that. It is limited to 'high crimesand misdemeanors' and discounted and opposed the term'maladministration.' It is said to be used only for greatmisdemeanors." And I believe that Ms. Jordan understood the difference, andwould, of 1974 and 1998. I yield back. REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. REP. SENSENBRENNER (R-WI): Mr. Chairman, I move to strike thelast word. REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. REP. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Chairman, I am really very disturbed atsome of the debate that I have just heard. The gentleman fromMichigan, Mr. Conyers, seems to state that these proceedings aresomewhat akin to a coup. And that's anything but the case. Now, the framers of the Constitution put the impeachment clausesinto that document as a way of looking into the conduct of members ofthe executive and the judicial branches. There can be a legitimate difference of opinion on whether thepresident has engaged in impeachable activity, but I think that everymember of this committee, Democrat and Republican alike, hasapproached this very grave responsibility with the thoughtfulness andthe seriousness that the framers of the Constitution intended to havetake place when allegations like this arise. Impeachment is not removal. The Senate is given theresponsibility under the Constitution of making the determination onwhether an official is to be removed from office, after a full trialwhere both the House managers and the defense are able to call all ofthe witnesses they want and to make their arguments to the Senate. Sowhat we are doing here is making a determination that the offensesthat the president is accused of are serious enough to warrant a trialin the Senate on that issue. Now should the Senate decide to remove the president from office,and we're a long ways away from that, Mr. Gore will become president.Mr. Gore is a man of very similar views to Mr. Clinton, and thepresident and the vice president have bragged about how well they getalong and how much they agree. So there's not going to be an abruptchange in the policies that the president of the United Statesadvances, whether that president be Mr. Clinton or the president beMr. Gore. And I think the same thing could have been said back 24 years agowhen Richard Nixon ended up getting himself in trouble. The policiesthat Gerald Ford advanced were not dissimilar to that the RichardNixon advanced. There wasn't an abrupt change in control of the OvalOffice. The president and the vice president are intended to worktogether. So, I think that merely by utilizing the processes that theConstitution sets forth is the proper move, and it's something thatcertainly should be used, but used sparingly. And I think that here,at least those of us who have supported articles of impeachment thinkthat there is evidence to indicate that President Clinton abused hisoffice and committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, I do want to talk about the amendment, which is the pendingquestion before the committee. I think the fact that the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania has introduced an amendment, which I support, todelete three of the four charges of abuse of power -- that of wronglyadvancing executive privilege, lying to the public, and lying to hisCabinet and staff -- shows that those of us on this side of the aisleare approaching this matter with thoughtfulness. I have concluded,personally, that there is not evidence to sustain a charge that thepresident has committed impeachable activity in these three particularareas. I do think he has in the fourth, but that's not the questionyet until we dispose of the amendment. So certainly, what we are doing now shows that the majorityparty, the Republican Party on this committee, is prepared to meet theWhite House half way, and to show that when we don't think that thereis evidence to sustain a charge of impeachment in the threat areasthat I mentioned, we are prepared to amend the draft articles ofimpeachment to delete them. Now I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant, who hasasked me to yield to him. REP. BRYANT: I thank my friend from Wisconsin. I too just wantto comment quickly about the analogy of a coup, a political coup.This is the orderly process of the Constitution at work, not militarytroops running about the streets, not a different regime seizingpower. As my friend from Wisconsin said, we move the vice presidentthere. And in the interest of time, I will elaborate on this later inmy time. And I see my time is up here and I would yield back. REP. HYDE: Thank you. The gentleman from California, Mr.Berman. REP. BERMAN: Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman fromWisconsin sort of manifested what many of us think is going on in thisparticular amendment -- setting up a straw man in order to tear itdown. It must have been a very, very interesting caucus that themajority took to conclude that articles that they spent a great dealof time formulating all of a sudden were defective in substantial partand needed to be pulled back through an amendment. It's anorchestrated dance to create an illusion of reasonability that I don'tthink people should fall for. REP. GEKAS: Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman fromCalifornia yield? There's kind of an aspersion there that I think hasto be clarified. Kind of. REP. BERMAN: No, it's not an aspersion, it's a commentary andanalysis. (Laughter.) REP. GEKAS: Would the gentleman yield? REP. BERMAN: Of course I yield. REP. GEKAS: The gentleman from California should know that thefirst utterance I made in this proceeding, when it began a couple ofmonths ago, was my dissatisfaction -- REP. BERMAN: Absolutely. REP. GEKAS: Well then how -- | ||
| | |
REP. BERMAN: Absolutely. And to reclaim my time, what about thegentleman's utterance that made so much sense when he first utteredit, all of a sudden took hold on your colleagues on that side to getthem all to join and remove something from the articles -- REP. GEKAS: You minimize my persuasive powers, that's what youdo. REP. BERMAN: All right. Well, they're slow building, buteffective when they finally take hold. My only point here is -- the two points I would like to make onthis time, though, are first, just a point of clarification for us.The language in the Gekas amendment, as I understand it, is simply,with a slightly different method of connecting, the exact language ofparagraph four of Article IV, isn't that correct? REP. GEKAS: That's correct. REP. BERMAN: And so in effect, this amendment is really -- eventhough it has -- asserts a lot of wordage, is essentially just anamendment to strike paragraphs one, two and three; is that correct? REP. GEKAS: If the gentleman would yield, that is correct. REP. BERMAN: Okay, thank you. REP. GEKAS: That's not an aspersion. REP. BERMAN: No. No, no. There was no aspersions ever meant tobe cast to you. REP. : (Aside) Just everybody else. REP. BERMAN: So that we are not voting to add some additionallanguage, we'd be voting to delete it. I thank the gentleman, and I'm going to support his amendment. Just the one final point I want to make, though -- yes, theaction of this committee and, if it is the same, the action on theHouse floor does not remove the president from office. And as -- butas much respect as I have for Barbara Jordan or whatever words BarbaraJordan, the majority chooses to use -- utilize in some cases anddisregard in others, the fact is the language of this proposal trumpsanything else. You have the ability to cast it any way you want itto. You chose not to cast it as certain things happened, we havecertain conclusions about what happened, and we send this to theSenate for them to determine whether to convict and remove thepresident from office. You alleged that if -- that these thingshappened, these are the conclusions we should draw from it, andtherefore, the president should be removed from office. Every person who votes for this -- everyone who votes for thisvotes to remove the president from office. Things may come up laterin a Senate trial that cause people to change their minds, but at thisparticular point in time, it is a vote to remove the president fromoffice. REP. BARRETT: Will the gentleman yield? REP. BERMAN: I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. REP. BARRETT: I want to echo that point, and I may ask for anadditional minute to do so. The Constitution gives the House ofRepresentatives one function -- to impeach the president of the UnitedStates. The document before us tells us what we're voting on:wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct warrantsimpeachment ... If we were fulfilling our role, there would be a period there.The Constitution gives the Senate three functions -- to have theSenate to have the trial to decide whether to remove him from office,and to decide whether he should ever be able to hold office again.This article -- these articles of impeachment make a recommendation orsay that the conduct warrants three different decisions that theSenate makes. It warrants trials, it warrants removal from office --that's what these articles say -- and most amazingly, these articlesof impeachment go beyond the articles of impeachment of Richard Nixonbecause that's where the articles of impeachment for Richard Nixonend. We go a step further here and say that this conduct warrantsdisqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust orprofit under the United States. REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. REP. BARRETT: That's another decision that the Senate makes. REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman fromFlorida, Mr. McCollum. REP. BILL MCOLLUM (R-FL): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman REP. HYDE: Would the gentleman yield to me very briefly? REP. MCCOLLUM: I would be delighted to yield. REP. HYDE: I'd just like to point out to my constitutionalfriends that the verbiage, the language, in the articles before uscannot trump the Constitution. It can't add nor can it detract fromthe constitutional powers that are reserved to the House and reservedto the Senate. So much as we might use precatory language or any kindof language, the Constitution still is over all and transcendent andwill determine. I thank the gentleman for yielding. REP. MCCOLLUM: Thank you Mr. Chairman, and reclaiming, I thinkthat what we're discussing today is exceedingly important and we haveto understand the concept that indeed the Senate does try this if wesend it over there -- if they choose to; they could choose not to. Ibelieve they would -- I think we have to assume that once we send itout of the House that, indeed, he may be impeached, but there is noguarantee of that. Those on this side who voted for these articles of impeachment, Iam quite sure, and any member on the floor who votes for it is quitesure and must be, that in their mind there is at least clear andconvincing evidence that the president committed impeachable offensesfor which the Senate has the power and should be given the opportunityto remove. In that process, I might add, I've studied theConstitution and I'm convinced that if the Senate convicted thepresident they would not have to remove him and if they did not chooseto remove him they could still punish him in one other way and that'sto disable him from holding further offices in the future, such asJohn Quincy Adams did in running for Congress. REP. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, will the gentlemanyield? REP. : Will the gentleman yield for a question? REP. MCCOLLUM: I'm not going to yield for minute, because I wantto -- REP. SCOTT: I wasn't sure what I heard. REP. HYDE: Please hold up. What is it, Mr. Scott? REP. SCOTT: I just wanted to know if the gentleman said that theSenate could convict and not remove. REP. MCCOLLUM: That's exactly what I said, if I might reclaim.Reclaiming my time, I did say the Senate could convict and not remove.There's nothing mandatory in the constitutional language that saysthat. Now. However, saying all of that,I want to come back to the issue athand. I've got the time, if I might. If I can get more time andyield, I will in a minute. The amendment before us strikes three of these articles, and Idon't think they're three insignificant portions of this article,three paragraphs in this article. The first one is about thepresident lying to the public. Now, I don't think we should go forward and impeach the presidentfor his speech before the American public telling us lies. But I wantyou to know that in the Watergate hearings, the conclusion was to justdo exactly that. So, we're doing something less than was done withRichard Nixon. And number two, with regard to executive privilege, I don't thinkthere's any question the president has abused executive privilegehere, because it can only be used to protect official functions. Andin case after case, from Bruce Lindsey all the way through, thewitnesses who were called before the grand jury, who were White Houseaides, were not asserting executive privilege to protect thegovernment official business. They were asserting it in order toprotect and keep private matters that concerned the personal conductof the president, in the matters we've been discussing here. However, I'm not going to object. We're going to go forward withthis. I think that we really shouldn't get into that. That doesn'tneed to be an articles of impeachment. The other matters that arehere, are far graver than that, the perjury, the obstruction ofjustice, the things we've already voted upon. But in the Nixon Watergate proceedings, there was an article ofimpeachment for abusing executive privilege. So, we should understandthat we're moving -- in a way, not doing the same thing that they did,when the Democrats had the power here. The third one, with regard to using the people around him, thatwe're going to delete from this by the motion of the gentleman fromPennsylvania -- REP. SCHUMER: Will the gentleman yield? REP. MCCOLLUM: In a moment. In terms of what the president didhere, it's clear that on or around the 21st or so of January, aftergiving his deposition, he told a lot of very stretched stories to hisstaff, to his aides, to the people around him. And I know some cansay he just did it, but he told bigger whoppers, as I said yesterdayevening than he did even in any testimony officially where he perjuredhimself. And I'm quite sure that he expected them to go out andrepeat those, and in fact they did in many cases. And it could havebeen done to the detriment, as the gentleman from South Carolinapointed out so ably the other night, to Monica Lewinsky. There was atack that appeared at one point, that they were actually going to tryto cast aspersions upon her, and then they retreated from that. Now, we're deleting all of those. And what we're left with, oncewe've done that -- and I agree with doing that -- is an abuse of powerby the president of the United States, with respect to the provisionsof what he did and said and lied to us, I think, in answering theadmissions. And some have said on the other side, that there's nothing tothese admissions that arise to the level of anything impeachable. AndI'm about to have my time run out. I'd like two additional minutes,Mr. Chairman, if I could, so I could fulfill this. REP. HYDE: Without objection. REP. MCCOLLUM: Thank you. With respect to one I want to pointout in particular that I am very concerned about, it's the request forAdmission Number 34. The president was asked to admit or deny if hehad any knowledge that any facts or assertions contained in theaffidavit executed by Monica Lewinsky, were not true. Now, what the president said, he said, "I was asked at mydeposition" -- these are in answers to the admission -- "in Januaryabout two paragraphs of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit. With respect toparagraph 6, I explained, to the extent to which I was able to testthe accuracy. "With respect to paragraph 8," -- which is the one that I havehere -- "I stated that in my deposition, that it was true." And thenhe goes on to say "I sought to explain the basis for the answer. Ibelieve at the time she filled out this affidavit, that if shebelieved that the definition of `sexual relationship' was two peoplehaving intercourse, then this is accurate." Well, I've already discussed, we've debated the whole part aboutthe first portion of her affidavit, where she says "I never had asexual relationship with the president, he did not propose that wehave a sexual relationship." I think most of us understand thatdebate. And I don't believe it was true. I think it was a perjuriousaffidavit on that point. But even if you don't agree with that, the president in hisanswer to admissions, also says that the affidavit in paragraph eightwas true, where Monica Lewinsky said "The occasions that I saw thepresident after I left my employment at the White House in April 1996,were official receptions, formal functions or events related to theU.S. Department of Defense, where I was working at the time. Therewere other people present on those occasions." The fact of the matter is that this was absolutely perjurious.The president knew that, Monica Lewinsky knew that. The presidentknew that when he answered this affidavit, and he has committedanother perjurious act by doing so, in this case to Congress. It is serious, it is grave, it is appropriate that it be cited asa part of an article of impeachment for abuse of power. And Iencourage the adoption of the amendment of Mr. Gekas, and then theadoption of Article 4 as amended. REP. SCHUMER: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent thegentleman be given two additional minutes so I might ask him aquestion. REP. HYDE: If the gentleman -- REP. MCCOLLUM: I'll be glad to, if it's to respond to Mr. -- REP. SCHUMER: Thank you. REP. HYDE: Without objection, so ordered. REP. SCHUMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There were two pointshere that I find at least leap at my credulity. Number one, that theSenate could impeach the president, go through the trial, and thenvote to vote for these articles, but not remove him from office. Myfirst question to the gentleman, is what penalty, if any, does he feelwould occur? I don't see any that's constitutionally mandated, andthen we're saying that this should be a show trial. It's in line withwhat the chairman said last night, "Well, the Senate doesn't have tovote to convict him." Both those statements I think reveal that even on the majorityside, people are saying "Well, wait a minute. Let's understand themagnitude of what we're doing here." So I'd ask the gentleman whatother penalties he'd have in mind. The second point I'd make is this. He said "Well, just like inWatergate, there was an abuse of power charge." I have never heardthat type of argument win in a courtroom. Yes, there was abuse ofpower, using the IRS, using the CIA, using other organizations ofgovernment to go after individuals that President Nixon didn't like. How can the gentleman compare -- just because it says the words"abuse of power," how can he compare the abuse of power charges inWatergate to this abuse of power charge, which is simply, again,perjurious testimony about an extramarital relationship? REP. MCCOLLUM: If I may reclaim my time, and ask unanimousconsent for one additional minute, Mr. Chairman. It's about to runout here. REP. HYDE: I will grant the additional minute, if Mr. Schumerwill answer a question for me. REP. SCHUMER: Please. REP. HYDE: When are you going to get sworn in in the other body?(Laughter.) REP. SCHUMER: Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, when we come to aconclusion that the Senate will not have to spend its first six monthsdoing the same thing that we're doing here. REP. HYDE: That answer will be -- (laughs) -- stricken from therecord. (Laughter.) REP. MCCOLLUM: If I might have the extra minute. REP. HYDE: You may have an additional minute. REP. MCCOLLUM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Article I, Section 3 ofthe Constitution in regard to impeachment reads "judgment in cases ofimpeachment shall not extend further than to removal of office anddisqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, truth, orprofit under the United States." "Shall not extend further than." I think that's very clear thatyou don't have to go that far. So, the reality is they can convict. REP. SCHUMER: As far as the penalty, if the gentleman wouldyield, what penalty does he have in mind? REP. MCCOLLUM: There doesn't have to be a penality, if you will,other than conviction. Or there could simply be the impeachment, andno trial in the Senate, if the Senate didn't choose to. Now, if I might continue one last point on my minute, with regardto the executive privilege question, and others. There is certainlyan abuse of power here, I think very clearly with respect to theanswers to these admissions. And however you want to frame it, as thechairman said earlier, we could have done it as another perjuryarticle, if we wanted to, perjury to Congress. But I think it's an abuse of power. It's perfectly appropriateto label it that. That's where we're left with this article. And Ibelieve, having gone through the one example I gave you, there areothers in here that he did lie in his answers to us, he did misleadus, he did commit perjury. REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. MR. ROTHMAN: Mr. Chairman. REP. HYDE: The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rothman. REP. ROTHMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I move tostrike the last word. REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. REP. ROTHMAN: Thank you. I want to address with respect thenotion that the House accuses, the Senate convicts, and say that theHouse's power to impeach a sitting president of the United States, isnot a free pass. There's a burden of proof that has to be met, andthere will be significant negative consequences to our constitutionalform of government, if impeachment occurs under the wrongcircumstances, and without just cause. The House can't just impeach a president because the majorityparty in Congress decides they want to change the vote of the people.There has to be a proof by clear and convincing evidence, thattreason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred. Boy, my time went really fast, Mr. Chairman. I hope the clock will befixed. REP. HYDE: I think we probably had it on two minutes. Forgiveme. REP. ROTHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. HYDE: We'll give you some more. REP. ROTHMAN: I'm grateful. So it's not a free pass. They'vegot to prove high crimes and misdemeanors. And we've discussed atlength for the last several days why, in my opinion and the opinion ofmost Americans, no clear and convincing evidence has been produced toconvict this president, to send this matter for trial in the Senate. But when you say that, "Oh, we're just impeaching and we'll gofor a trial in the Senate," and some people say, "Well, gee, what's sobad with that? We'll find out." Well, do you remember PresidentAndrew Johnson, who they impeached, the House impeached and the Senatedid not find guilty? There was an effect on the presidency of theUnited States for decades after that. Now, you know, some of my colleagues on the Republican side ofthe aisle say, "Well, you know, we'll just impeach him in the House,and that'll send a message to future presidents that you can't behavein such a way" as they feel was wrongful. By the way, I think thepresident's behavior was wrongful and should be censured for thethings that we know he did and he admitted to. REP. ROGAN: Will the gentleman yield for a brief question? REP. ROTHMAN: No. Let me finish, please. But there will be adevastating effect on the next president of the United States and thepresident after that and the president after that. When the people ofthe United States elect a president, that president -- if theRepublican majority gets its way in this committee and in the House ofRepresentatives, the next president and the president after that andthe president after that are going to be looking over their shoulderevery time they make a controversial decision if they're a member of adifferent party than the majority party in the Congress. They're going to wonder, if they veto a bill that the majority inthe Congress doesn't like, is the majority in Congress going to invest$40 million in an investigation, go through their entire life and tryto come up with something so that they can impeach them, so themajority on the Judiciary Committee can say, "Well, we'll just see ifit gets a conviction in the Senate"? It will have a devastating, chilling effect on the next presidentof the United States and the presidents thereafter. Make no mistakeabout it. History tells us that's what happened to President AndrewJohnson. And that will be a terrible thing. If the majority partydoes not want to have that significant effect on the presidency of theUnited States, one that the founders of our Constitution said would bea strong presidency -- they rejected impeachment for failure to liveup to good behavior. They rejected an impeachment power formaladministration. They set the bar for impeachment by the House very high. It hasnot been met. The people of America must let their representativesknow there is a danger to our republic and to the future holders ofthe office of the presidency if the House impeaches the president,even if they say it's just to pass it on for a trial. I yield back. REP. ROGAN: Mr. Chairman, would the chair recognize me for aunanimous consent request? REP. HYDE: The gentleman from California. REP. ROGAN: I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute anda half so that I may propose a question to my friend from New Jersey. REP. HYDE: Without objection, so ordered. REP. ROGAN: I would ask my friend from New Jersey about hiscomments a moment ago. He just told the committee, as well as theAmerican people, that some of your friends on the Republican side havetaken the position that it's okay to vote for an impeachment justbecause it sends a message. That is quite an indictment which wouldindicate that members of my party in Congress are minimizing theirconstitutional role. Would the gentleman be kind enough to identifyby name those Republicans who have taken that incredible position? REP. ROTHMAN: You know, there have been so many, it's hard toremember who told me it. REP. ROGAN: Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent -- REP. ROTHMAN: If you want an answer, I'll give you a completeanswer. REP. ROGAN: -- to have as much time as necessary so that myfriend can come up with the list of the names of members. REP. ROTHMAN: If you would like an answer, I will give you acomplete answer. There have been many, many people who have said tome, "You know, Steve, why don't you just have an impeachment?" Thereare members on the other side of the aisle -- and it has occurredbehind the scenes, off the record and in the panel, in the cloakrooms,where they said, "Well, we're going to move this on." I feel stronglyabout it. Now, I do not denigrate the motives of any member of the otherside of the aisle in making their votes. I never have. I never will.I believe you make your judgments on your opinion as to what is theright thing to do. I just feel your opinion about what the rightthing to do is fundamentally wrong and a great danger to our country.But I don't denigrate that you believe that it's the right thing todo. But that doesn't stop us from the need to prevent somethingterrible from happening. REP. ROGAN: Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman -- REP. : Would the gentleman yield for a unanimous request -- REP. : Would the gentleman yield for an answer to hisquestion? REP. HYDE: The chair would very much like to get to a vote onthe amendment. We've discussed everything from aardvark to Zimbabwe,and we are not concentrating on the amendment. I'll get to you, Ms.Jackson Lee, but I must move to the Republican side now. And so Mr.Canady is recognized for five minutes. REP. CANADY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I assume it wouldn'tbe out of order for me to express my support for the amendment. Mostof the discussion we've had hasn't directly related to the amendment.But I would at least like to say that I think the gentleman fromPennsylvania has offered an amendment that should be adopted by thecommittee and one which I will support. I do want to respond to some of the statements that have beenmade this morning concerning the issue before us. Now, the point hasjust been made a moment ago that if we move forward and impeach thepresident that future presidents will be looking over their shoulder.This will have some sort of chilling effect on the institution of thepresidency. Well, I will say that I believe the only -- there's an element oftruth in that. I believe that if we move forward with thisimpeachment, future presidents who engage in a course of conductdesigned to obstruct justice, who lie repeatedly under oath, will belooking over their shoulder. And I would like for them to be lookingover their shoulder. They should take pause before they think aboutengaging in such conduct. Now, it's also been argued that it was unfair for us to even askthe president any questions in this inquiry and that we are somehowguilty of misconduct because we dared to ask the president questionsabout his misconduct. We are accused of somehow being out of linebecause we expected and required that the president answer ourquestions in a truthful manner. Now, Mr. Schumer has said the president answered the questions ashe saw fit. I agree with the gentleman from New York. The presidentdid answer the questions as he saw fit. He answered not only ourquestions as he saw fit, he answered the questions in the depositionin January as he saw fit. He answered the questions before the grandjury as he saw fit. The problem is this. He saw fit to lie. He saw fit to lie inthe deposition. He saw fit to lie before the grand jury. He saw fitto lie, finally, in his answers to our questions. Now, that is theserious matter that is before us, and that is a matter from which wecannot turn away as though it is something trivial. It is nottrivial. It is serious. And it shows an amazing lack of respect notonly for the truth but for the system of justice, and ultimately forthis inquiry. Now, when the president answered the questions that we propoundedto him, he was not responding as a private citizen. And that's why Ithink having a separate article that focuses on his false answers tothe questions propounded to him in this inquiry makes sense. When he answered those questions, he answered as president of theUnited States, and he did so in a way that evidenced his continuinglack of respect for the truth, lack of respect for the dignity of hisoffice, and lack of respect for the oath that he took when he swore totell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. | ||
| | |
REP. SCHUMER: Will the gentleman yield? REP. CANADY: I am sorry. I want to continue. And there may betime. The gentleman from New York has probably had more time thismorning than any other members of the committee. Now, I simply believe that we have a responsibility to focus onthe facts that are before us. And when I saw the president's answersto these questions, quite frankly I was astounded. I'll have to tellyou I was also astounded when I saw the president's statementyesterday. After all this, we still cannot get an honest acceptanceof responsibility for breaking the law, for lying under oath. Now I am not saying that would make the matter go away, even ifthe president admitted that. I think it's gone too far for that,quite frankly. I don't think you just accept an apology for such acourse of conduct. But at this point, the president still cannotreconcile himself to the law; he still cannot reconcile himself to thetruth. And I think that is a factor which cannot be denied in thecircumstances that are before us. And let me say in response to some of the other points that havebeen made, I wouldn't vote to impeach the president unless I felt thatthere was evidence sufficient to convict him in the Senate. I believethat that's the proper way to deal with this. This is a momentousdecision. But we are dealing with a course of conduct here which isserious. The ultimate judgment is not ours. And I think the chairmanis quite right in pointing out that the ultimate judgment is with theSenate. And the gentleman from New York, the senator-elect, has beenchosen by the people of New York, and he will play a part in makingthat decision, and he is entitled to that. But we have a responsibility to carry out here. And I, for one,intend to do it. Thank you. REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. REP. JACKSON LEE: I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And although I find great interest in the amendment and willstudy it further, I couldn't help but listen to my colleagues on theother side of the aisle on this moment. The president left this morning for the Mideast, and I wish himGodspeed. But he should realize that tomorrow's headlines will, ifthey are truthful, announce his removal from office. And with all ofthe coloration that that is not the case, I think it is important tonote that it is clearly stated in the Articles of Impeachment. Thelanguage is there. And the basis for that removal is one that should be recollected,for we are continually, and that is Democrats and Republicans, citingthe Watergate model. Statesmen and stateswomen they were. But the facts of Watergate wereso obviously and conspicuously different that we do a disservice tothe citation, the quotation, the remembrance of those members, becausethey were remembering horrific acts: the use of the CIA to violate theFBI; the coordination of members of cabinet sitting in rooms talkingabout "How do we get these people?" and the tawdry facts today: thegetting of President Clinton; the leaving the office of the Office ofSpecial Counsel Linda Tripp and go to the counsel for Paula Jones;Paula Jones' own husband saying, "We're going to get the president ofthe United States;" the hiring of a public relations specialist forPaula Jones to set out on a campaign to make this more than it was, atawdry, adulterous affair. We now sit to remove this president. We now sit to tell ourchildren, our grandchildren that there is no redemption. And I amoffended when my colleagues across the aisle talk about the chiefexecutive of this United States. He is still that. And when he comesbefore the people of the United States of America and offers hisapology, how dare you -- how dare you suggest that he is diminished,he is using another line? And there are Americans who have said that,as they have been, I'm sure, encouraged by those who could not wait tocomment on how insignificant it is for the president of the mostpowerful nation in the world to come before the American people andacknowledge that he has been called deceitful, that he has misled theAmerican people, and that he should be censured. And so, let it not be mistaken. We vote today as we conclude totake the private acts, sexual accusations and indiscretions, violationand complete wounding of one's family and this nation, however, addedto by 22 hours of illegal taping, coordination with a civil casedismissed. And we now say that we want to remove the president of theUnited States. And then to add insult to injury, although I had, by the grace ofthe chairman, and I thank him, admitted into evidence theConstitution, although I had spoken weeks and weeks ago about the needto be guided by the Fifth Amendment -- that is, notice and due process-- when the president responds, duly guided by his lawyers, tointerrogatories as any other citizen would have the privilege ofdoing, we take those documents and suggest that we now can createanother violation by suggesting in his interrogatories, using theFifth Amendment, the right of due process, the right to respond toone's accuser, and make it now an article where he is accused ofviolating, perjuring, obstructing justice because he answered ourinterrogatories. My friends, I would say, if we didn't have a case before that,then that is making a case inside of this room, for frankly, I thinkwe have a case against the chief accuser, to have left hisprosecutorial role and moved to be the witness-in-chief, the factwitness when all Mr. Starr could offer us was nothing but hearsay --hearsay -- REP. HYDE: The gentlelady -- REP. JACKSON LEE: -- and these articles, Mr. Chairman -- REP. HYDE: The gentlelady -- REP. JACKSON LEE: -- are premised upon the hearsay of a witnesswho had no first-hand knowledge. REP. HYDE: The gentlelady's time has expired. REP. JACKSON LEE: I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, tomorrow'sheadlines should say the truth: we are voting to remove thepresident. Mr. Chairman, if I may finish in 30 seconds -- in our hearts wemust ask, we must raise up our conscience and ask are we preparedtoday to remove the president of the United States of America, for noconstitutional forbidding, if you will, takes that vote away from ustoday, and Mr. Coble, I know that we all are full of knots, but let itbe, if you will, connecting that you are not -- you are not justvoting to move something forward, you are voting to remove thepresident of the United States, and I hope to God that you are fullyconvinced that this president should be removed on these tawdry andwhat I consider -- REP. HYDE: The gentlelady's time really has expired. REP. JACKSON LEE: -- very insignificant facts. REP. HYDE: The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis. REP. INGLIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentlelady from Texas just mentioned the horrific facts ofWatergate. I wonder -- isn't it true that we've got horrific factshere? We've got the chief law enforcement officer of the United States who perjured himself -- not once but repeatedly, not just in acivil deposition, but before a grand jury. Perjury is move heavilypunished than bribery. It is horrific to me that the president wouldeven continue that as late as 4:00 yesterday; as late as 4:00yesterday, the man cannot bring himself to tell the truth. He continues to lie. He continues to deceive the American people. Ithink it's horrific. I think it's horrific that the man is leavingnow to a trip where who knows what he would say, and who can count onwhat he says? I think it's horrific. These are horrific facts that the man cannot tell the truth. Hecouldn't tell the truth yesterday, he couldn't tell the truth before agrand jury, he couldn't tell the truth in a civil deposition, hecouldn't tell the truth when he submitted answers to questions to thiscommittee. When will he tell the truth? When he's finally before thebar in the Senate maybe? Will that be when he tells the truth? The gentlelady suggested that there's no redemption here. Shedecries the fact that we have no redemption. There is redemption --with consequences. And in this proceeding earlier, I believe itmay have been the chairman who eloquently pointed this out -- if nothim, someone else -- that a perfect picture of that is Pope John Paulconfronting his assailant. Went to visit him, offer forgiveness andhope, but left him in jail. He sought no effort -- or had no effort,made no effort to have him released from jail. And there hisassailant continues, to remain. Now that is the appropriate pictureof redemption. Redemption, yes; forgiveness, yes -- but withconsequences. The president can't ask us for not cheap grace,worthless grace -- absolutely worthless grace to not even admit hiswrongdoing, and expect that even if he did admit wrongdoing, to expectthere to be no consequences. There are consequences to wrongdoing. And I would also point out that the attack on the truth-seekerscontinues. And that is particularly shameful, that in the midst ofthis series of events, where clearly the president of the UnitedStates is guilty of perjury -- folks on that side are even admittingit now. The minority counsel, when he sat before us, I think prettyclearly admitted it awhile back; the man has lied. But instead ofadmitting that, as we all should, and even his defenders should -- allof them, not just some of them -- they go on the continued attackagainst the truth-seeker. So we continue to hear attacks here againstKen Starr, for example, as though he were on trial; as though he werethe one that dreamed up these tawdry facts. It's not fault forbringing out tawdry facts any more than it's the fault of a prosecutorin some court that may be having a trial today, continuing over fromyesterday, about a rape matter, for example -- horrible details. But the defendant in the action can't be heard later to complain tothe court, "Why do we have to delve into these things?" Well, if thedefendant hadn't committed the acts, there wouldn't be a tawdry scene. So the defendant in this matter, William Jefferson Clinton,cannot be heard to complain about the facts that he has put before us.Those facts must be divulged; those facts must be discussed. And they are now going to be, I hope, the subject of a trial inthe U.S. Senate. And there, there are consequences for wrongdoing,and that is what the president is unable to accept and what hisdefenders are unable to accept. There are consequences for violatingthe rule of law. And I yield back the balance of my time. REP. WATERS (D-CA) (?): Mr. Chairman? REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentlelady from California Ms. Waters isrecognized for five minutes. REP. WATERS (D-CA): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman andmembers. I am absolutely amazed at the liberal and loose interpretation ofthe Constitution that I am hearing from conservatives. Usually,progressives are accused of loose interpretation, and usuallyconservatives are considered to have strict interpretation of theConstitution and law. But sitting in this committee, I have witnessedthe loosest interpretation of the Constitution, as my colleagues onthe other side of the aisle have dealt with the meaning of "highcrimes and misdemeanors." Now, if that's not bad enough, I am now finding out from thechair of this committee, that what we are doing here in voting outthese Articles of Impeachment, really does not have much to do withwhether or not we really mean it and whether or not we are reallyinvolved in the ultimate impeachment of the president -- I think mygrandmother would call that throwing a rock and hiding your hand --almost as if you really don't want to be identified with the ultimateimpeachment, if that should happen. I am amazed at theseinterpretations. And to add insult to injury, Mr. McCollum said that we could gothrough this entire process -- vote out Articles of Impeachment fromthe Judiciary Committee, send it to the floor and if it's voted out onthe floor, go through the trial in the Senate -- and not remove thepresident from office; that the Constitution, he said, says you shouldextend "no further than." Well what does that really mean? Rather than the looseinterpretation that he is giving it, to have you believe that somehowit means that you can stop short of, you can punish, you can dosomething "other than," which is nowhere indicated in the Constitutionof the United States. I think it really means that you can't give himthe death penalty, or you can't send him to prison, rather than theinterpretation that Mr. McCollum has given it. REP. BARRETT (D-WI): Will the gentlelady yield? REP. WATERS: I am awfully concerned that the young people whoare listening to us, who are learning about the Constitution of theUnited States of America, are going to be very confused. I don't knowwhat the teachers of America are going to do, as they watch all ofthese truth-telling members of the Judiciary Committee interpret theConstitution of the United States. REP. BARRETT: Will the gentlelady yield? REP. WATERS: Yes, I will yield to my colleague for a limitedperiod. REP. BARRETT: Just to clarify or to expand on that, because Iheard the gentleman from Florida's comments, too. And so I haveArticle II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which reads: "Thepresident, vice president and all civil officers of the United Statesshall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction oftreason, bribery, or other crimes and misdemeanors." It doesn't say my, it says shall. I see no discretion in the wordshall, and would -- REP. WATERS: Thank you very much. And I -- I -- I thank mycolleague for that. I'm absolutely sure about it. And I think Ilearned that in the eighth grade. But let me just say that I reallydo feel that the chair of the committee should have stopped thiscommittee at the point that Mr. McCollum gave that interpretation sothat at least we could have a reasonable debate so that the distortionwould not stand in this committee. I think it is awfully unfortunate. I'd like to use the balance of my time to direct a question toMr. Canady, who's called the president a liar about 100 times thismorning. Which answer in the 81 questions do you think is deservingof impeachment that you're so upset about, Mr. Canady. I'd like youquickly to just point to one. REP. CANADY: The chairman gave a list earlier. I will -- REP. WATERS: No, I want you to give one. If you can't do it, Itake back my time. REP. CANADY: I'm not going to engage in this if you won't let meanswer. I'll be happy to answer -- REP. WATERS: Reclaiming my time. If it takes you that much timeto think about it, then you don't know it. I thought you hadsomething that you were so sure about that you could just tell us in ashort moment here what it is in the 81 questions, the so-called liethat is so upsetting, that's so bothersome, that meets the test of theConstitution, that you would want to impeach the president about. And let me just conclude my remarks by saying I wish I was aspure and as moral and as honest as some of my colleagues on the otherside of the aisle, who keep referring to the president as the greatestliar, the biggest liar they've ever seen, they've ever met. I hopethat we can all work on ourselves and do a little bit better and be alittle bit more forthcoming in the work that we do so that in fact wecan feel comfortable enough to claim the kind of honesty that they'redenying to the president and others. REP. MCCOLLUM: The gentlelady's time has expired. The gentlemanfrom Georgia, Mr. Barr, is recognized for five minutes. REP. BOB BARR (R-GA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like for usto just pause a little bit here, and despite arguments by particularindividuals on the other side that are fast, furious and glibly, as ifthe faster you say something, the louder you say it, the more timesyou repeat it, by golly, it makes it so. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the Constitution waswritten very calmly, deliberatively, and solemnly -- thank goodness --and I think it's time for Constitution 101 for America. Article I, Section II, Paragraph 5 -- Article I being thatarticle of the Constitution that describes the powers of the Congress-- says that the House has the sole power of impeachment. Article I, Section III, Paragraph 6 -- we're still in Article I,still dealing with the powers of the Congress -- states that theSenate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. Article II, Section IV -- Article II being the section thatdescribes the powers and other matters relating to the executivebranch; that is, the president -- says that the president shall beremoved on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or otherhigh crimes or misdemeanors. Now, let's parse that. The word "and" -- while the presidentundoubtedly would have great difficulty determining and decipheringwhat the word "and" means, we don't -- or at least we should not. Itsays that the president shall be removed on impeachment for andconviction of. The "and" bridges two ideas -- two things that musthappen before the president is removed. Now parents out there listening today know exactly what I'mtalking about. Children out there listening today know exactly whatI'm talking about. If a parent tells a child, "you can go out andplay if you clean your room and wash your hands," the child knows thatthat means they must do both things, and if they fail to do boththings, then the consequence will not happen. So it is in the Constitution. Every word in our Constitution isthere for a purpose. Every word was deliberated at great length --not fast, not glibly, but at great length, very deliberatively, verysolemnly. For the other side to maintain, simply by saying it fast,furiously and repetitively, that a vote in the House to impeachremoves the president is to do precisely what the president and thatis give the wrong reverse meaning to words. Now they may want tooperate in the same parallel universe within which the presidentoperates when it comes to the use of English language, but we oughtnot to let America be deceived by this sophistry. When the House votes, pursuant to its sole power to impeach -- toimpeach -- that does not, cannot, and never will remove a presidentfrom office. REP. : Will the gentleman yield? REP. BARR: It cannot. The only way a president can be removedfrom office -- REP. : Will the gentleman yield for a question? REP. BARR: -- is on impeachment by the House and -- A and B --and conviction in the Senate. It is preposterous to maintain that avote in the House carrying out our sole and exclusive duty to impeachremoves the president. It does not, will not, and never will. We are here today exercising our sole responsibility, and we aretrying to do it in a manner that lends credibility to this document.No matter how many times the other side may raise their voice, poundon the table, talk too fast for those of us from the South tounderstand what they're saying, the fact of the Constitution remains:impeachment is not removal from office. Impeachment is not removalfrom office. Impeachment is not removal from office. REP. FRANK: Will the gentleman yield if I promise to speakslowly? REP. BARR: Impeachment is the process laid out in theConstitution whereby the House determines that actions by thepresident should be decided by the Senate in a trial, the parametersof which are clearly also laid out in the Constitution whether or nothe should be removed. Now, to adopt the position of the gentleman from Massachusettsthat we should not do our constitutional duty here unless we know fora certainty that the Senate will, would be akin to saying noprosecutor can seek an indictment unless he or she knows in advancethat the petit jury will convict. Or that Congress, the House ofRepresentatives, should not pass or consider a bill unless the Senatehas done so first. Their argument is just that ludicrous. REP. FRANK: Will the gentleman yield? REP. BARR: America, do not be deceived. This is theConstitution -- REP. MCCOLLUM: Can I ask unanimous consent the gentleman begiven an additional two minutes? REP. BARR: I thank the gentleman. REP. HYDE: You certainly may. And without objection, soordered. REP. MCCOLLUM: I would hope that he would yield both to Mr.Frank and to me. REP. BARR: I would be happy to in just a moment. This is the Constitution. Its words -- and, thankfully, we didnot ask the president to determine or decipher Article II, Section 2,or Article I, Section 2, or Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6, becausewe would have had endless arguments over what the word "sole power"means, or the word "and" -- "impeachment for, and conviction of." Ibelieve that we do here, at least on this side of the aisle,understand what the Constitution says. REP. : Would the gentleman yield for a question? REP. BARR: That is why we keep it in our drawers here, so thatevery once in awhile, if we need it, we can take it out, look at it,and make sure that the words are indeed still there, which issomething we have to do frequently in light of the arguments made bythe other side that the Constitution means something quite different. REP. WATERS: Will the gentleman yield for a question? REP. MCCOLLUM: Will the gentleman yield to McCollum back here? REP. BARR: I'd be happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida. REP. MCCOLLUM: Thank you very much, Mr. Barr. I just want toset the record straight. I was incorrect earlier; I looked at ArticleI, Section 3 which does say you can't go higher than certainpunishments and didn't look at Article II, Section 4 which says if thepresident is convicted he must be removed from office, if he is indeedconvicted. But I think the fact remains that what Mr. Barr says isvery accurate. When we impeach, we impeach. It also requiresconviction for removal from office, but removal is automatic and Istand corrected. REP. FRANK: Will the gentleman yield to me? REP. BARR: What the other side is really trying to do -- REP. WATERS: Will the gentleman yield? REP. BARR: -- they are not really misinterpreting theConstitution. What they are doing is they are making an incorrectargument, trying to reach out beyond this dais here to try andconvince other members that the Constitution means something that itdoesn't. REP. WATERS: Will the gentleman yield? REP. BARR: They are trying to give solace to those members whoare grappling, as we all have had to do with this momentous questionand this momentous decision. They are reaching out to them andsaying, Oh, don't worry -- if you vote to impeach, you will beremoving and you really don't want to do that, do you? That is whatthey're really trying to do. REP. FRANK: Will the gentleman yield? REP. WATERS: Will the gentleman yield? REP. BARR: It's a clever argument that is, though, a verydisingenuous argument, and it ought not to be allowed to stand. AndI'd be happy to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. | ||
| | |
REP. FRANK: I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would ask ifyou have an additional minute, Mr. Chairman. And I -- he hasmisstated what I said. No one here has said that if you vote for thisis you are removing the president. What we have said is that anindispensable step in removing the president is voting for this. Infact, the gentleman made our point. He read the Constitution. REP. BARR: Reclaiming my time, so I am quoting the gentlemanfrom Massachusetts correctly, and I would hope my colleagues not onthis committee would hear this, that a vote to impeach is not a voteto remove the president. REP. FRANK: Will the gentleman yield? REP. BARR: Yes. REP. FRANK: I thank the gentleman. He said what theConstitution says, that there are two equally important, indispensablesteps to removing the president. We can take one, the Senate can takethe other, and until and unless we act, the Senate can't act. So wehold the keys to that door, and I do disagree with his suggestion thatan ethical prosecutor or a responsible member should vote for this ifyou did not think it was justified that it be conviction. I'm notsaying that you have to predict the jury, but a prosecutor who indictsif he doesn't think there should be a conviction is wrong, and amember who votes for impeachment not thinking the president ought tobe removed is wrong. But the gentleman form Georgia made the point, and I said I wouldtalk slowly, the Chairman said I was making a promise I couldn't keep,so I'm going to try now, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Georgia read the Constitution correctly.There are two equally important, indispensable steps for removing thepresident. We can take one of them, the Senate the other. This isthe indispensable step that we and we alone can take leading to theremoval of the president if the Senate then takes its step, andmembers who do not think the president should be removed should nottake that inevitable step that only we can take. REP. WATERS (?): Will the gentleman yield? REP. BARR: I would reclaim my time and remind those present herethat they have heard something very historic today. Barney Frank andBob Barr agree on something. Narrow -- REP. HYDE: No, I disagree. REP. BARR: -- as the question may be. REP. HYDE: Just a moment. I don't think that was the historicalaspect of that. I think it was Mr. Frank speaking slowly.(Laughter.) REP. BARR: A fact which I appreciate very much, coming fromGeorgia. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. REP. WATERS: Mr. Chairman? REP. HYDE: All right, the -- who seeks recognition? REP. LOFGREN: I do. No, I seek recognition, Mr. Chairman. REP. HYDE: Are we ready for the vote on the -- REP. WATERS: We're not -- not till we clean up thisconstitutional mess. REP. HYDE: All right, Ms. -- I didn't catch that, Ms. Waters. REP. WATERS: No, we're not ready for the vote. We've got workto do to help teach our members on the other side of the aisle whatthe Constitution really says, and we can't skip over this. REP. HYDE: Oh, well, thanks so much. REP. WATERS: You're welcome. REP. HYDE: Yes, Ms. Lofgren now. REP. LOFGREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I -- just briefly on the prior point, I think it is clear that weshould not vote an article of impeachment unless we believe thepresident ought to be impeached and removed from office for thereasons already said, but also for this. I -- once the House ofRepresentatives votes articles of impeachment, the next job they haveto do is to appoint managers. The House acts as the prosecutors andthe Senate acts as the jury, and the Chief Justice acts as the judge,the presiding officer. And so if we don't think we have the evidenceto go prosecute this case to get a conviction in the Senate, we shouldnot be voting to move forward. I also want to talk a little bit about what we're doing here. Ithink in some ways we are bringing this nation together today in theJudiciary Committee -- together in opposition to what we're doing. Ithink each day we meet to discuss this impeachment more people arewaking up to the fact that it's actually going on, and most people donot want us to do it. Today's Washington Times reports that, quote, "In voting to sendthe impeachment of President Clinton to the full House for a vote, theGOP has bucked the polls, the press, the conventional wisdom and theNovember 3rd election results." And I think that that is somethingthat we need to take seriously. I know that my obligation to my oath does not mean I can setaside my conscience, but it doesn't also mean that I can't take a lookat what the people of this country want us to do. You know, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to submit for therecord the letter that you sent to me, Mr. Chairman, on September21st, along with a very interesting article from Duke Law School thatyou cited favorably. And I'd like to quote from that article that yousent to me and recommended that I read. On pages 1044 and 1045, the article says that: "The public'sopinion in impeachment matters." It is so that what we do may belegitimate and perceived by the public we represent as legitimate.And I think that, quote: "The legitimacy of a democratic governmentmust be established in the minds of the people. Thus, if a transferof presidential powers to be accomplished by removal in the face ofimpeachment, the legitimacy of the new administration can only beassured by public recognition that the previous mandate has clearlyexpired." The same article, on page 1029, that you gave to me, states that,"The impeachment process, while fundamentally political, was designedto protect the foundation of the State itself" -- and not to create asanction for a misjudgment or to settle disputes over policy, or tosubstitute for the criminal law. You know, I have listened to some great extent about theamendment that is before us. And I want to differ a little bit fromsome of my colleagues on the underlying thesis that the failure of theexecutive to respond to the House in the impeachment process itself --should that be an article in and of itself? And I would note that in the '74 impeachment inquiry, PresidentNixon's failure to provide information to the House was a ground forimpeachment. And I think that is necessary and legitimate becauseotherwise the power of the House can never be utilized. But I wouldsay it's only necessary and legitimate if the underlying impeachmenteffort itself is legitimate. This process is illegitimate. It has not yet come up withgrounds that meet our high standards in the Constitution. And I'lltell you this. On page 12, one of the questions listed by thechairman, question 42, whether or not there were additional gifts fromthe Black Dog, cannot possibly be grounds for removal of the presidentof the United States. And I would yield back the balance of my time. REP. JACKSON LEE: Might I, Mr. Chairman -- REP. HYDE: I thank the gentle -- REP. JACKSON LEE: -- Mr. Chairman, give the gentlelady anadditional two minutes so that I can ask her a question? REP. HYDE: You mean yield her an additional two -- REP. JACKSON LEE: No. I am asking -- she gave up her time. Iwanted to ask her a question. And I'd like her -- REP. HYDE: If the gentlelady seeks additional time, she may haveit. REP. LOFGREN: I would seek an additional two minutes and yieldto the gentlelady from Texas. REP. HYDE: Without objection, so ordered. REP. JACKSON LEE: I appreciate the gentlelady because, as shehas noted, she had the honor of serving as a staff person during theWatergate period. Might I ask the gentlelady, because we have hadthis dispute between the nexus of impeachment and removal, andcomparable to a prosecutor believing in the indictment and ultimatelythat the person would be convicted; isn't there at least a nexusbetween the act of impeachment, as we need to guide our colleagues onThursday, and the fact that we believe -- or that whoever votes forimpeachment would believe that the president might be removed? Isthere some nexus there? REP. LOFGREN: Well, there's more than a nexus -- reclaiming mytime -- there is no reason for the House to proceed at all if there isnot a belief that the clear language within the resolution of theArticles of Impeachment should not in fact be found true by theSenate, because after the adoption of articles of impeachment, theappointment of managers to prosecute the case must come forward --evidence, all of the evidence that will be considered by the Senate isto be presented by the House as the prosecutors to the jury, theSenate. And so I find it rather unbelievable that having come this far,having adopted three articles and about to adopt a fourth, that somewould suggest that what we are doing is really not anything. In fact,we are taking -- Mr. Barr is right, we are not removing the president-- we are taking the first step to remove the president, and we willremove the president if we appoint managers and the Senate convicts. We should not put the country through this trauma if we do notbelieve that the president should be removed. And as I have saidbefore, the idea that the president should be removed for the reasonsoutlined to date are in fact preposterous. REP. HYDE: The gentleman from -- REP. JACKSON LEE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I've mademy case on this issue. REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson. REP. HUTCHINSON: I thank the chairman. And I wanted to come back to the motion in question. I supportthe substitute offered by Mr. Gekas, and I wanted to address that fora moment. I would have had trouble supporting Article IV without thisamendment that would delete paragraphs one, two and three. But I saythat not to diminish the significance or the substantiality of theevidence in regard to those three areas. One of them is the presidentdeceived and lied to the American public. I think that isextraordinarily serious any time that happens. Obviously, there's noquestion that it did happen. It is wrong. but I do not believe thatshould be included in this article of impeachment on abuse of office. The second part, that the president frivolously assertedexecutive privilege -- I believe that he did do that. I believe thatit was a delay tactic. I do not believe that it was appropriate. Ibelieve it was abusive of congressional responsibilities or in theinvestigation. And so I think that it was wrong. But incountervailing to that, he did drop the assertion after a period oftime, and the witnesses eventually become available. And so for thosereasons, even though I believe it was an abuse, I do not believe itshould be included in this article of impeachment. Thirdly, lying to the aides -- I believe that this isextraordinarily relevant and significant in terms of proving intentand a pattern of conduct on behalf of the president supportingobstruction of justice and the other false statements that are recitedin the other articles. And so even though I'm delighted that they'rebeing deleted, I do not think we should diminish the significance ofthose. Now let me address what remains, that I believe is criticallyimportant, and that is the president's responses to Congress on the 81questions. I just wanted to refer to three of them very specifically. One of them is question number 20. And you have to perceive thiswith what was testified to in the deposition Paula Jones. And thequestion to the president was: "Did she tell you that she had beenserved with a subpoena in this case?" The answer was "No." And hesays, "I don't know if she had been." It's a very clear statement. But the question by Congress to the president: "Did you admit ordeny that you gave false and misleading testimony under oath when youstated during the deposition in the Jones case that you did not knowif Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed to testify in that case?" Avery simple question calling for a very simple answer. The president's answer: "It is evident from my testimony, onpages 69 through 70 of the deposition, that I did know on January 17,1998 that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed in the Jones case. Ms.Jones' lawyer's question: `Did you talk to Mr. Lindsey about whataction, if any, should be taken as a result of her being served with asubpoena?' and my response, `No' reflected my understanding that Ms.Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. That testimony was not false andmisleading." Listen, you have to have -- you have to study that a long time.It's a simple question, but the answer is so convoluted, and I believeis, in fact, false and misleading. I would also refer to question number 26. "Did you admit or denyon or about December 28, 1997, you discussed with Betty Currie giftspreviously given by you to Monica Lewinsky?" His answer: "I do notrecall any conversation with Ms. Currie on or about December 18, 1997about gifts I had previously given to Ms. Lewinsky. I never told Ms.Currie to take possession of gifts I'd given to Ms. Lewinsky. Iunderstand Ms. Currie has stated that Ms. Lewinsky called Ms. Currieto ask her to hold a box." I believe that that is a false -- an intentionally falsestatement that the president has provided. Monica Lewinsky'stestimony, of course, substantiates that; the telephone recordssubstantiating what Monica Lewinsky says. But also, it isunreasonable, it is unreasonable that Betty Currie, an employee of thepresident of the United States, would go and retrieve gifts that areunder a subpoena in a lawsuit affecting her boss in which he is thedefendant, without the president authorizing the retrieval of thosegifts. So I believe that that is a false statement. And then you go on to question number 42, and you have to lay thefoundation for this as well. The question that was asked of the president in the deposition ofPaula Jones was, Question: Well, have you ever given any gifts toMonica Lewinsky? Answer: I don't recall. Do you know what theywere? Now, the question from Congress was, "Did you admit or deny thatwhen asked on January 17, 1998, in your deposition in the case ofJones v. Clinton if you had ever given gifts to Monica Lewinsky youstated that you did not recall, even though you actually had knowledgeof giving her gifts in addition to gifts from The Black Dog." Hisanswer, which I believe is false: "In my grand jury testimony, I wasasked about this same statement. I explained that my full responsewas 'I don't recall, do you know what they were?' By that answer Idid not mean to suggest that I not recall giving gifts. Rather, Imeant that I did not recall what the gifts were and I asked forreminders." I believe that is a false statement going back to hisoriginal question in the deposition which was "Have you ever given anygifts to Monica Lewinsky?" His answer: "I don't recall." REP. NADLER: Will the gentleman yield for a question? REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. REP. WATERS: (Off mike) -- unanimous consent request. REP. FRANK: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask for unanimous consent that the-- REP. : Objection. REP. NADLER: -- gentleman be given two additional minutes so hecan answer a question? REP. HYDE: Without objection, so ordered. REP. FRANK: Thank you, would the gentleman yield? REP. HUTCHINSON: Certainly, for a question. REP. NADLER: It is a question. Or it will be a question. Thankyou. Yes, you just said that -- REP. HUTCHINSON: Will you take two minutes for this question?(Chuckles.) REP. NADLER: No, that's not my purpose. You just said that "bythat -- " the president, rather, said, "by that answer I did not meanto suggest that I did not recall giving gifts. Rather, I meant that Idid not recall what the gifts were and I asked for reminders." Youjust quoted that and you said you believe that that was a perjuriousstatement. So you're saying that the president's characterization ofhis state of mind was a false statement. My question is, how do youknow that? What's the evidence for your statement that hischaracterization of his state of mind was false? REP. HUTCHINSON: My statement is that I believe the answer toquestion number 42 is false and misleading. Whenever the question isasked whether he admits or denies that in your deposition, whether hehad given any gift to Monica Lewinsky you stated you did not recall,even though he actually had knowledge of giving her gifts. And hisanswer, "I was asked about this same statement in the grand jurytestimony. I explained that my full response was, "I don't recall.Do you know what they were?" And then he says, "I do not mean to suggest that I did not recallgiving gifts; rather, I meant that I did not recall what the giftswere." The answer is -- I believe that is what is the false statementbecause the question is very clear. He is a very brilliant person.When the question is, "Well, have you ever given any gifts to MonicaLewinsky, his answer is "I don't recall." That is responsive to -- REP. NADLER: No, his answer is "I don't recall. Do you knowwhat they were?" -- which seems to imply that he knows gifts weregiven, he doesn't recall which ones they were referring to. REP. HUTCHINSON: Well, if you want to accept the twisted,confusing answer of the president as being truthful, then youcertainly have the right. But I believe that if you presented this toa jury of common-sense people in America, perhaps outside the beltway,as Mr. Coble referenced, I think they would understand very clearlythat the president of the United States is not being truthful andresponsive and respectful to the Congress of the United States. I yield back. REP. HYDE: Are we ready for the question? REP. WATERS: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consentrequest. REP. HYDE: The gentlelady will state her unanimous consentrequest. REP. WATERS: I am requesting that Mr. Delahunt be allowed toorally put on the record one more time the conclusive evidence of thetelephone call and the time of it so that my colleagues can stopdistorting the record about that telephone call on Ms. Betty Currie'sbill! REP. HYDE: Well, Mr. Delahunt has already spoken to that issue,and -- REP. WATERS: No, my colleagues don't know that because he justincorrectly -- unless he was lying, said that -- said that there wasevidence based on the telephone record that the president had lied.Now either he knows better or he needs to be reminded. REP. HYDE: Well, frankly, I'd rather recommend Mr. Meehan -- Imean, not recommend, I'd rather recognize him, but if Mr. Delahuntwants the time -- REP. DELAHUNT: I'll defer to Mr. Meehan. REP. HYDE: Very well. REP. MEEHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. REP. MEEHAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, we really can see now thatwe're headed in a direction that I think started yesterday, Mr.Chairman, as we closed, with your comments, basically saying to theAmerican people, "We want you all to know impeachment is not theremoval of the president." And then listening to some of myRepublican colleagues here, they seem to be rushing to say the samething -- even Mr. Barr, who has to be as aggressive as anyone in termsof wanting to get rid of this president, went out of his way to sayimpeachment doesn't mean the president is removed. Mr. McCollum, although he has corrected the record, even made thestatement that even if the Senate were to convict, it doesn't mean thepresident is going to be removed. And now since Mr. McCollum has comeforward and said, "Well, okay, I stand corrected on that." But as I read Mr. -- I think it was Wednesday -- and the Sun Times'newspaper articles don't have it right, but Mr. McCollum can correctit if it isn't right -- but the other day in the New York Times Mr.McCollum said, quote, "Impeachment would satisfy those who believe thepresident should be branded and given the scarlet letter," end quote. Now I don't know if that's accurate or not, but I know that on"Face the Nation" earlier, Mr. McCollum also said, quote, "Impeachmentwould be the ultimate censure, the ultimate scarlet letter," endquote. REP. MCCOLLUM: If the gentleman will yield, I did say that, andI do believe that would be true, whether he were convicted in theSenate or not. And I think it's appropriate. REP. MEEHAN: But I think that's -- and I appreciate that, andthat's an important point to make. So apparently the Republicans,many of them on this committee, view impeachment as the ultimatecensure, the ultimate scarlet letter. Let's brand the president.Even the maker of this motion, Mr. Gekas, also said recently, quotedrecently, "If the committee reports out a resolution for impeachmentand it fails to pass the House floor, I believe he's still beencensured." Ladies and gentlemen, this is not about branding the president ora scarlet letter to the president. You're going to have anopportunity to censure the president. It's coming up in theDemocratic proposal that will be offered after you vote to impeach thepresident, that is, to send over to the Senate removal from office.You'll have an opportunity to vote for censure. Let's see if youreally want to vote for censure. But these members, to try to have the American people believethat impeachment somehow isn't impeachment -- it just doesn't wash.It doesn't fly. Nobody's buying it. If you want to punish the president or brand the president orscarlet letters or stamp him on his forehead, censure is the way to dothat. You know, I talk to people in Massachusetts -- Republicans,Democrats, independents. They say, "Why are they doing this? Whypush it this way? It's clear the president should be punished,censured. Get it over with. They just lost five seats in the House;they were supposed to pick up 25. It's because of the way impeachmentwas handled. Why are they doing this?" Sixty-five to 70 percent ofthe American people say, "Don't do this. Censure the president.Punish him. Get it over with. Why are they doing it?" And I hear Mr. Inglis and Mr. McCollum say -- keep bringing upWatergate, as if somehow lying about clearly consensual sex is thesame as paying a hundred thousand dollars cash to keep those guysquiet that did the break-in, or abusing the CIA or abusing the FBI,abusing the IRS to go after your political enemies; that somehow theyare on equal footing. Nobody believes that. But I heard Mr. McCollum say: "Well, we have an obstruction-of-justice charge, just like Watergate. It's just like Watergate. Youguys had an obstruction-of-justice charge; we have one. "Abuse of power. Well, there was an abuse of power in Watergate,so we have an 'abuse of power.' That's what we are doing, what youdid in Watergate. "False statement. This is just like Watergate. Nixon wasaccused of false statement. We threw in perjury." Is that what this is all about, Watergate? Is this get-eventime? You want to punish the president, you want to brand him, youwant to censure him. We are going to have an opportunity to do that.But in the interest of the Constitution of the United States, let's doit constitutionally. Let's censure him when we bring up censure,after this impeachment article. We can brand the president that way. REP. MCCOLLUM: Will the gentleman yield? REP. MEEHAN: It is simply not -- I'll yield. REP. MCCOLLUM: I simply think that this is not comparable toWatergate. I have never suggested that it was. I think thatWatergate is -- REP. MEEHAN: Well, taking back my time, I just simply waspointing out that you made the statement: "This is obstruction ofjustice in this case, just like Watergate. You had an abuse-of-powerarticle in Watergate; well, we have one. Well, we have perjury. Oryou had a 'false statement' in Watergate; we are just doing the samething." It's not the same thing. No one in America believes it's thesame thing. This isn't abuse of the CIA; this isn't looking up tofind out the IRS records. This isn't about abusing the head of theFBI and saying: "We have got to call over to the FBI. We are goingto get those records. We are going to investigate Ted Kennedy andGeorge McGovern and anybody else we can." REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time -- REP. MEEHAN: That's not what this is about. REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. REP. MEEHAN: I would request one more minute, and perhaps Mr.McCollum has another. Could I get one more minute so Mr. McCollumcould -- REP. HYDE: If you wish, if Mr. McCollum wants -- REP. MCCOLLUM: Yes. If I could, I'd like to respond. Thank youvery much. I simply want to say that I think the Watergate model is likeDavid Broder discussed yesterday; it is a model. It was very serious.You don't have to reach the same level that Richard Nixon did orWatergate did to find impeachable offenses. But we do have somesimilarities, and that's what I pointed out. And I believe there aresimilarities. But I don't think we should diminish the importance ofwhat we are doing today or the crimes the president, I think, hascommitted by suggesting that -- REP. MEEHAN: Reclaiming -- REP. MCCOLLUM: -- they didn't rise to the level of Watergate. REP. MEEHAN: Reclaiming my time, I would just say that you aregoing to have an opportunity for the "scarlet letter," for thebranding of the president, for the ultimate censure of the president,when we vote for censure. But vote for the censure if that's what you want to do. If you wantto punish the president for his behavior, as we do, vote for thecensure. REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. REP. MEEHAN: I yield back the balance of my time. REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot. REP. CHABOT: Thank you. I agree with some of what my Democratic colleagues have said herethis morning. I can only speak for myself, but I would not have votedfor articles of impeachment if I hadn't been convinced, afterthoroughly reviewing all of the evidence here in this committee, thatthe president deserves to be removed from office. But this talk of a coup, this terminology that we're turning overa national election is just not true. As Mr. Rogan, my colleague fromCalifornia, so accurately stated last night, the president took anoath of office, after he was elected, and he stated, and I quote, "Ido solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office ofPresident of the United States and will to the best of my abilitypreserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."That's what he swore to do, to defend the Constitution of the UnitedStates. But then, on a number of other occasions, he took another oath.He raised his right hand, and he swore to tell the truth, the wholetruth and nothing but the truth, so help him God. And then he turnedaround and he lied and he perjured himself, and when he did that, whenhe broke that second oath, he broke the first oath, the oath that hetook to this country. And that's why we're here today, that's why thispresident is facing impeachment. And remember, he's the chief law enforcement officer of thiscountry -- the chief law enforcement officer -- although the articleof impeachment that we're considering right now relates to the 81questions he answered. In the very first question that he was askedin these -- legally they're called requests for admission -- the veryfirst question he was asked is, "Do you admit or deny that you are thechief law enforcement officer of the United States of America?" Yesor no would be probably the appropriate answer one would expect. That's not the answer we got. Here's the answer that the Congressgot. I'll read it fast because it's pretty long. "The president is frequently referred to as the chief lawenforcement officer. Although nothing in the Constitutionspecifically designates the president as such, Article II, Section Iof the United States Constitution states that, quote, 'the executivepower shall be vested in a president of the United States,' unquote,and the law enforcement function is a component of the executivepower. Article II, Section III of the United States Constitution statesin part that the president shall, quote, "take care that the laws befaithfully executed." Unquote. Article II, Section II, Clause I of the Constitution vests theentire executive branch of the government, which includes the UnitedStates Department of Justice, in the president. He authorizes,through the attorney general, all prosecutions brought on behalf ofthe people of the United States in carrying out his constitutionalduty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Now, a simple answer would have been Yes. Is that impeachable?Of course not. There are many other of the other 80 answers which arethe actual impeachable offenses. This does go to show a little bitwhy, in his own defense attorney's terminology the other day, hedescribed the president's answers oftentimes as "maddening." I findthat answer maddening. Not impeachable, but maddening. Now, we should not understate the importance of what thiscommittee is doing by passing articles of impeachment. I would agreewith that. This moves the possible removal of a president from officefrom this committee to the full House, where a vote is likely to takeplace next week, and if that vote is in the affirmative, then it willgo to the Senate for a trial, and it takes two-thirds of the senatorsto actually remove a president from office. But let's not overstate what we're doing, as we've heard a numberof times here this morning from some of my Democratic colleagues onthe committee. I would strongly encourage my colleagues over there tostop using this inflammatory language like "coup" and "coup d'etat"which brings to mind visions of blood flowing in the streets. For 220years, we've been a nation of laws buttressed by a sacredConstitution, a Constitution which, I believe, sadly, that thispresident has violated. And as unpleasant as this matter is that we're facing, and thatthis nation is facing right now, we are a very strong nation and wewill overcome these unfortunate circumstances. I have the utmostfaith in this country, although, unfortunately, I've lost a tremendousamount of faith in this particular president. I yield back the balance of my time. | ||
| | |
REP. HYDE: Mr. Scott, the gentleman from Virginia. REP. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, the matter before us is the amendment,technically an amendment at this point, and it's a difficult votebecause voting for this amendment to strike one or two of the elementsout of this article suggests that this last one has some kind ofadditional substance that the others didn't have. I don't want togive that impression, when I vote to strike out the others, that Iagree with this last one. Mr. Chairman, we're talking about these questions that you say"we sent." Mr. Chairman, I didn't know the questions were being sentuntil I found out they had been sent, by the news media. I found outwhen the deadline for the response was when I got that in the media.So I don't want anyone to think that I said anything to do with thesequestions. The gentleman from Ohio read the first question and answerand suggested how insulted he was with the answer. Mr. Chairman, who is the chief law enforcement office ofWashington, D.C.? Is it the mayor? Is it the chief of police? Is it the prosecutor? Iintroduced some evidence, a newspaper article from last Sunday, thatidentified the second highest ranking law enforcement official in thestate of Delaware and identified that chief deputy attorney general,suggesting it wasn't the governor, but the attorney general who is thechief law enforcement officer of Delaware. And so we have an answer to the question, and you have to answerit precisely, as the president did, because you know that when yousend in these answers, you're going to be charged with perjury. Youknow that. So you better answer it precisely, and that precise answeris just what he gave. And really, what difference -- what was thesignificance of the question to begin with? Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves with this article at the end of aprocess that began with the Starr report, which we released withoutreading it, never calling a fact witness to reconcile conflicts intestimony. Instead, we resolved all conflicts and took all inferencesin the way most damaging to the president. If there was a conflict intestimony, therefore the president lied each and every time. We evenused normally improper theories of evidence. I've heard ofchallenging evidence by finding prior inconsistent statements thathave been made, but I've never seen any way to corroborate testimonyby pointing out prior consistent statements. I was amazed when the majority called the prosecutor as the solefact witness. We've been charged with not asking him questions aboutthe facts. We did ask he questions about the facts. He said hedidn't know anything, first hand or second hand or sometimes not eventhird hand, about the relevant facts in this matter. We were not given the opportunity to call rebuttal witnesses.The record will reflect, on a party-line vote, we rejected the motionwhich would have given the Democrats the opportunity to call witnessesas soon as the committee decided which allegations we were actuallygoing to pursue. And that was not an unreasonable request. Whatallegations are we pursuing, because Mr. Starr started off with 11,came back with 10. Mr. Schippers, the Republican counsel, said maybe15. The next day, the chairman said two or three. As we have been proceeding, the scope has expanded into KathleenWilley, into campaign finance. The gentleman from Arkansas listedanother statement that he thought was perjurious just in the lastcouple of days. Mr. Graham did the same thing. Even after all of therebuttal had taken place, after our counsel had spoken, after Mr. Ruffhad spoken, the Republican counsel added on some new, unnamed charges.And so this impeachment thing has been a moving target. We just asked for the specific allegations so that we could callwitnesses. We were denied. Mr. Chairman, the Democrats began this process by offering towork in bipartisan fashion, by suggesting a step-by-step, orderlyprocess to evaluate the evaluations in a fair, focused and deliberateprocess. But that suggestion was rejected on a party-line vote. And so this article of impeachment, which is totally out ofproportion to whatever President Clinton may have done, let's look atwhat -- when Speaker Gingrich was found to have lied, he was notdisqualified, he was reelected. Impeachment is totally out ofproportion, particularly when you consider the added statement thatthe president not only warrants impeachment and trial and removal fromoffice, but "disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,trust or profit under the United States." That additional languagewas not mentioned in the Watergate Articles of Impeachment, so we are-- history will suggest that we thought what President Clinton did wasworse than what happened in Watergate. These are flimsy allegations supported by conflicting hearsaystatements and dubious inferences. And here we find that we have to-- Mr. Chairman, could I have to additional minutes? REP. HYDE: Without objection. REP. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we need to compare these allegations to what is animpeachable offense anyway, and why do we have impeachment. We haveimpeachment to protect against the subversion of government. We foundin Watergate that a half-million-dollar tax fraud was not a subversionof government. We only have the authority to remove the president fora commission of treason, bribery, or other high crimes andmisdemeanors. Our experts told us to focus on that word "other" --things like treason and bribery. And so some of us were surprised tohear the Republican counsel say that if we don't impeach thepresident, only convicted felons and traitors need to be afraid ofimpeachment. Well that's what the Constitution says. REP. : (Laughs disbelievingly.) REP. SCOTT: That's what the Constitution says, that you do nothave the legal authority, under the rule of law, to try to remove thepresident unless there is treason, bribery or other high crimes andmisdemeanors. I was also amazed to find at the end of the process we have todebate whether or not the conviction in the Senate would result in theremoval of the president. We kind of had to go back and forth. And Ithink we found out that upon conviction, the Senate can either removethe president from office, or remove him and disqualify him fromfurther offices, but he has to be removed. And so as we vote on this article, we're facing allegations whichare not impeachable offenses, which are presented to us by way ofcontradictory hearsay and dubious inferences and assumptions, andafter we have violated fundamental principles of fairness and decencyin a partisan proceeding. I will vote no when this article comes up. REP. HYDE: I thank the gentleman. The distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. LindseyGraham. REP. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Icertainly respect Mr. Scott's right to vote no, based on what he feelsto be insufficient evidence, unfair proceeding, and doesn't rise tothe level of impeachment. I just happen to disagree with him on allcounts. I do believe, Mr. Chairman, that there is ample testimony fromwhich you can make a logical conclusion on each and every article,based on evidence given under oath. And I would refer back to Mr.Lowell's rather dramatic presentation during his summary to thecommittee, which I think was well done. Many times he would say, "Inow call" so-and-so "to the stand." And he would, by illustration,get the sworn testimony and refer to it. And the idea that thecommittee has denied the president or the members of the other side achance to address the factual allegations by calling witnesses theybelieve can help clarify matters I reject. I don't believe it's true.And it's time to move on, I believe, to what the real heart of thematter is with Article IV. Imagine a (sic) oath tree. This is how the president has climbedthe oath tree: The first time he violated his oath was in a litigation matterwith a young lady, a former government employee, Paula Jones --government employee of the state of Arkansas. He chose, in myopinion, to lie in his deposition, to her legal detriment -- a singleindividual, exercising her constitutional rights to have her day incourt. I agreed with the Democratic friends on the other side thatbecause the deposition was dismissed, I would give the president thelegal benefit of the doubt. However, I do believe he gave falsetestimony. Second time that he abused the oath, in my opinion, was who --when he went in front of 23 or so fellow citizens who were sitting asa federal grand jury down the street. I think he willfully lied aboutimportant matters relating back to Mrs. Jones' lawsuit and lied aboutimportant matters concerning his criminal misconduct to hide thetruth. He lied then, Mr. Chairman, after he was begged basically, by membersof both parties and prominent Americans: "Do not go into the grandjury and tell another lie. You are risking your presidency. Thatwould be bad. That would be an impeachable offense." The third time, I believe, the president violated his oath, thegroup then he harmed was the Congress of the United States because Ibelieve, Mr. Chairman, that after he lied in the deposition inJanuary, after he continued to lie in August to the federal grandjury, the final insult was that the president lied to the UnitedStates Congress, the House of Representatives, the body closest to thepeople. The argument is that we don't understand what you're talkingabout -- I think, for lack of a better word -- is wrong. We know whatwe're all talking about here. They have made an elaboratepresentation of the president's side of the story about each and everymatter contained in these questions. They go to the heart of the matter, and I would just refer toone, question 52: "Do you admit or deny that on January 18th, 1998,at or about 5:00 p.m., you had a meeting with Betty Currie at whichyou made statements similar to any of the following regarding yourrelationship with Ms. Monica Lewinsky: One" -- this is scenario wherehe was trying to refresh his memory after the deposition because hethought some press reports would be coming -- "'You're always therewhen she was there, right? We were never really alone?' Two, 'Youcould see and hear everything.' Three" -- it gets bizarre now, in myopinion - "'Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?'Four, 'She wanted to have sex with me, and I couldn't do that.'" --the most bizarre of all statements under the idea of refreshing yourmemory. Mr. Chairman, I believe that those statements were made, as Ms.Currie recounts. I believe that the president's answer to theinterrogatory, which says, "When I met with Ms. Currie, I believe thatI asked her certain questions in an effort to get as much informationas quickly as I could and made certain statements, although I do notremember exactly what I said" -- and it goes on to say that he wastrying to recall or refresh his memory and that, when she was going togo to the grand jury, he said, "Just relax, go in there, and tell thetruth." MORE I believe that his response, where he says that "I was just talking toher to refresh my memory, get as much information as possible" isabsolutely false, not based on any common-sense interpretation of whatwas going on at the time, and that he did, in fact, just as recentlyas a few weeks ago, chose to violate his oath again, this time to theHouse of Representatives, the people's house. That, to me, Mr.Chairman, is very much an impeachable offense. I yield back the balance of my time. REP. HYDE: The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt. REP. WATT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've been doing two things this morning, and I want to try toaddress both of them because I think two things have been going on.I've been trying to listen very carefully to the debate in thecommittee, and I have been trying to look very quickly at theamendment that was offered by Mr. Gekas to try to decide how I feelabout that amendment, and I'd like to address both of those thingsbecause I've been very fascinated by the debate that has been takingplace here in the committee and the effort by some of my colleagues tominimize the importance of what we are doing here today and what theHouse will do, and what our role in the impeachment process is. I think that part of the debate is basically spin control that weusually do out in the press gallery, and my perception is -- and I'mnot accusing anybody of this, I'm just giving you my perception -- isthat it is an attempt by some of my colleagues to be in a position tosay in April, May and June, and July of next year, when things aregoing on in the Senate, and the question then is going on in theSenate about what body parts were touched, and how salacious this was,and the details of the trial that must be had, some of my colleagues,I believe -- based on the discussion that we've had today -- will say,"Well, we didn't have anything to do with that." And I've seen a lot of that in this committee by the refusal to addthe kind of specificity which the law requires when you allegeperjury. That's a legal allegation and there are some legalconsequences that go with it when you allege it. The law says if youallege it, you've got to specify the specific statements that youbelieve constitute the perjury. And in order to do that here, wewould have to get into the same kind of details that Mr. Starr gotinto in his referral, which the American people don't like, and mycolleagues don't want to be saddled with that responsibility. And now they are spinning this in such a way that when that trialtakes place in the Senate -- and that must be done -- they can say"Well, oh no, that's the senators that are doing that. We didn't haveanything to do with that." That's an unfortunate spin because wecan't get through the door to the Senate unless we send it out of hereand give them the keys to deal with that. That's the first part of what I wanted to say. The second parthas to do with the amendment that is before the committee, becauseI've been vexing about whether to support it or not, and I could doone of three things: I could vote for it, I could vote against it, orI could just say pass. And there are good, valid arguments to doeither one of those three things. REP. GEKAS: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman be given anadditional 1-1/2 minutes. REP. WATT: My time isn't even out yet, Mr. Gekas. finish -- REP. GEKAS: There you go. (Laughter.) REP. WATT: Now that he's used a half a minute of my time, Mr.Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for three additional minutes.(Laughter.) REP. HYDE: The gentleman is granted three additional minutes. REP. WATT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, because I really do want totalk about the amendment that's before us, not the spin machine that'sgoing on here. If I vote for this amendment, and I may, I want to beclear that I would be voting for it only because it is less ridiculousthan the original article that is in the original bill that waspresented here. So I'd be voting for it on the less ridiculoustheory. If I just said pass -- and I guess I have some responsibility tovote for things that are less ridiculous. I don't endorse them if Ido that; I just say they are marginally better than what we startedoff with, and I want to improve what we're doing. If I took a passand said, "I just pass," I would be acknowledging, as my colleague,Mr. Frank, has indicated, that if you're charged with murder andyou've got four bullets and three of them are going to kill you anywayand you strike those three and the fourth one is going to kill youanyway, you're going to be just as dead. So, you know, whatdifference does it make whether we've got four charges, foursubcharges or one subcharge here? I think this article, the amendment just summarizes everythingthat was in the first three articles. It doesn't add anything. Thiswhole notion that the president assumed to himself functions andjudgments necessary to the exercise of the House's power is what we doall the time. I second-guess what the president does all the time.He second-guesses what we do all the time. If you strip that part ofit out, you wouldn't have anything other than that he committedperjurious, false and misleading statements, which is the same thingthat we covered in articles one and two that have already been votedfor. So unless we're going to set some precedent that every time thepresident disagrees with us, he takes upon himself some extraordinaryfunction that we, in an equal branch, disagree with him on, I don'tunderstand the article. I mean, I just think it's ridiculous. I'mstill vexing about which one of these options to pursue. And I guessby the time we get around to voting, I will decide. But if I do votefor this, I do want the record to understand that it's not because I'mendorsing this article. It's just because I think it's lessridiculous than the original article that we started off with. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance. REP. HYDE: Thank you, sir. The question occurs on the amendment-- REP. : Mr. Chairman? REP. HYDE: Who -- oh, Mr. Rogan. Very well. Five minutes. REP. ROGAN: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I'mwaiting for my cue, Mr. Chairman. REP. HYDE: Oh, I'm sorry. I automatically yielded you fiveminutes. REP. ROGAN: My deference to the chair requires me to wait for mycue. REP. DELAHUNT: Mr. Chairman, if my memory -- and I would behappy to seek a unanimous request, or unanimous consent request, thatMr. Rogan be given additional time, but it is my memory that he'salready spoken on this issue. REP. ROGAN: That is not correct. REP. HYDE: We understand he has been yielded time but has neverused his five-minute turn. So the gentleman is recognized for fiveminutes. REP. ROGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The primary purpose forour being here today is to debate, discuss and vote upon a pendingissue of great constitutional and historical significance. But thereis a by-product from our debate today. It is the opportunity toeducate America as to the function of what we are doing and, in fact,educate America as to the framers intended our function to be. REP. GRAHAM: Excuse me. I hate to interrupt the gentleman fromCalifornia. Would you yield to me for one moment, please? REP. ROGAN: I'm happy to yield to my colleague. REP. GRAHAM: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have a matter I thinkis appropriate to take up at this time, in this area of discussionabout abuse of power. And I would like to inform the committee ofsomething I think is disturbing. There is a member of Congress fromArkansas, Mr. Jay Dickey, who I think is trying to search hisconscience and vote in a manner consistent with the best interest ofthe nation. Being from the home state of the president, I know that'sgot to be very difficult. This article -- I believe it is in today's paper, the ArkansasDemocratic Gazette -- is titled "Pressure Mounts on Fence-SittingDickey." I'd like to read an excerpt. "The White House feels someconfidence that despite pressure from the Republican leadership,Dickey can be persuaded to vote against impeachment. 'If Jay Dickeyvotes to impeach the president, it's probably an indication he willnot run for re-election in 2000,' one White House aide said. 'It'ssuicide, and we will make sure it is.'" Mr. Chairman, I think this needs to stop. I understand what thearticle is about and I understand the general idea of abuse of powernow that we're down to the 81 questions. But I think it is importantto know that this behavior, if true, is certainly out of line. And Iwill yield back to the gentleman from California. REP. WATT: Will the gentleman from California yield? REP. ROGAN: I yield to my colleague so that he may respond. REP. WATT: I -- well, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to dothis on your time. Let me just yield back to you. I think I needindependent time to respond to Mr. Graham, because I'm really troubledby the last two or three days of grandstanding that we have gotten outof this, and I'm getting a little perturbed by it. REP. ROGAN: I'm happy to yield to the gentleman if he wishes topose a question to the gentleman from South Carolina. REP. WATT: I'll get time later. I'll take care of it, and maybeI'll feel differently if I simmer down. I'll just yield back to thegentleman. REP. : Mr. Chairman -- REP. ROGAN: Mr. Chairman -- REP. HYDE: Would the gentleman from California wish any moretime? REP. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that his time totally berestored. REP. HYDE: All right. The gentleman from California's fiveminutes will be restored. REP. ROGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank my friend fromVirginia. Mr. Chairman, the point I was starting to make is that during thecourse of debate on this particular article, a few constitutionalissues have arisen that some of my friends on the other side havetaken issue with. One is the constitutional role of the House ofRepresentatives in an impeachment inquiry. The second is the validityof some members of the majority to point out the beneficial effect ofthe role of impeachment with respect to how that might deter anotherwise errant president in the future. And the third is whether itis appropriate for us to pursue articles of impeachment without aguarantee that we would be able to successfully pass an impeachmentbill in the Senate. Professor of constitutional law Jonathan Turley must have beenprescient, because just last week in an article he addressed all threeof these issues in a few paragraphs, and I'd like to read them intothe record. First, with respect to the role of the House, he quiteclearly indicated that "Impeachment and removal are distinct issuesgiven to distinct houses of Congress. Impeachment simply means thereferral of accusations to the Senate, which is given the soleauthority to try such issues. Thus the House does not convict butmerely accuses. In performing this accusatory function, the House plays animportant role in deterring presidential misconduct. That is not aminimization, Mr. Chairman, of the role of the House. It is arecognition of the constitutional role of the House. Far more serious is the suggestion that this House should not actin the face of presidential misconduct, unless we can have a guaranteefrom the Senate that we have the votes to convict. Imagine theabsurdity of suggesting that no criminal trial could be filed anywherein the country, unless there was sufficient guarantee from the jurypool that they would vote to convict the defendant charged withmurder, or rape or some other heinous crime. That's ridiculous. But Professor Turley in even stronger societal terms. He said"Imagine if a grand jury, which performs a role similar to the House,refused to indict a defendant based on the likely outcome of the case.In the South, many prosecutors used this amoral argument to explainwhy they would not prosecute cases involving black victims and whitekillers. Prosecutors simply argued that a jury would not convict, andtherefore there was no point in bringing a case. Yet it was a greaterloss to the system not to force the question, not to call thoseresponsible to the bar of justice. Otherwise, only those felons whoare unpopular are brought to justice in a system of pure moralrelativism." Now, that was an argument that he put forward from a dark periodof our history that we have moved far from, and we all celebrate thatmovement. I don't want to see us step into the same type ofconstitutional quagmire that some regions in the past were in and hadto bring such a black mark upon the civil liberty history of ourcountry. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I must say that one dear friend of mine onthe other side spoke with a disparaging tone in his voice, aboutanother member's motivation when he suggested that impeachment is alsoa legitimate role to deter wrongful conduct in a president who mightotherwise be so disposed to act wrongfully. His quarrel is not with any member of the majority in Congresstoday. If he has a quarrel, his quarrel is with James Airedale, oneof the founders of our country. Framer James Airedale spoke of theimportance of the House impeachment authority as a deterrent.Airedale explained that while a president may be a man of noprinciple, the very terror of punishment will perhaps deter him. Impeachment, Professor Turley concludes, is the process by whichpresidential misconduct is detected and defined within theconstitutional system. Now, Mr. Chairman, I've become used to seeing quarrels raised inthis committee with everybody responsible for trying to hold thepresident accountable. Quarrels have been raised with Judge Starr,with the chairman, with individuals members of this committee and themajority party of this committee collectively. But this is the firsttime I've seen a case-by-case quarrel with the concept of theConstitution and the document of the Constitution itself. There isnothing pernicious about simply reading from the Constitution, andstating that which is so, and using the opportunity that we have inthis great historical debate, to educate the public on the meaning ofthe Constitution, as well as our responsibility to the Constitution. REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. Does the gentlemanfrom Massachusetts seek recognition? REP. DELAHUNT: I seek recognition, Mr. Chairman. REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Ithank the chairman. I want to pick up on the point by Mr. Rogan,about the process of a prosecutor. And I really don't believe that hewould disagree with me when I say that the ethical prosecutor wouldnot bring a case unless he was convinced of the likelihood of aconviction. And I dare say there is nobody on the other side, who has votedfor an article of impeachment, who does not believe -- and I thinkthis is the important point to make -- who does not believe that thepresident of the United States should be removed from office; not justsimply impeached, but be removed from office. I'm confident that every member here is abiding by the dictatesof his conscience. But I also think it's important for the Americanpeople to know, that when a member of this committee votes on anarticle of impeachment, that he believes or she believes it's notsimply the standard of probable cause, but it's because of aconviction that President Clinton should be removed from office.That's what this is about. That's what this is about. And I hear no response. But if there's any member on the otherside that believes that the president should not be removed fromoffice, I'd like to hear from them. REP. CANNON: If I can -- REP. DELAHUNT: Mr. Cannon. REP. CANNON: I'd like to associate myself with that standard. Ibelieve that that is what a Congressman should be doing when he votes. REP. DELAHUNT: Thank you, Mr. Cannon. And I think that's thepoint. That these votes are votes by people who think that thepresident of the United States should be removed from office. Notjust simply impeached. REP. CANNON: Will the gentleman yield? This is -- REP. DELAHUNT: I will at a later point in time. REP. CANNON: Let me -- just to -- REP. DELAHUNT: I just want to make another point. REP. CANNON: -- make a distinction there? REP. DELAHUNT: I just want to make some other points, and I'msure you'll be able to pick up some time from colleagues on your side.You know, also too, this process has become very, very disturbing,because again, in my prior life, I was a prosecutor. And manyprosecutors would overcharge for leverage purposes, to secure someadvantage, and then drop some charges. But I'm sure the gentleman from Pennsylvania is acting in goodfaith. In fact, I know he has. Stop and think of what we were aboutto do, before the gentleman's motion. We were going to impeach thepresident of the United States for lying to the American people. Well, we could have done it retroactively, that Lyndon Johnson,in terms of what this House did with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,which lead to a war that claimed 54,000 American lives. Or we couldhave impeached President Eisenhower, when he stood up and lied to theAmerican people About the U-2 incident. But we didn't. We exercisedjudgment. But what we've got here, is an amendment which takes away theabsurdity of what was originally proposed, and tries to make itreasonable. This isn't even about abuse of process now. It's aboutperjury, and it doesn't really belong separate and standing in adistinct article. And if we were really going to be fair, we wouldincorporate this final clause, in one of the articles dealing with theissue of perjury, either Article 1 or Article 2. So, I will support the gentleman's amendment. But you know, herewe were, not even on the eve but the day of the debate. And Mr. Gekashas courageously spoken out about this. But two days ago, we werepresented with an article that was so absurd, it would have created --it would have created an imbalance among the three coordinate branchesof government, it would have created an assault by Congress on theConstitution. REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time -- REP. DELAHUNT: It would have created a system of constitutionaltyranny. REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman fromTennessee, Mr. Bryant. REP. ED BRYANT (R-TN): Move to strike the last word. REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. REP. JACKSON-LEE: Mr. Bryant, would you allow me just a verybrief moment of personal privilege? REP. BRYANT: I certainly will. REP. JACKSON-LEE: I thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I thankfirst of all Mr. Bryant. He happens to be my floor-mate and I thankyou for indulging me. My stomach is settled a little bit now, withthe words of my good friend from South Carolina. I just wanted tocomment very briefly. I know Mr. Dickey, I have great respect forhim. REP. BRYANT: Where's the personal privilege? REP. JACKSON-LEE: I think it would do well for all us to justrestate during this process that we all will be voting our conscience,our heart, and, hopefully, the facts and the Constitution. I don'tknow how much service it might -- REP. BRYANT: This is not a point of personal privilege. REP. JACKSON-LEE: -- have been to any of us -- and I'll finish,Mr. Bryant -- that we raise these issues in the committee, but I hopethat all of us, however we talk to members -- REP. BRYANT: Mr. Chairman, point of order. REP. JACKSON-LEE: -- will do so in conscience and with ourhearts. thank you, Mr. Bryant. | ||
| | |
REP. HYDE: Thank the gentlelady, and Mr. Bryant, I've restoredyour five minutes. REP. JACKSON-LEE: Thank you. REP. BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm reminded of thebiblical quote, and I try to practice it as often as I can in my life,to be quick to listen and slow to speak and slow to anger. And Ithink that would be something that we could all do a better job of inthis committee -- certainly on the "slow to speak" -- we could getthis done. We probably should have voted on this amendment some timeago but as you can see, we've diverted from the merits of theamendment and talked and talked and talked about issues we've beatento death, but certainly that's part of this process and it is a veryserious process. But once you peel away all the package and you continue to takethe papers out and you take out the attacks on Kenneth Starr and theunfair process and the attacks on our chairman and politicalmotivations, which, quite frankly, I've never understood why we wouldwant to remove this president to put in a popular vice president togive him an advantage in the next election -- I really resent thatthought from our opposition here that thinks we're motivated that way.I believe sincerely that all members of this committee are motivatedby the principle. We may disagree on what the principle is, but Ithink we're all motivated by principle and not politics. But when you strip away all this package, all the wrappings, andget to the core of it, you still have a president who has perjuredhimself, and the reason this is separated into three distinct articlesis, the reason is, that he perjured himself in the grand jury, numberone. Number two, he perjured himself in answering interrogatories andthe deposition in the Paula Jones case, number two. And now, numberfour, he perjured himself in his answers to Congress. Those are very-- three distinct categories and deserve three very distinct articles. That brings me to an interesting question. I wonder -- and I don't presuppose the Senate will do anything withthis, or convict or have a trial or whatever -- but if the presidentwere to testify and raise his right hand in the Senate and swear "totell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God," Ijust wonder if the Senate would also have to give him an admonitionthat that "does that mean you're not going to evade, does that meanyou're not going to mislead the Senate, does that mean you're notgoing to give incomplete answers to the Senate?" And it's almosthumorous, but it's not. It's that serious. You almost have to dothat in this situation. And that's the core of what we're talkingabout here. And I think our counsel, David Schippers, summarized this verywell when he spoke the other day, and he mentioned about how we havereferred back to this income tax case against President Nixon and saidwe're not going to go down that road, that's not impeachable. And hesaid what about in future years, when Congresses look at allegedmisconduct of the president? Are we now in 1998 taking off the table,just as they did in 1974 the income tax issue -- are we now taking offthe table perjury, obstruction of justice? It sounds to me like somein this room would have us do that, just because it's sex. Folks, this is not about sex. We're not charging him withanything -- adultery or anything like that. We're charging him withmaking that conscious choice -- and a calculated choice, may I add --where he had to take a poll from Dick Morris to decide what to do andthen decide to go down that road of consistent, persistent perjuriesand obstruction of justice. And that's what we're about. Are wegoing to turn our head as a Congress and take these things off thetable for future Congresses and allow a president that leeway to getinto that conduct and in 20 years from now come back and say, "You'veset the precedent in 1998; you can't call me to order for perjury orfor obstruction of justice"? I don't think we're about that, and I would urge my colleagues to-- let's cut our speeches down, let's vote on this, support thisamendment, and move forward with the continued debate. REP. HYDE: The question occurs on the amendment offered -- REP. ROBERT WEXLER (D-FL): Mr. Chairman? REP. HYDE: Mr. Wexler, you want -- you want time -- REP. WEXLER: Thank you. Move to strike the last word -- (offmike). REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. REP. WEXLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no doubt that history will record today's debate as theGreat Dumbed-Down Impeachment Debate. And if I understood Mr. Rogan'sobjection earlier or concern with my friend Mr. Rothman's comments, Ithink, in a very genuine and honest fashion, my colleague from my homestate of Florida, Mr. Collum (sic) -- McCollum, answered Mr. Rogan'squestion honestly, genuinely, that at least in part -- and I don'twant to paraphrase him, but I believe he said it himself in confirmingwhat he has said many times -- that impeachment is the ultimatecensure, the ultimate scarlet letter. And what I think many of us on this side of the aisle are havingsuch a terrible time with respect to that notion is that impeachmentis much more than that. Censure is the scarlet letter; impeachment isthe removal of the president. And when the idea of impeachment, beingthe removal of the president, is combined with the notion and thepredicate of what is now or may be Article IV, again, my colleaguefrom Florida Mr. McCollum said that at least one of the answers thatis so egregious, that would justify impeachment, that the presidentgave to this Congress, was the answer to question number 34. And theessence of the answer of number 34 that apparently justifiesimpeachment and removal -- at least as we see it, impeachment andremoval -- is that the president answered, and his quote was, "Ibelieve at the time she filled out this affidavit" -- that's MonicaLewinsky -- "if she believed that the definition of sexualrelationship was two people having intercourse, then this isaccurate." Now, I understand the other side when they say this isn't aboutsex, it's about perjury, it's about obstruction of justice, it's abouta whole lot of things, but when it comes right down to it, you cannot-- cannot -- escape the very fact that what this is all about is thedefinition of a sexual relationship. And what boggles my mind is thatwe seem to have forgotten the beginning of Mr. Lowell's presentation.We all saw it. The president was sitting up there on all thesetelevision sets, and what did we hear at that deposition? We heardthe president's lawyers arguing with Paula Jones' lawyers about thisdefinition, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. And thenI think they changed the definition twice. I mean, it wasn't RobertWexler that now is arguing this is confusing, it was the presidingjudge. She said that she is concerned that the president may beconfused. So then the president went ahead and denied a sexualrelationship, and that's what we're impeaching the president about. Well, I hope Dr. Ruth is getting ready, because she willundoubtedly be an expert witness at the trial in the Senate. Butthat's what it all comes down to. And if I could, in conclusion, just offer not a response butmaybe a corollary to Mr. Graham's concern about undue pressure, unfairpressure about impeachment. Well, what about a censure vote on thefloor of the House? What about a censure vote on the floor of theHouse? Why won't the Republican leadership, why won't SpeakerGingrich or new-to-be-Speaker Livingston, or Mr. DeLay, why won't theylet us vote on a censure vote on the full House? Because it's unduepressure. Because they know very well that if they allow a censurevote, that will create a big dilemma for some Republicans. So when we talk about undue pressure, and we talk about votingyour conscience, but let's talk about the Republican leadership inCongress allowing the free will of this Congress to be expressed. Don't hide behind parliamentary procedure! Undue pressure? Let usvote on the censure! And then maybe -- maybe the Republicans wouldhave a ground to talk about undue pressure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. ROGAN: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of personalprivilege. REP. HYDE: The gentleman from California has a point of personalprivilege. REP. ROGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few minutes ago, my friend from Massachusetts, in his remarksto the Committee, put forth his interpretation of the motivations ofthe Republican members' votes on articles of impeachment. He thensaid if any Republicans disagree with that interpretation, they shouldspeak right now. I asked the gentleman to yield me time. He did not yield to me.He said at the end of his remarks he would yield to me. Regrettablyhis time expired. I simply don't want a vacant record left months oryears from now that when the challenge was issued, there was noresponse from Republicans. Speaking for myself, I did take issue withhis interpretation. I do not know if any of my colleagues join me inthat, but I just want to record to reflect the gentleman's time didexpire before anybody had an opportunity to engage him further inthat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. : Will the gentleman yield? Which friend fromMassachusetts? We have three over here. REP. ROGAN: Well, they're all my friends, and that would be myextra-dear friend, Mr. Delahunt. REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon. REP. CANNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just point out -- I wanted to make a distinction as towhat Mr. Delahunt had said, and suggest that conviction -- theconviction that every person of conscience in this House arrives atwhen he makes a vote, should be based on things other than justpersonal animosity. I don't think that's any reason to vote in thishouse, but rather should be based upon the evidence and weighing ofmany factors, including the gravity of the acts of the president andtheir effect on their system. But I think the -- or at least for me the standard should be thatthose rise to a level that should result in removal from office. Let me associate myself with the comments of my friend, Mr.Coble, who talked about the gravity that this proceeding has for him,and in particular, he spoke about the difficulty -- or the emotionaldifficulty, the knots in his stomach. I think this is a trying timefor America, a very difficult time, and yet we are called upon to dowhat I would hope on all sides is the courageous thing, and that isvote our consciences. I would just make exception that I don't want to go to theparking lot with him because I think he can handle it himself -- forwhoever might take him, I just give you fair warning in advance. I would like to speak to the issue of executive privilege and whyI thought it should be in here. It's a difficult issue and one whereI have a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Gekas and his view thatexecutive privilege is easily abused. But you'll recall that this became rather a prominent item overthe president's denial that he knew anything about the assertion ofexecutive privilege in the course of questioning from a reporter fromthe Washington Post. And in fact, President Clinton said -- thearticle says: "Clinton, who has yet to acknowledge publicly even that he isasserting executive privilege, was pressed by reporters to explain whyhe is trying to block testimony. His voice curt and his expressioncold, the president responded as though he were a bystander in thecontroversy rather than its central character. `All I know is I sawan article about it in the paper today,' said Clinton, referring tothe pack of news clippings he gets each morning. `I haven't discussedit with the lawyers. I don't know. You should ask someone whoknows.'" Now that's important because what the president was doing herewas cutting off one of the kinds of things in America in our systemthat keeps him in line -- that's the press. He didn't tell the truth. The White House came back, through Mr. Ruff, and tried to explainthat, saying that -- in fact, cast dispersions on Mr. Starr sayingthat he misquoted -- misstated that pass. But in fact, in paragraph44 of Mr. Ruff's affidavit, he referred with particularity to thefirst lady. And so that being the distinction, that the president hadbeen asked about the first lady, and yet the averment that Mr. Ruffmade in his assertion of the executive privilege particularly includedthe first lady. Now, I don't think that executive privilege would be -- justbased on that would be so significant. But when you take a look atwhat this White House has done -- in the Nixon case, executiveprivilege was asserted six times in writing, and I think those werethe only assertions of executive privilege. In this case, that is thecase of President Clinton, we have 13 assertions of executiveprivilege in writing. And beyond those, there have been numerous,perhaps hundreds of assertions that haven't been in writing. And I will just tell you, as a member of the Resources Committee,where we did battle over issues that went right to the core of whatwe're dealing with here -- that is the president lying in theestablishment of a monument in my District -- the president suggestedand suggested and suggested executive privilege, and when it came downto a subpoena, refused -- or didn't actually assert it in the case.So, can executive privilege be abused? I think it can. In closing, let me just say that the heart of the case againstthe president is lying under oath. At every turn when he was facedwith the choice of answering questions honestly or deceptively, thepresident has chosen deception. Even when he was faced with theprospects of impeachment, the president chose to provide false anddeceptive information to the Judiciary Committee, demonstratingcontempt for the constitutional duty of Congress. While lying to theAmerican people and his subordinates are extremely serious matters andformed the basis of impeachment charges against President Nixon, themajority is choosing to set the bar for abuse of power in the Articlesof Impeachment, as clearly as possible and focusing that on the lyingto Congress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett. REP. BARRETT (D-WI): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to briefly address this amendment itself. And I listenedcarefully when Mr. Watt, among others, spoke on this amendment. And I view this as choosing between supporting our voting for anarticle that is currently in the draft that I don't support or votingfor an article that is not in the draft that I don't support. And Iam of the notion that, rather than picking my poison, I am going tovote against both of them for that reason. I also want to address a comment that my friend Mr. Bryant made-- from Tennessee -- because I think actually there was a lot in hiscomment that I think deserves discussion because in some ways it goesto the nub of what we are talking about here today. And he said thathe felt -- and I don't mean to misstate you, Mr. Bryant, so correct meif I do -- that we should not be lowering the bar, in essence, bysaying that perjury and obstruction of justice are no longerimpeachable offenses. And that's pretty much what you said, and Iwould agree with that. But I don't know that we would say, at least that I would say,that perjury in the context of a personal matter is per se animpeachable offense. And so my feeling on this all along is that youhave to look at the underlying offense, first, to determine whether itoccurred; second, to determine whether it's an offense against theState; and if it's not an offense against the State, whether it is acrime of such great magnitude that the underlying offense so offendsone's morality that the person should be removed from office. So I think we do have to be careful. And I agree with you; wehave to be careful what we are doing with this bar, whether we arelowering it or whether we are raising it, because I think if we didsay that perjury per se was an offense, that would mean that you wouldhave someone who committed perjury in a very private divorce matter,for example, susceptible to this. I am not saying that that's right,but that certainly is something that could happen. And so you wouldnot have the underlying civil-rights claim that we have in this case. You could say that perjury, as I've mentioned before, in a speedingcase would be an act that deserved impeachment, and I -- again, Idon't know that that's what the framers -- in fact, I don't thinkthat's what the framers had in mind. I also want to briefly touch on the comments that my good friend,Mr. Graham, referred to when he read from the article dealing with JayDickey. I know Jay Dickey, he's a good friend of mine. He can fouland be fouled as well as anybody in the basketball gym downstairs, andhe can stand up to pressure from Democrats and Republicans. And Ilooked at the article, and I want to read another section of thearticle because it says, "It was not the kind of arm twisting thatnormally marks a legislative battle," Dickey said. "Rather, it wassimply an offer for information." But he isn't sure whether he'lltake the White House up on it. Quote, "I will if I can see anapplication." Quote. Doesn't sound like a man under great duress. Earlier in the article, this article also states, "The WhiteHouse feels some confidence that, despite pressure from the Republicanleadership, Dickey can be persuaded to vote against the impeachment."What this means in legislative parlance is that Mr. Dickey is in play,and he's getting pressure, apparently from the White House -- althoughfrom his own account, it's not the normal kind of arm twisting thatgoes along with legislative battle, but pressure from the Republicanleadership. I've been under the impression from statements here today thatthis is solely a vote of conscience. REP. GRAHAM: Would the gentleman yield? REP. BARRETT: I'll yield in about 15 seconds, yes, sir. REP. : Would the gentleman yield to me, too? REP. BARRETT: And if it's solely a vote of conscience, then weshould tell the leaders from both our parties to go home, leave usalone, let us pray and make the decision as our conscience decides --or dictates that we do it. And I would yield to Mr. Graham. REP. GRAHAM: I associate myself with that last statement. Let me read what Mr. Dickey has released in a press release. REP. WATERS: Oh, Lord, don't -- REP. GRAHAM: Statement by 4th District -- well, it was broughtup by the gentleman from Wisconsin. I have the article, and I think-- I hope something will bring us together, and maybe the idea of yourlast statement will bring us together. We all have got a job to do,and we've got to live with what we're going to do, and just leavealone and let us do it. "That statement takes"-- he's referring to the statement that --the article -- "that statement takes this issue into the politicalbasement -- REP. : -- two additional minutes. REP GRAHAM: Thank you. Thank you. REP. HYDE: Without objection REP GRAHAM: Thank you. When will they learn there are some people who don't want toserve according to polls, who don't consider their survival moreimportant than the good of the country? This threat encourages me tomake this decision in the shallow reaches of pure and simple politics.I will resist that. I don't want to serve just to be reelected. WhatI want to do is stress to my constituents that this decision should beabout protecting, respecting and abiding by the U.S. Constitution andrespecting others with opposing views. Hear this, White House. I am planning on running for reelectionin the year 2000. You are trying to influence my vote with the powerof the White House. If my decision on impeachment causes you to workeven harder for my defeat, as you have in the past, then so be it. Inthe end, you may finally tear me away from my constituents, but youwon't ever tear me away from my conscience. I hope we all would associate ourselves with that statement -- REP. FRANK: Will the gentleman yield? REP. GRAHAM: -- from any pressure being applied to anybody. REP. BARRETT: I would yield to Mr. Watt, but if I could reclaimmy time. And again we hear the word "conscience," and we're going tohear that word a lot more today because our plea to you is going to becontinuously that we be allowed to vote our conscience, as well.Every one of us, believe it or not -- and maybe the American peopledon't believe this, but I believe it -- every member of thisinstitution has a conscience, and no member of this institution shouldbe denied the right to vote their conscience. And I would yield to Mr. Watt. REP. WATT: I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I justwanted to say on the record that I wanted the record to reflect that Iwas on the verge of making some disparaging remarks about my friend,Mr. Graham. Mr. Rogan had, in fact, yielded me time to do that. REP. GRAHAM: And I did give you every -- (inaudible due to crosstalk) -- take you up on that. REP. WATT: And I took a deep breath and took a walk and decidedneither to say them publicly nor privately, and that Mr. Graham and Iremain friends. REP. FRANK: Will the gentleman yield to me? REP. WATT: And I'm happy that I did that. REP. FRANK: I thank the gentleman. I would just like to say that any discussion of pressure beingput on members which leaves out the name of Tom DeLay is equivalent todebating impeachment without mentioning Monica Lewinsky. REP. HYDE: The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentlelady from California, Mrs. -- Ms. Bono. REP. MARY BONO (R-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to address a question that I heard a long timeago in this proceeding, and it was posed by Congressman Schumer. Andhis question was, how did lying to the American people get here in thefirst place? Granted, it has been stricken from the article beforeus, but I want to just read this from something that has come acrossmy desk. REP. SCHUMER: Will the gentlelady yield, because she didn'tquote me correctly. REP. BONO: I'm sorry. Sure, I will yield. REP. SCHUMER: "Lying to the Cabinet or to the public not underoath become part of this article." REP. BONO: Okay. Then I stand corrected, but I think thatnonetheless, this is relevant and I'd like to read it. It's somethingformer Secretary of Labor Robert Reisch has written, that "PresidentClinton's offense of the public lie in this matter poses a greatthreat to his presidency. It makes it especially difficult for thenation to move on." What Reisch finds so disturbing is not simply the fact ofPresident Clinton's public lie, but its passionate intensity. Mr.Reisch wrote, quote, "In January, the president told America withstunning conviction that he had not had a sexual relationship with Ms.Lewinsky. On August 17th, he looked into the eyes of America and saidhis January statement had been misleading. Many who witnessed bothperformances thought the January one more convincing, hence Mr.Clinton's second problem: if he can so convincingly fake a lie, howcan the public believe anything else he says, including his currentstream of apologies? "Despite protestations that the Lewinsky affair was his privatebusiness, the betrayal was indubitably public because the denials wereso passionately public. He spoke to America with the same emotionalintensity he has brought to countless public issues. What happens topresidential power when credibility is so blatantly forfeited? Itinevitably subsides." End quote. And that is why lying to the American people was here in thefirst place. I believe that this side has stricken it because westrongly feel that the first three articles are just so strong thatthe perjury -- the first two on perjury are so strong. With that, I'd like to yield to my good friend, the gentlemanfrom Indiana. REP. BUYER: I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I'm going tosupport the Gekas amendment. I'll vote for Article IV. The president's response to the 81 Requests for Admissions was acontinuation of a pattern, I believe, of perjury and obstruction ofjustice. When we bring up the issue about the impeachment of formerfederal judges Mr. Claiborne and Walter Nixon, what is interesting, atthe time we had a Democrat majority here that sat on the JudiciaryCommittee and they brought forward those impeachments; they passed theHouse. We had managers that prosecuted them in trial before theSenate. What I find most interesting is that these judges were prosecutedand one standard was used -- high crimes and misdemeanors. They saidone standard would apply -- that applies to the president and vicepresident will also apply to these federal judges and other civilofficers. You see, in the defense of the judge, the defense lawyer'sjudge (sic) in the trial in the Senate argued that the federal judgesshould be treated differently; that they should be treated onimpeachment for misbehavior, not judged with the same standard withthe president. The Democratic majority at the time said no andrejected that, and said no, federal judges and the president should betreated by the same standard. Well, I agree. I think the Republicans and Democrats at the time inthe 1980s, on both those cases, agreed. I think the JudiciaryCommittee needs to follow the precedent and be consistent, and that'swhat we're trying to do here. I also want to express my appreciation to Mr. Coble. Mr. Cobleexpressed some honesty about his own personal conscience, about hisgut and how it was being turned over. And I don't believe anyoneshould make a mockery about someone describing how they personallyfeel going through this process, because it is not easy. So I'm goingto speak about my conscience. You see, I didn't sleep very well lastnight, so what I did, about 2:00 a.m. this morning is, I went out andtook a jog. Now some may say that may not be a smart thing to do inWashington at 2:00 a.m., but I took a job down the Mall. And as Itook the jog down the Mall I first went through the Korean Memorial.I did that because my father -- and then I thought of Mr. Conyers andI thought of others. I then went over to the Vietnam Memorial and Iwalked slowly. I thought of my time back as a cadet at The Citadel -- REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. REP. BUYER: I move to strike the last word on my time. REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. REP. BUYER: A gentleman who was a Vietnam veteran walked up onthe blackboard. His name today is Col. Trez (sp); he was a youngmajor at the time. And he wrote this statement on the blackboard andhe demanded that these young cadets memorize this statement. He saidthose who serve their country on a distant battlefield see life in adimension that the protected may never know. You see, I -- I workedhard to understand that. It wasn't till years later that I understoodthat myself, in my service in the Gulf War. I had a very dear frienddie. I understand the painful tears and I understand the horrors ofwar. As I jogged back, I stopped at the Washington Monument. The Mallis beautiful at night. And then I thought about the World War IIveterans -- Mr. Hyde and others -- a unique generation. They weretruly crusaders. They fought for no bounty of their own. They leftfreedom in their footsteps. And then I thought about something I'dread in military history. After D-Day, they were policing up thebattlefield and laying (sic) upon the battlefield was an Americansoldier who was dead. No one was around to hear his last words, so hewrote them on a pad. Can you imagine the frustration knowing you'reabout to die and there's no one around to say your last words? Idon't know what you would write, but this soldier wrote, "Tell them,when you go home, I gave this day for their tomorrow." You see, part of my conscience is driven by my military service. I'm an individual that not only is principled, but also steeped invirtues, and I use those to guide myself through the chaos. And thenI think about people all across America, about our -- America's valuesand American character, and I wanted to put it in plain-spoken words. So when I think about America's character and common-sensevirtues, I think about honesty. What is it? Tell the truth. Besincere. Don't deceive, mislead, or be devious, or use trickery.Don't betray a trust. Don't withhold information in relationships oftrust. Don't cheat or lie to the detriment of others, nor toleratesuch practice. On issues of integrity, exhibit the best in yourself. Choose theharder right over the easier wrong. Walk your talk. Show courage,commitment, and self-discipline. On issues of promise-keeping, whole -- honor your oath and keepyour word. On issues of loyalty, stand by, support, and protect your family,your friends, your community, and your country. Don't spread rumors,lies, or distortions to harm others. You don't violate the law andethical principles to win personal gain. And you don't ask a friendto do something wrong. On issues of respect, you be courteous and polite. You judge allpeople on their merits. You be tolerant and appreciative andaccepting of individual differences. You don't abuse, demean, ormistrust anyone. You don't use, manipulate, exploit, or takeadvantage of others. You respect the right of individuals. On the issue of acting responsibly and being accountable, theissue is to think before you act, meaning consider the possibleconsequences on all people from your actions. You pursue excellence.You be reliable. Be accountable. Exercise self-control. You don'tblame others for your mistakes. You set a good example for those tolook up to you. On the issues of fairness, treat all people fairly. Don't takeunfair advantage of others. Don't take more than your fair share.Don't be selfish, mean, cruel, or insensitive to others. You see, citizens all across America play by the rules, obey thelaws, pull their own weight. Many do their fair share, and they do sowhile respecting authority. I have been disheartened by the facts in this case. It is sad tohave the occupant of the White House, an office that I respect somuch, riddled with these allegations. And now I have findings ofcriminal misconduct and unethical behavior. We cannot expect torestore the office of the presidency by leaving a perjurous (sic)president in office. I yield back my time. REP. HYDE: The question occurs on the amendment offered by thegentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas. All those in favor willsignify by saying "aye". AFFIRMING MEMBERS: Aye. REP. HYDE: Opposed, "no." DISSENTING MEMBER: No. REP. CONYERS: (Inaudible.) REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Michigan requests a recorded vote.The clerk will call the roll. CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner. REP. SENSENBRENNER: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye. Mr. McCollum. REP. MCCOLLUM: Aye. CLERK: Mr. McCollum votes aye. Mr. Gekas. | ||
| | |
REP. GEKAS: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Gekas votes aye. Mr. Coble. REP. COBLE: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Coble votes aye. Mr. Smith. REP. SMITH: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Smith votes aye. Mr. Gallegly. REP. GALLEGLY: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Gallegly votes aye. Mr. Canady. REP. CANADY: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Canady votes aye. Mr. Inglis. REP. INGLIS: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Inglis votes aye. Mr. Goodlatte. REP. GOODLATTE: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Goodlatte votes aye. Mr. Buyer. REP. BUYER: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Buyer votes aye. Mr. Bryant. REP. BRYANT: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Bryant votes aye. Mr. Chabot. REP. CHABOT: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Chabot votes aye. Mr. Barr. REP. BARR: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Barr votes aye. Mr. Jenkins. REP. JENKINS: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Jenkins votes aye. Mr. Hutchinson. REP. HUTCHINSON: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Hutchinson votes aye. Mr. Pease. REP. PEASE: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Pease votes aye. Mr. Cannon. REP. CANNON: No. CLERK: Mr. Cannon votes no. Mr. Rogan. REP. ROGAN: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Rogan votes aye. Mr. Graham. REP. GRAHAM: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Graham votes aye. CLERK: Ms. Bono. REP. BONO: Aye. CLERK: Ms. Bono votes aye. Mr. Conyers. REP. CONYERS: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Conyers votes aye. Mr. Frank. REP. FRANK: Present. CLERK: Mr. Frank votes present. Mr. Schumer. REP. SCHUMER: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Schumer votes aye. Mr. Berman REP. BERMAN: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Berman votes aye. Mr. Boucher. REP. BOUCHER: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Boucher votes aye. Mr. Nadler. REP. NADLER: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Nadler votes aye. Mr. Scott. REP. SCOTT: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Scott votes aye. Mr. Watt. REP. WATT: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Watt votes aye. Ms. Lofgren. REP. LOFGREN: Present. CLERK: Ms. Lofgren votes present. Ms. Jackson Lee. REP. JACKSON LEE: No. CLERK: Ms. Jackson Lee votes no. Ms. Waters. REP. WATERS: No. CLERK: Ms. Waters votes no. Mr. Meehan. REP. MEEHAN: Present. CLERK: Mr. Meehan votes present. Mr. Delahunt REP. DELAHUNT: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Delahunt votes aye. Mr. Wexler. REP. WEXLER: No. CLERK: Mr. Wexler votes no. Mr. Rothman. REP. ROTHMAN: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Rothman votes aye. Mr. Barrett. REP. BARRETT: No. CLERK: Mr. Barrett votes no. Mr. Hyde. REP. HYDE: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Hyde votes aye. REP. HYDE: The clerk will report. CLERK: (After a pause to count.) Mr. Chairman, there are 29"ayes," five "nos" and three "present." REP. HYDE: And the amendment is agreed to. It is the chair'sintention, following the adoption of Article IV, to declare a 30-minute luncheon recess before we return for the unfinished business,and so without objection, the previous question is ordered -- REP. SCHUMER: Mr. Chairman. REP. HYDE: The gentleman from New York. REP. SCHUMER: I move to strike the last word. REP. HYDE: The gentleman -- REP. SCHUMER: It's on the amendment, it's on Article IV. REP. HYDE: All right, the gentleman is recognized for fiveminutes. REP. SCHUMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my colleagues, to me like to many of us, this is a sad day,it's a solemn day. The longer I am at these proceedings, the more Iam convinced of the weakness of the case made by the majority. Lastnight and today, I think, show that in a telling way. Last night, our chairman -- who I esteem and have always esteemand will continue to esteem -- tried to tell the American people,"Don't worry, we're not yet throwing the president out, even if wevote for these articles of impeachment." And this morning, before he corrected himself, Mr. McCollum saidwe don't have to have the penalty of throwing the president out. I think the majority almost subliminally realizes that thepunishment doesn't fit the crime. We all agree that the presidentdidn't tell the truth. We may disagree about its criminality, itsconsequences, but our side -- and I think most Americans, with theircommon-sense wisdom believe it doesn't rise to the level ofimpeachment. And the idea that Mr. Hyde mentioned and Mr. McCollummentioned would be as if there were two commanding officers in abunker in South Dakota who had their fingers on the button of anuclear weapon. You needed both to push the button. We in the Housebeing the first officer, we push the first button and then say thesecond officer doesn't have to push the button and avoid nuclearstrike. That's sophistry. It's not becoming of this body in my judgment. Second point I'd make is this: the amendment to Article IV,which I just supported, I called that the other day the part ofArticle IV -- and this is what Ms. Bono mentioned -- that in the eyesof some if the president doesn't tell the truth to the public or tohis cabinet -- and remember what's truth in the eyes of some is nottelling the truth in the eyes of others -- that's because the world isa world of shades of gray -- that that would indicate grounds forimpeachment. Now fortunately Mr. Gekas came to the rescue with thislast minute and removed that from these articles, but I shudder tothink what led the majority to put them in the articles of impeachmentto begin with, and why were they not removed until this last minutewhen that kind of article is just so absurd on its face. I called it yesterday the theater of the absurd. We could calltoday's move renders these articles the theater of the slightly lessabsurd, but absurd nonetheless. And I just don't understand how thatprovision stayed in so long, and it makes me wonder, not about themotivation, but about the logic and the soundness of argument of themajority. Now what remains. Now what remains in Article III (sic/ArticleIV) -- and to their credits, many, particularly I esteem the gentlemanfrom Florida, Mr. Canady. He has been consistent throughout. He hassaid that this is about lying, perjury under oath, and the presidentshould be removed from office. He said that at the start, he has saidthat consistently. I respect him for it. I disagree with him, but Irespect him. His argument has been consistent throughout; it hasn'tchanged with the winds, et cetera. But now that's all we have -- Article III -- I mean Article IV,once the amendment passes, is about the same nexus of facts thatArticles I and II are about. All we are talking about in this issomething serious, but something that doesn't rise to the level ofimpeachment, which is not an extramarital relationship. The otherside keeps setting up that straw man. No one on this side is sayingyou're impeaching the president because of an extramaritalrelationship. But what you are impeaching the president for is lying,in your judgment, about that extramarital relation. REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. REP. DELAHUNT: Mr. Chairman? REP. SCHUMER: Just ask 30 -- REP. DELAHUNT: Mr. Chairman? REP. HYDE: Who is seeking recognition? REP. DELAHUNT: Mr. Delahunt. REP. HYDE: No, that's -- Mr. Delahunt is asking for recognition,for what purpose? REP. DELAHUNT: I move to strike the last word. REP. HYDE: Well, I'm sorry, do you mind if we go to theRepublican side? Mr. McCollum? REP. MCCOLLUM: Thank you very much Chairman. I move to strikethe last word. REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. REP. MCCOLLUM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to respond -- Ihave a lot of respect for Mr. Schumer. He and I have served on thiscommittee a long time. He's been my ranking member on the CrimeSubcommittee, and I wish him well as he goes off to the other bodyshortly. But I simply cannot resist responding to the points he's tryingto make here about characterizing some of the thoughts that some of ushave, and me in particular. First of all, I believe that the president of the United Stateshas committed very grave, serious, and impeachable offenses thatdeserve for him to be removed from office. And I think that most ofthe members, if not all of the members, on my side believe that heshould be removed from office. Now the reality is -- the reality is -- that however seriousthese are, that apparently the likelihood is that the Senate doesn'thave enough votes over there to convict. But we don't know that tillwe get there. In fact, this case should be tried over there. Weshould find that out, in my judgment. That's my opinion. And if wecan get him convicted and removed from office, by golly, he deservesit. However, even if he weren't convicted, my point's been all alongthat impeachment is the ultimate censure. You can't just slapsomebody on the wrist with some piece of paper we file as aresolution, which we're going to debate here in a little while, and aresolution that we could do, and we do regularly around this body forany number of things, condemning this, or condemning that, and suggestthat that act alone rises to the level that -- of actually giving somekind of response to the awful criminal acts that this president hascommitted -- the undermining of the right of Paula Jones to have herday in court, the lying to the court, the encouraging of others tolie, the hiding of evidence, the encouraging of others to hideevidence, the lying before the grand jury ultimately, which is a (sic)even greater insult to our system of government, and committingperjury, which I believe that was. And then, I believe, in this article, even a greater insult --after he knew he was under an inquiry of impeachment, after all thathad been said and done, the president of the United Statescontemptuously came back to this committee and lied again -- not once,but any number of times that have been cited. I think that it is very much to the level of impeachment, and Ibelieve it's to the level that the president should be removed fromoffice. It is just simply not logical to do otherwise. I'd also like to quote from Mr. Broder's column yesterday, inwhich he says, "Other defense witnesses tried with more success toargue that the allegations against Clinton are not nearly as seriousas those that led to recommended impeachment of Richard Nixon and arenot so consequential as to merit the disruption of government a Senatetrial might entail. Their first point is irrefutable -- butirrelevant. The House is not being asked to judge whether Nixon orClinton is the worst miscreant, but simply whether Clinton's actionsin themselves merit impeachment." And I submit they clearly do. Theymerit removal from office, but at the very least they meritimpeachment. And if he is not removed from office ultimately, which is not ourdecision, it is the other body's decision, at the very least he meritsimpeachment, impeachment that will go down in history as a brand thatsays this is the president who was impeached for these awful offenses. I yield back the balance of my time. REP. HYDE: Without objection, the previous question is orderedon Article IV. | ||
| | |
REP. WATT: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? REP. HYDE: The question occurs on Article IV as amended.. REP. WATT: Mr. Chairman? REP. JACKSON LEE: Mr. Chairman? REP. HYDE: All those in favor will say "aye." REP. WATT: Mr. Chairman? REP. JACKSON LEE: Mr. Chairman? (Chorus of ayes.) REP. HYDE: Opposed, "no." REP. WATT: Mr. Chairman? (Chorus of noes." REP. : Mr. Chairman, people are seeking recognition. REP. WATT: Mr. Chairman? REP. HYDE: In the opinion -- there will be -- REP. WATT: Mr. Chairman. REP. HYDE: Mr. Watt. REP. WATT: Would the gentleman mind me striking the last word? REP. HYDE: Not a bit. Please talk away. (Laughter.) REP. WATT: Is the chairman perturbed that we're trying toexplain our votes and debate the underlying article at this point? Ican't understand what the chairman's motivation is. (Pause.) Let me just say that I find this article simply to be a repeat ofArticles I and II, substantially now that it has been amended. I didvote for the amendment because I thought it was absolutely ridiculousto say to the president of the United States that he could beimpeached for exercising executive privilege, which every -- I mean,any kind of privilege is a legal privilege that we give under the law.And to say that it's an abuse of power when you exercise a privilegeis just absolutely ridiculous. So, as I said in the debate on the amendment to this article, Mr.Gekas's amendment clearly made it less onerous and less ridiculous.But the amendment is subject to the same concerns that we expressedyesterday about Articles I and II because it uses the term"perjurious" and therefore alleges perjury, and there has beenabsolutely no designation in Mr. Gekas's amendment or elsewhere ofwhat the perjurious statements are. And if we are going to allege a perjury, a legal perjury, then I thinkit is incumbent upon this committee to grant to the president of theUnited States the exact same privileges that we would grant to everyAmerican citizen in the country. He can't be above the law; he can'tbe below the law. The rule of law in our country says that if youcharge somebody with perjury, you must tell them the statements thatthey have made that constitute that perjury. And we have spent the last three days now talking about how allof us are intent on upholding the rule of law in this country. And ifwe can't accord the rule of law to the president of the United Statesin these impeachment articles and tell him what he is going to betried for, if he is impeached for them, then we have accorded thepresident the status of being below the law, which I would submit toyou is even worse than according him the status of being above thelaw. We cannot sit here in the Judiciary Committee of the UnitedStates House of Representatives and give pious statements about how weare upholding the rule of law, and consistently disregard what therule of law says our obligation is. And the rule of law says if youcharge somebody with perjury, you are obligated to tell them what theperjurious statements are. And that's what I think we should insiston as members of this committee, and that's the very reason I willvote against this article, just as I have voted against the articlesI, II and III. REP. JACKSON LEE: Mr. Chairman? REP. WATT: I yield back, Mr. Chairman. REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman? REP. JACKSON LEE: Mr. Chairman? REP. CONYERS: I have a unanimous-consent request that we havetwo additional speakers on each side before we move to dispositions. REP. JACKSON LEE: Mr. Chairman? REP. WATT: Reserving the right to object. REP. HYDE: Is there objection? REP. WATT: Reserving the right to object. REP. HYDE: Mr. Watt objects or reserves the right to object. REP. WATT: I am reserving the right to object so that I canunderstand why it is that we are being asked to give up thecommittee's right to debate the article to this impeachment, which isthe most profound responsibility that this committee and this Congresscould have? Why are we muzzling the members of this committee? REP. CONYERS: To the member who has just utilized his fiveminutes, I would suggest that the reason that we are doing it is thatwe have debated the issue, the article, the amendment, and adopted theamendment since -- REP. WATT: Well, I -- let me just reclaim my time and submit tothe gentleman that what we debated was whether to amend the originalarticle. We are now debating the article which is in question. Thereis a difference in those two things. REP. CONYERS: I quite agree with my colleague from NorthCarolina. REP. WATT: Well, I'm not going to object. I've used my fiveminutes -- you're absolutely right -- but I think it's -- I would tellthe gentleman that I just think we are doing the American public a --an absolute disservice by depriving this committee of the right todebate the -- one of the most important issues of -- REP. CONYERS: I think -- REP. WATT: -- that has ever come before this Congress. REP. CONYERS: I know my friend's sincerity. I don't doubt hissincerity and conviction. REP. : Mr. Chairman, a point of information. REP. : Mr. Chairman? REP. HYDE: Would the gentleman yield for just a second? Mr.Conyers, on your unanimous consent -- REP. CONYERS: Yes, sir, I do. REP. HYDE: I have some working papers that explain in detailwhich -- which language we allege is perjurious and wrongful andmisleading, and I'll be -- REP. WATT: Is the gentleman responding to my concern? REP. HYDE: Yes, and I'll be happy to send this right down to youif you don't mind my scratchings in the margin. REP. WATT: Would the gentleman make them a part of theimpeachment article? REP. HYDE: No, I will not. I will make them a part of therecord, and when we file a report, as soon as the law lets us, it willcontain extensive specificity -- something that we all seem to want,so -- but meanwhile, to answer your urgent question as to whichspecific misstatements and perjurious remarks of the president we arecounting on, I have this working document that I'm happy to give you. REP. WATT: Is this a consensus of the committee that we'reworking from, or is it -- does it spring solely from the chairman'smind? REP. HYDE: No, it's not -- no, it's certainly from the bowels ofthe committee, but it may have had its -- REP. WATT: But Mr. Chairman, I assure you it's not from mybowels -- (laughter) -- I -- this will be the first time I have everseen it. REP. HYDE: That's right, but you are seeing it and I'm happy togive it to you and I hope that it answers some of your questions. REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman -- REP. WATT: Would the chairman object to my trying to make this apart of the impeachment article? REP. HYDE: Well, you mean you want to offer an amendment? REP. WATT: I might. REP. HYDE: Well, you do anything you want, sir. This is ademocracy. REP. WATT: If we don't have but two more speakers and I don'thave a chance to look at it, then it's going to be pretty difficultfor me to have that option, because it'll be gone. REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, it is my appreciationthat on this side there is a request for two more of my colleagues tospeak, and that is why -- three -- REP. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I don't want -- unless provoked, Idon't want to speak -- REP. WATERS: (Off mike.) REP. CONYERS: Three and one without -- (inaudible). REP. SCOTT: -- but I would object the unanimous consent request.I think that if there are only two, then there will only be two, but Idon't intend -- I would object to the unanimous consent. REP. HYDE: Objection is heard and the committee will stand inrecess for an hour for lunch. (Raps gavel.) | ||
| | |
| | |
| ||
 | ||