[House Prints 105-18]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


105th Congress                                              Ser. No. 18
2d Session                  COMMITTEE PRINT                            
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                          IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY:

                       WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON,

                     PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES



                CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

                               __________

 
              IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PURSUANT TO H. RES. 581:
                CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

                               __________

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS


                        Henry J. Hyde, Chairman

                                     
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13

                                     

                     DECEMBER 10, 11, AND 12, 1998

                               ---------

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

 53-323                    WASHINGTON : 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
    Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328



                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                   HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
    Wisconsin                        BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida               CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania        HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
LAMAR SMITH, Texas                   JERROLD NADLER, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California           ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida           MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina           ZOE LOFGREN, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana            MAXINE WATERS, California
ED BRYANT, Tennessee                 MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
BOB BARR, Georgia                    ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee        STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             THOMAS BARRETT, Wisconsin
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY BONO, California



                             Majority Staff

         Thomas E. Mooney, Sr., Chief of Staff-General Counsel
          Jon W. Dudas, Deputy General Counsel-Staff Director
         Diana L. Schacht, Deputy Staff Director-Chief Counsel
               Daniel M. Freeman, Parliamentarian-Counsel
       Paul J. McNulty, Director of Communications-Chief Counsel
                    Joseph H. Gibson, Chief Counsel
                         Rick Filkins, Counsel
                       Sharee M. Freeman, Counsel
                       Peter J. Levinson, Counsel
                       John F. Mautz, IV, Counsel
                     William E. Moschella, Counsel
                        Stephen Pinkos, Counsel

George M. Fishman, Chief Counsel     David P. Schippers, Chief 
Mitch Glazier, Chief Counsel             Investigative Counsel
John H. Ladd, Chief Counsel            
Raymond V. Smietanka, Chief Counsel  Susan Bogart, Investigative 
Laura Ann Baxter, Counsel                Counsel
Daniel J. Bryant, Counsel            Robert S. Hoover, Counsel
Cathleen A. Cleaver, Counsel         John C. Kocoras, Counsel
Vince Garlock, Counsel               Berle S. Littmann, Investigator
James W. Harper, Counsel             Stephen P. Lynch, Professional 
Susan Jensen-Conklin, Counsel            Staff Member
Debra K. Laman, Counsel              Charles F. Marino, Counsel
Blaine S. Merritt, Counsel           Jeffrey J. Pavletic, Investigative 
Nicole R. Nason, Counsel                 Counsel
Glenn R. Schmitt, Counsel            Thomas M. Schippers, Investigative 
Jim Y. Wilon, Counsel                    Counsel
                                     Albert F. Tracy, Investigator
                                     Peter J. Wacks, Investigator
                                     Diana L. Woznicki, Investigator

                             Minority Staff

         Julian Epstein, Minority Chief Counsel-Staff Director
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority General  Abbe D. Lowell, Minority Chief 
    Counsel                              Investigative Counsel
David G. Lachmann, Counsel           Sampak P. Garg, Investigative 
Cynthia A. R. Martin, Counsel            Counsel
Henry Moniz, Counsel                 Steven F. Reich, Investigative 
Stephanie J. Peters, Counsel             Counsel
Samara T. Ryder, Counsel             Deborah L. Rhode, Investigative 
Brian P. Woolfolk, Counsel               Counsel
                                     Kevin M. Simpson, Investigative 
                                         Counsel
                                     Lis W. Wiehl, Investigative 
                                         Counsel



                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                            COMMITTEE PRINT

                                                                   Page
December 10, 1998................................................     1
December 11, 1998................................................   131
December 12, 1998................................................   391

                             TEXTS OF BILLS

H. Res. ____.....................................................     4

                           OPENING STATEMENT

Hyde, Hon. Henry J., a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary..........     2

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Barr, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Georgia:
    Prepared statement...........................................   136
    Article from the October 6, 1998, issue of the New York 
      Times, ``Let the Process Go Forward''......................   655
    Register of Debates in Congress, Part I. of Vol. X, pp. 1317-
      1336, dated 1834...........................................   660
Boucher, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Virginia: Prepared statement................................    67
Bryant, Hon. Ed, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Tennessee: Prepared statement..................................   107
Buyer, Hon. Stephen E., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Indiana: Prepared statement...........................    98
Cannon, Hon. Christopher B., a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Utah:
    Article from George magazine, ``Sidney Strikes Again''.......   385
    Letter from Ben Jones, former Member of Congress, undated....   694
Conyers, Hon. John Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Michigan:
    Prepared statement...........................................    21
    Letter from William Alden McDaniel, Jr., Esq., to Hon. Bob 
      Barr, dated December 10, 1998, with enclosures.............   196
Delahunt, Hon. William D. a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Massachusetts:
    Letter from Hon. William D. Delahunt to Hon. Henry J. Hyde, 
      dated December 4, 1998, with enclosures....................   578
    Statement to the press by Hon. Kenneth W. Starr, Office of 
      the Independent Counsel, dated December 9, 1998............   344
    Letter from Hon. Bob Barr to Hon. Henry Hyde and Hon. John 
      Conyers, Jr., dated December 10, 1998......................   216
Gallegly, Hon. Elton, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of California: Prepared statement..............................    74
Gekas, Hon. George W., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Pennsylvania: CRS Report for Congress on Censure of 
  the President by the Congress..................................   709
Hutchinson, Hon. Asa, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Arkansas:
    Prepared statement...........................................   153
Letters to Hon. William D. Delahunt, from:
        Stephen Presser, dated December 1, 1998..................   680
        Gary L. McDowell, dated December 3, 1998.................   681
        John C. Harrison, dated December 7, 1998.................   683
        John. O. McGinnis, dated December 3, 1998................   685
        Griffin B. Bell, dated December 3, 1998..................   686
        Charles J. Cooper, dated December 2, 1998................   687
        Richard D. Parker, dated December 4, 1998................   688
        Daniel H. Pollitt, dated December 2, 1998................   689
Hyde, Hon. Henry J., a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Illinois: Working Document, Article IV, Some Examples of 
  Perjurious, False and Misleading Statements Given Under Oath by 
  the President in the Inquiry of Impeachment....................   561
Inglis, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  South Carolina: Prepared statement.............................    87
Jackson Lee, Hon. Sheila, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Texas:
    Statement with respect to a Joint Resolution of Censure for 
      William Jefferson Clinton..................................   622
    Statement to the press by the President of the United States, 
      dated December 11, 1998....................................   699
    Closing statement............................................   416
Lofgren, Hon. Zoe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  California:
    Articles of Impeachment for Andrew Johnson...................   248
    Letter of Affidavit from Hon. Zoe Lofgren to Hon. Kenneth W. 
      Starr, dated December 4, 1998..............................   360
    Letter from Hon. Henry Hyde to Hon. Zoe Lofgren, dated 
      September 21, 1998, with enclosures........................   428
McCollum, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Florida: Prepared statement.................................    31
Nadler, Hon. Jerrold, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of New York: Article from the Los Angeles Times, ``The 
  Impeachment Hearings: Experts Say Perjury Charge Vague''.......   220
Smith, Hon. Lamar S., a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Texas: Prepared statement...................................    57
Waters, Hon. Maxine, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of California: Letter from Alan Dershowitz to Hon. Maxine 
  Waters, dated December 4, 1998, with enclosure.................   191

                                APPENDIX

Letter from Hon. Kenneth W. Starr to Hon. Henry J. Hyde and Hon. 
  John Conyers, Jr., dated December 11, 1998, responding to 
  questions from members of the Committee on the Judiciary.......   715



                CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1998

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to other business, at 5:30 
p.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry 
J. Hyde [chairman of the committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Henry J. Hyde, F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., Bill McCollum, George W. Gekas, Howard 
Coble, Lamar S. Smith, Elton Gallegly, Charles T. Canady, Bob 
Inglis, Bob Goodlatte, Stephen E. Buyer, Ed Bryant, Steve 
Chabot, Bob Barr, William L. Jenkins, Asa Hutchinson, Edward A. 
Pease, Christopher B. Cannon, James E. Rogan, Lindsey O. 
Graham, Mary Bono, John Conyers, Jr., Barney Frank, Charles E. 
Schumer, Howard L. Berman, Rick Boucher, Jerrold Nadler, Robert 
C. Scott, Melvin L. Watt, Zoe Lofgren, Sheila Jackson Lee, 
Maxine Waters, Martin T. Meehan, William D. Delahunt, Robert 
Wexler, Steven R. Rothman, and Thomas M. Barrett.
    Majority Staff Present: Thomas E. Mooney, Sr., general 
counsel-chief of staff; Jon W. Dudas, deputy general counsel-
staff director; Diana L. Schacht, deputy staff director-chief 
counsel; Daniel M. Freeman, parliamentarian-counsel; Joseph H. 
Gibson, chief counsel; Peter Levinson, counsel; Rick Filkins, 
counsel; Sharee M. Freeman, counsel; John F. Mautz, IV, 
counsel; William Moschella, counsel; Stephen Pinkos, counsel; 
Judy Wolverton, professional staff; Sheila F. Klein, executive 
assistant to general counsel-chief of staff; Annelie Weber, 
executive assistant to deputy general counsel-staff director; 
Samuel F. Stratman, press secretary; Rebecca S. Ward, officer 
manager; James B. Farr, financial clerk; Lynn Alcock, calendar 
clerk; Elizabeth Singleton, legislative correspondent; Sharon 
L. Hammersla, computer systems coordinator; Michele Manon, 
administrative assistant; Joseph McDonald, publications clerk; 
Shawn Friesen, staff assistant/clerk; Robert Jones, staff 
assistant; Ann Jemison, receptionist; Michael Connolly, 
communications assistant; Michelle Morgan, press secretary; and 
Patricia Katyoka, research assistant.
    Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law Staff 
Present: Ray Smietanka, chief counsel; Jim Harper, counsel; 
Susan Jensen-Conklin, counsel; and Audray L. Clement, staff 
assistant.
    Subcommittee on the Constitution Staff Present: John H. 
Ladd, chief counsel; Cathleen A. Cleaver, counsel; and Susana 
Gutierrez, clerk/research assistant.
    Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property Staff 
Present: Mitch Glazier, chief counsel; Blaine S. Merritt, 
counsel; Vince Garlock, counsel; Debra K. Laman, counsel; and 
Eunice Goldring, staff assistant.
    Subcommittee on Crime Staff Present: Paul J. McNulty, 
director of communications-chief counsel; Glenn R. Schmitt, 
counsel; Daniel J. Bryant, counsel; Nicole R. Nason, counsel; 
and Veronica Eligan, staff assistant.
    Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims Staff Present: 
George M. Fishman, chief counsel; Laura Baxter, counsel; Jim Y. 
Wilon, counsel; Cynthia Blackston, clerk; and Judy Knott, staff 
assistant.
    Majority Investigative Staff Present: David P. Schippers, 
chief investigative counsel; Susan Bogart, investigative 
counsel; Thomas M. Schippers, investigative counsel; Jeffery 
Pavletic, investigative counsel; Charles F. Marino, counsel; 
John C. Kocoras, counsel; Diana L. Woznicki, investigator; 
Peter J. Wacks, investigator; Albert F. Tray, investigator; 
Berle S. Littmann, investigator; Stephen P. Lynch, professional 
staff member; Nancy Ruggero-Tracy, office manager/coordinator; 
and Patrick O'Sullivan, staff assistant.
    Minority Staff Present: Julian Epstein, minority chief 
counsel-staff director; Perry Apelbaum, minority general 
counsel; Samara T. Ryder counsel; Brian P. Woolfolk, counsel; 
Henry Moniz, counsel; Robert Raben, minority counsel; Stephanie 
Peters, counsel; David Lachmann, counsel; Anita Johnson, 
executive assistant to minority chief counsel-staff director, 
and Dawn Burton, minority clerk.
    Minority Investigative Staff Present: Abbe D. Lowell, 
minority chief investigative counsel; Lis W. Wiehl, 
investigative counsel; Deborah L. Rhode, investigative counsel; 
Kevin M. Simpson, investigative counsel; Stephen F. Reich, 
investigative counsel; Sampak P. Garg, investigative counsel; 
and Maria Reddick, minority clerk.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HYDE

    Chairman Hyde. The committee will come to order. The 
committee will once more come to order.
    The committee will now consider a resolution exhibiting 
articles of impeachment. The Chair will recognize the gentleman 
from Wisconsin for purposes of making a motion, but first, I 
want to make a short statement.
    There is one difference between the draft articles that 
were distributed yesterday at the request of Mr. Conyers and 
the Democratic members of the committee, and the resolution I 
am introducing that you have before you. You will note that 
each page of the draft resolution contained the words 
``discussion, working draft only, subject to change, pending 
evidentiary presentations.''
    Article II, paragraph 2, accuses the President of making 
perjurious, false and misleading statements in his deposition 
in the Jones case. In that paragraph, which describes the 
alleged perjurious statements he made, on page 4, lines 14 to 
16, the following words have been inserted: ``his knowledge--''
    Mr. Scott. What page, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hyde. On page 4, lines 14 to 16.
    Mr. Scott. Where does the beginning start?
    Chairman Hyde. In the middle of line 14, after the comma: 
``his knowledge of that employee's involvement and 
participation in the civil rights action brought against him.''
    I have determined that this gives an even more accurate 
description of the types of alleged perjurious statements made 
by the President. This is the only substantive change from the 
draft articles.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, the one I have--parliamentary 
inquiry. The one that is dated December 10th, those words are 
already in it, is that correct?
    Chairman Hyde. Yes, I am told they are.
    Mr. Frank. Because it would look funny with them in there 
twice.
    Chairman Hyde. Yes, all right. Legislative counsel has made 
some technical changes such as adding commas and capitalizing 
some words, but that is the only change.
    All right. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for purposes of making a motion.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I move the resolution's 
favorable recommendation to the House.
    Chairman Hyde. The clerk will report the resolution.
    The Clerk. Resolved, that William Jefferson Clinton----
    Chairman Hyde. Excuse me for a second, Mr. Clerk. I ask 
unanimous consent that the reading of the articles be dispensed 
with.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    [The Resolution follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.001
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.002
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.003
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.004
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.005
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.006
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.007
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.008
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.009
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.010
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.011
    
    Chairman Hyde. Each member will have 10 minutes to make an 
opening statement. After opening statements, the proposed 
articles shall be considered as read and open to amendment. 
Each proposed article and any additional article, if any, shall 
be separately considered for amendment and immediately 
thereafter voted upon, as amended, for the recommendation to 
the House, if any article has been agreed to. The original 
motion shall be considered as adopted, and the chairman shall 
report to the House said resolution of impeachment together 
with such articles as have been agreed to. Without objection, 
so ordered.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and 
I don't intend to object, I would just like to have you read 
that again so that I make sure I understand what the process is 
going to be.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, each member shall have 10 
minutes to make an opening statement. After opening statements, 
the proposed articles shall be considered as read and open to 
amendment. Each proposed article and any additional article 
shall be separately considered for amendment and immediately 
thereafter voted upon, as amended, for a recommendation to the 
House, if any article has been agreed to. The original motion 
shall be considered as adopted, and the chairman shall report 
to the House said resolution of impeachment, together with such 
articles as have been agreed to.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. I didn't 
mean to interrupt the unanimous consent. Have you gotten the 
unanimous consent?
    Chairman Hyde. I believe we have.
    Mr. Frank. Okay. Then just for purposes of scheduling for 
members, members can then know, because this is going to be a 
long process and Members need not be here, I would hope, to 
listen to each of us do our statements. So members can know we 
are going to begin the 10 minute opening statements now, 
proceed, some Members could then estimate that they wouldn't be 
needed for a while, and am I correct that if we do get through 
all the opening statements tonight, that is all we will do?
    Chairman Hyde. That is absolutely right. The markup will 
start tomorrow, under any circumstances.
    Mr. Frank. So members can calculate when they might be 
called on to give their opening statement and wouldn't 
necessarily have to stay around and give their opening 
statement, other than the chairman, of course.
    Chairman Hyde. Yes, the chairman is stuck, and has the 
benefit of hearing all of these opening statements.
    At 10 minutes each, this is a six-hour, with luck, process. 
Just a minute. I am hearing voices over here.
    Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I want to just extend Mr. Frank's 
comment. I assume--well, strike that. Does the Chair plan to 
take all opening statements tonight?
    Chairman Hyde. The Chair is going to play it by ear. The 
Chair figures 9-ish, 10-ish, let's see how far along we are. I 
would like to get the bulk of them over so that tomorrow 
morning, if we have any left over, we can dispose of them at 
9:00 a.m., moving quickly along, so that we can finish our work 
tomorrow.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, we had previously requested 
information from Mr. Starr. Do we anticipate getting that 
information before we have to start the markup?
    Chairman Hyde. We will make inquiry. I don't know the 
answer to that, but we will try to find an answer.
    Mr. Scott. Well, we can speed it along with a subpoena, if 
necessary.
    Chairman Hyde. I understand. I understand. Mr. Conyers and 
I would have to agree on that, though, you understand.
    All right. We are ready for opening statements, and Mr. 
Sensenbrenner is recognized.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, for the past 11 months the 
toughest questions I have had to answer come from parents who 
want to know what to tell their kids about what President 
Clinton did. Every parent tries to teach their children to know 
the difference between right and wrong, to always tell the 
truth, and when they make mistakes, to take responsibility for 
them and to face the consequences of their actions.
    President Clinton's actions, at every step since the media 
told us who Monica Lewinsky is, have been completely opposite 
to the values parents hope to teach their children. No amount 
of government education programs and day care facilities can 
reverse the damage done to our children's values by the leader 
of our country.
    But being a poor example isn't grounds for impeachment; 
undermining the rule of law is. Frustrating the court's ability 
to administer justice turns private misconduct into an attack 
upon the ability of one of the three branches of our government 
to impartially administer justice. This is a direct attack on 
the rule of law and our country, and a very public wrong that 
goes to the constitutional workings of our government.
    To me, making a false statement under oath to a criminal 
grand jury is an impeachable offense, period. This committee 
and the House decided that issue by a vote of 417-to-nothing 
nine years ago in the Judge Nixon impeachment. To accept the 
argument that presidential lying to a grand jury is somewhat 
different than judicial lying to a grand jury, and thus not 
impeachable, is wrong. It sets the standard for presidential 
truthfulness lower than for judicial truthfulness. The truth is 
the truth, and a lie is a lie, no matter who says it, and no 
amount of legal hairsplitting can obscure that fact.
    The evidence clearly shows that President Clinton lied to 
the grand jury fully seven and one-half months after the 
President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky hit the front pages. 
Those lies were told because the President was unwilling to 
admit he repeatedly lied in the Paula Jones deposition in 
January. Whatever one thinks of her Federal civil rights suit, 
the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 9-to-0 that she had the 
right to pursue it and to gather evidence to support her 
claims. Giving testimony under oath at depositions is one way 
parties to lawsuits are allowed to obtain evidence under our 
laws. The President lied numerous times at that deposition to 
obstruct Ms. Jones pursuing her right to get that evidence.
    When Americans come to Washington, they see the words 
``Equal Justice Under Law'' carved in the facade of the Supreme 
Court building. Those words mean that the weak and the poor 
have an equal right to justice as do the rich and the powerful. 
President Clinton's lies in that deposition were directly 
designed to defeat Ms. Jones' claims. He then lied to his 
Cabinet and his staff so that they would unwittingly deceive 
the American public on this issue, and he appeared on TV, 
denying sexual relations with quote, that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, 
unquote.
    The President's defenders might claim that he did it to 
protect the First Lady and his daughter. While that might have 
been true right when the story broke, it wasn't shortly 
afterwards when all the personal embarrassment possible had 
already been caused. He didn't admit to an inappropriate 
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky until the DNA tests on that 
famous dress came back, and to this day he still will not admit 
to lying at the deposition and to the grand jury, all to evade 
responsibility for his untruthful testimony. His repeated and 
continued failure to accept responsibility for his false 
testimony has brought us to the point where this committee is 
on the verge of approving articles of impeachment of a 
President for only the third time in our Nation's history.
    Had President Clinton told the truth in January, admitted 
that he had made a mistake, and suffered the consequences then, 
there would have been no independent counsel investigation on 
this matter and we would not be debating impeachment here 
today. Mr. Clinton has recognized that his relationship with 
Ms. Lewinsky was wrong. I give him credit for that. But he has 
not owned up to the false testimony, the stonewalling, the 
obstructing the courts from finding the truth, and the use of 
taxpayer-paid White House resources to hide and perpetuate his 
lies. He has tried to use his apology for private misconduct to 
evade taking responsibility for the very grave public wrongs 
done to the judicial system's ability to find the truth. He has 
used legal hairsplitting and redefinition of words to 
perpetuate those lies and has continued to do so.
    The Framers of the Constitution devised an elaborate system 
of checks and balances to ensure our liberties by making sure 
that no person, institution or branch of government became so 
powerful that a tyranny could be established in the United 
States of America. Impeachment is one of the checks the Framers 
gave to Congress to prevent the executive or judicial branches 
from becoming corrupt or tyrannical. Today, based upon the 
evidence that the President lied, obstructed and abused power 
in an effort to prevent the courts from administering equal 
justice under law, I cast my vote in favor of impeaching 
William Jefferson Clinton.
    I do so with no joy, but without apologies, just as those 
on this committee who voted to impeach President Nixon 24 years 
ago did. Watergate and the Nixon impeachment reversed the 
results of an overwhelming election, and were extremely 
divisive to our country, but America emerged from that national 
nightmare a much stronger country, and will do so again after 
this sad part of our history is over.
    What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law. Our 
failure to bring President Clinton to account for his lying 
under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal 
justice under law will cause a cancer to be present in our 
society for generations. I want those parents who asked me the 
questions to be able to tell their children that even if you 
are President of the United States, if you lie when sworn to 
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you 
will face the consequences of that action even when you don't 
accept the responsibility for them.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The distinguished Ranking Member from Michigan, Mr. 
Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, and to the House itself, we 
stand poised on the edge of a constitutional cliff, staring 
into the void below into which we have jumped only twice before 
in our history. Some encourage us to take this fateful leap, 
but I fear that we are about to inflict irreparable damage on 
our Nation if we do.
    This inquiry began with the tawdry, salacious, 
unnecessarily sexually graphic referral delivered to us by an 
occasionally obsessive counsel in September with so much drama, 
and since that time our proceedings in this committee have been 
marked by one partisan vote after another,beginning with the 
majority decision to release literally every shred of paper received 
from Mr. Starr onto the Internet. Although we have been able to reach 
accord on some matters, in too many respects this inquiry has been a 
textbook example of how not to run an impeachment inquiry.
    Time after time, we, the minority, have suffered the 
indignity of learning from the newspaper or television about 
important investigative or procedural decisions made by the 
majority. We learned about the decision to take depositions 5 
minutes before the majority issues a press release to the 
world. One day they decide to expand our investigation to 
campaign finance matters, and the next day we read that the 
subject is off the table.
    Just yesterday, even while the White House counsel was 
concluding his testimony, the majority released its articles of 
impeachment, articles so vague that they would be dismissed by 
most courts in the country.
    So much for fairness. So much for bipartisanship.
    It is often said that power is best defined through its 
exercise. Well, all too often, the majority members of this 
committee have ruled this committee however they see fit, and I 
am sorry to say that we have fallen far short of carrying out 
our constitutional duties. The majority have simply rubber-
stamped the unexamined, untested, double hearsay, yes, triple 
hearsay, and conclusions of the Independent Counsel without 
conducting any factual investigation of its own.
    Not one fact witness came before this committee. Faced with 
the failure of the process that they championed, the majority 
members this week adopted a new line of attack and tried to 
blame the President for not calling fact witnesses.
    My friends across the aisle, please let me remind you that 
it is you who are trying to overturn the results of two 
national elections, you who are attempting a legislative 
takeover of the executive branch and you, not the President, 
who have the burden of coming forward with evidence to sustain 
your actions.
    On November 3rd, our citizens sent yet another message to 
all of us: Stop the investigation, stop the partisanship, stop 
this impeachment inquiry. But the majority members of this 
committee have not heard the message.
    And now I want to address myself to those members in the 
House, not Democrats, who are undecided about what to do when 
this matter reaches the floor. And I want to talk to you about 
why I would hope and pray that they would vote against 
impeachment.
    There is no question the President tried to hide an 
extramarital relationship from the glare of his family and 
political opponents and lied to the American people in his 
January 21st press conference regarding this relationship. That 
was wrong. But it doesn't constitute perjury. And, by the way, 
undermining the rule of law may or may not be impeachable. All 
lies are not perjury. Perjury may or may not be impeachable.
    If our hearings have made anything clear, it is that the 
distinction between personal misconduct and official misconduct 
has constitutional significance. Most Americans believe that 
their personal sex life is personal and should not serve as a 
basis for a wide-ranging criminal investigation of themselves 
or any citizen and, yes, not even the President. It should not 
serve as the foundation for overturning the will of the 
American people to a twice-elected, popular and successful 
President.
    The majority of our constitutional scholars have concluded 
that an offense is not impeachable unless it is political in 
nature. Our government functions under a principle of 
separation of powers. Under our constitutional system of 
government, if the President misbehaves in a way that does not 
impact his official duties, the remedy still lies in the voting 
booth and not in a legislative takeover of the executive 
branch.
    And so to my Republican friends in this Congress, I beg you 
to consider the effect of a vote for impeachment on these 
facts. The Congress shut down the government before, and the 
results were disastrous for our citizens and for the majority 
party. A vote for impeachment is a vote for another government 
shutdown.
    That is because the matter would tie up the Senate, take 
the Chief Justice out of the Supreme Court, away from his 
duties, while he presided over the trial of the President, and 
tie up the members of this body as they prosecute the case in 
the Senate. Even worse, it would needlessly increase the 
division and polarization of our Nation.
    Please, my friends, think about the subject matter of this 
trial that you are being asked to send to the Senate.
    This morning, we heard a detailed analysis from the 
minority counsel of why the majority's case against the 
President is factually unsupportable. Article I of the 
majority's articles of impeachment charges the President with 
lying before a grand jury, but the article fails to specify the 
particular statements on which the majority relies. This 
startling lack of particularity would be laughed at in a 
courtroom, most courtrooms around the country. It is simply 
irresponsible to charge the President with offenses without 
having the courage to lay one's cards on the table and identify 
precisely which specific acts constitute the alleged offenses. 
And remember further, with respect to the alleged grand jury 
perjury, the President admitted to his improper relationships 
before the grand jury.
    Article II of the majority's articles charge the President 
lied during his deposition in the Paula Jones case, but, as we 
saw with our own eyes, even skilled attorneys and a judge could 
not agree on what the definition of sexual relations in that 
case meant. The failure of the Jones' attorneys to provide the 
President with a precise definition to ask follow-up questions 
about what they knew from Linda Tripp shows a profound lack of 
candor on their part and reveals that deposition for the shell 
game that it really was, an entrapment. Surely, the President 
cannot be held accountable in an article of impeachment for 
that.
    Article III of the proposed articles of impeachment charges 
obstruction of justice. But we know by now that the search for 
a job for Ms. Lewinsky began long before she showed up on the 
Paula Jones' witness list. We know----
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired. Could you 
close in a few minutes?
    Mr. Conyers. Yes, sir, I will.
    We know that when the President spoke to Betty Currie she 
was not expected to be a witness in any case and therefore 
could not have been tampered with. We know that the President 
didn't encourage Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit. I 
won't even quote her once more--for the 100th time that she 
didn't ask anyone to lie or get promised a job for her silence.
    Finally, Article IV, and I thank you for your indulgence. 
The majority's Article IV charges that the President abused his 
power by lying to aides and to the public and by asserting 
perfectly legal privileges in court. My friends, the President 
misled his aides and the country not to affecttestimony but 
because he didn't want anyone to know about his relationship. And, 
really, how can the assertion of well-established privileges in a court 
case result in the impeachment of a President? It can't. It just can't.
    And I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my 
statement be entered into the record. I thank the Chair for his 
indulgence.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection.
    [The statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.012
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.013
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.014
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.015
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.016
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.017
    
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The United States is the greatest free Nation in the 
history of the world. The foundation of this greatness is our 
justice system. Instead of settling our disputes with guns and 
knives or paying off protection rackets, as occurs in much of 
the rest of the world, any American who is injured may go to 
court and get a fair resolution of the dispute based on the law 
and the facts.
    A little boy who is run over while riding his bicycle may 
recover damages from the person who injured him. An elderly 
widow who has been bilked out of her savings by a fraudulent 
scam can go to court to recover her savings. A laborer may 
bring a worker's compensation claim when he is injured on the 
job. A person who has been discriminated against while seeking 
a job on account of race, religion, age or disability may go to 
court for relief. A woman who has been sexually harassed by an 
employer or supervisor in the workplace may bring a civil 
rights suit for damages. And the list goes on.
    People who go to court in our system expect witnesses who 
are called to testify to tell the truth to the judge and the 
jurors. That is what we mean by the term ``rule of law.'' 
Without truthful testimony, justice can't be rendered, and the 
system doesn't work.
    That is why a person who testifies in court is sworn to 
tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And 
that is why if in court proceedings a person lies, encourages 
others to lie, hides evidence, or encourages others to hide 
evidence, he is subject to severe punishment. In fact, the 
Federal sentencing guidelines state that people who are 
convicted of perjury or obstruction of justice are punished 
more harshly than those who commit the crime of bribery.
    And that is why if President Clinton committed the crimes 
of perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering he 
should be impeached. Under the Constitution, impeachable 
offenses are treason, bribery and other high crimes and 
misdemeanors. If our courts for good reason punish perjury and 
obstruction of justice more severely than bribery, how could 
anyone conclude they are not impeachable offenses? Bribery and 
perjury both go to the same grave offense: the undermining of 
justice. How could any person who fully understands and 
reflects on this fail to see that a person who gives 
perjurious, false and misleading testimony in a civil rights 
action brought against him and before a Federal grand jury and 
encourages others to give perjurious, false and misleading 
testimony and uses the powers of his office to conceal the 
truth from the court and the grand jury and cover up his crimes 
should be impeached?
    The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the Nation, 
the chief law enforcement officer of the Nation and our 
military's Commander in Chief. If we tolerate such serious 
crimes as perjury and obstruction of justice by the President 
of the United States and fail to impeach him, there will be 
grave, damaging consequences for our system of government.
    Studies show that perjury is an increasingly common 
occurrence in our courts. Contrary to what some have asserted, 
there are numerous recent examples of Federal prosecutions of 
perjury in civil cases. There are at least 115 people in 
Federal prison today for perjury in civil cases.
    If he has committed these crimes and is not impeached, a 
terrible message will go out across the country that will 
undermine the integrity of our court system. We will not only 
send the message that there is a double standard and that the 
President of the United States is above the law in these 
matters but also a message that these crimes are not as serious 
as some people once thought they were. More people in the 
future will likely commit perjury in the courts than would be 
the case if the President were impeached.
    Furthermore, it will be far more difficult in the future 
for Congresses to impeach Federal judges for perjury and the 
like, which we have done in the past. And there is bound to be 
repercussions in our military where the Commander in Chief is 
treated quite differently from officers and other enlisted 
personnel who would be routinely removed from duty and 
discharged from the service for crimes that the President has 
admitted to, not to mention the crimes themselves which no 
doubt would get a military officer court martialed.
    This is the grave matter we are about today. Unfortunately, 
I come to the end of these deliberations convinced that the 
compelling, clear and convincing evidence before us 
demonstrates that the President has committed several offenses 
for which he should be impeached. In fact, I am convinced, from 
the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt that President Clinton 
committed a number of crimes that underlie the articles of 
impeachment today. His conduct constitutes a great insult to 
our constitutional system and subverts our system of 
government.
    Now, what about the evidence? The President was sued in a 
sexual harassment civil rights lawsuit by Paula Jones. He said 
that the purpose of that suit was to politically attack him and 
embarrass him. That may be what he thought, but on its face the 
suit alleges a claim of sexual harassment which Paula Jones had 
the right in our system of justice to try to prove in court. 
Part of her case was to try to bolster the credibility of her 
allegations by showing the President engaged in and was still 
engaging in a pattern of illicit relations with women in his 
employment. Whatever the merits of this approach, the court 
determined that she could proceed to try to prove it.
    Long before the President was called to give a deposition 
or Monica Lewinsky was named as a witness in the Jones case, 
the evidence shows that she and the President had an 
understanding they would lie about their relationship if asked 
by anybody. When her name appeared on the witness list, the 
President telephoned her and told her. During this discussion, 
he suggested she might file an affidavit to avoid being called 
in person. In that same conversation, they also reviewed the 
cover stories they had concocted to conceal their relationship. 
In her grand jury testimony, Monica Lewinsky says the President 
didn't tell her to lie, but because of their previous 
understanding she assumed that both expected her to lie in the 
affidavit. In this context, the evidence is compelling that the 
President committed the crime of obstruction of justice.
    A few days later, the President gave sworn testimony in the 
Jones' case in which he swore he could not recall being alone 
with Monica Lewinsky and that he had not had sexual relations 
with her. He repeated those assertions a few months later to 
the grand jury. The evidence shows he lied about both and about 
a number of other material matters. In doing so, the President 
committed the crime of perjury, both in front of the grand jury 
and in his civil deposition.
    During his deposition in the Jones case, the President 
referred to Betty Currie several times and suggested she might 
have answers to some of the questions. When he finished the 
deposition he telephoned Ms. Currie and asked her to come to 
his office the next day and talk with him. By any reasonable 
reading of the matter, one is compelled to conclude the 
President was at least in part concerned that Betty Currie 
would be called as a witness in the Jones case as a consequence 
of his own deposition testimony. Whether she was ever listed as 
a witness or actually testified is immaterial and irrelevant. 
Betty Currie told the grand jury that when she came in the next 
day the President raised his deposition with her and said there 
were several things she may want to know. He then rattled off 
in succession: ``You were always there when she was there, 
right? We were never really alone.'' ``You could see and hear 
everything.''
    ``Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?''
    ``She wanted to have sex with me, and I can't do that.''
    It seems abundantly clear that the President was trying to 
influence how Betty Currie responded, not simply to press 
questions but to the court in the Paula Jones case if she were 
called as a witness, which the President had every reason to 
believe could happen and which he may have even wanted to 
happen so as to corroborate his already untruthful testimony 
and to continue the coverup. By encouraging her to lie and 
protect him in anticipation of her testifying in the Paula 
Jones case, the President committed the crimes of obstructing 
justice and witness tampering.
    The list could go on, but time doesn't allow me to discuss 
all of these. As Mr. Schippers testified today, the President 
engaged in a whole pattern of conduct over an extended period 
of time which, taken together, demonstrate a scheme to conceal 
from the court in the Jones' case the truth about his 
relationship with Monica Lewinsky and later to conceal his 
previous lies, obstruction of justice and witness tampering in 
that suit.
    It is not a case of one or two isolated instances that 
bring us to the articles of impeachment before us. If the 
entire fact pattern that has been unveiled to us in the 
thousands of pages of sworn testimony and documents we have 
examined were revealed to a criminal court jury I am convinced 
that they would convict the President of several felony crimes 
including the crimes of perjury before the grand jury and in 
the civil case involving Paula Jones. And contrary to the 
assertion of some, it seems apparent to me that any prosecutor 
reviewing the totality of the evidence would bring the cases 
that we are talking about. We are dealing, however, with 
something graver, and that is the impeachment of the President 
of the United States.
    Some have suggested that we are ill-served by the time that 
would be consumed in the trial of these matters, but having 
examined the evidence thoroughly, I don't agree. Just the 
opposite is true. To fail to impeach the President knowing what 
I know and believe I think would be a dereliction of duty on my 
part.
    There may be some particulars over the next day or two that 
I don't agree with that I find in the articles of impeachment, 
and I may vote to alter them, but sadly, I conclude that when 
all is said and done, I must vote to impeach President William 
Jefferson Clinton. To do otherwise would undermine the rule of 
law and undermine our constitutional system of government.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The statement of Mr. McCollum follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.018
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.019
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.020
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.021
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.022
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.023
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.024
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.025
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.026
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.027
    
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. After many years of investigations by every 
possible investigative tool of the Federal government--
congressional committees; the FBI, under the command of the 
Independent Counsel--we have the following charge against Bill 
Clinton: He had a private consensual sexual affair and lied 
about it. Let's be very clear that that is what we are talking 
about.
    That seems to many people an insufficient basis for an 
impeachment. Indeed, among those who implicitly acknowledge it 
is an insufficient basis for impeachment are all of those who 
have been trying so desperately to come up with something else.
    I must say, after this committee subpoenaed and then 
unsubpoenaed all the people in the Kathleen Willey case, and 
subpoenaed and unsubpoenaed the people in the campaign finance 
case, I was disappointed to have Mr. Schippers begin today by 
an entirely inappropriate invocation of unnamed and unspecified 
further crimes which he claims he is still investigating. And 
to wave them at this point in the proceeding, as if they 
somehow justified acting, when he is able to produce nothing to 
substantiate that, is irresponsible prosecution.
    Mr. Schippers began by saying, oh, there is more out there. 
Why do people say there is more out there? Responsible people 
don't like to be in the position of making empty threats like 
that. It is not fair to anybody to say, particularly after 5 
years and more of multiple investigations, oh, but there may be 
more out there. At some point we have to come to a vote.
    Now, the people say, well, we are in a hurry. The majority 
has been in control of this process. If you thought there was 
more out there, you could have waited. We have waited and 
waited and waited. I think what we have is an implicit 
acknowledgment that impeaching the President because he 
admittedly lied to try to cover up a private, consensual sexual 
affair is a mistake.
    Indeed, the previous speaker made a point that I agree 
with. He said that the President and Monica Lewinsky, long 
before they knew about her potential role in the Paula Jones 
suit, agreed that they would try to cover this up. I agree. 
That goes contrary to the assertion that this was an effort to 
somehow frustrate justice in the Jones case.
    The President was understandably embarrassed. He had 
private sexual activity that he wanted to conceal, and he lied 
about it, and that is a subject, as an expert, which I fully 
understand.
    The fact is that that is all we have. Now, we also have Mr. 
Schippers saying that, and I thought this was also very 
unusual, please do not be cajoled into considering each event 
in isolation and treating it separately. That is what people 
always do in conspiracy cases, he says. But of the four counts, 
only one could be described as a conspiracy count. Three of the 
four deal only with sole acts of Bill Clinton.
    What Mr. Schippers is saying is, please believe that I have 
a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts, because they 
understand that the sum of the parts is not impeachable. The 
sum of the parts is and the whole is that Bill Clinton gave in 
to a sexual affair that he shouldn't have had and shouldn't 
have lied about it. That is it.
    Should that be impeachable? I feel strongly that it should 
not be. In the first place, the notion that this sort of lying 
always brings the harshest sanction is simply not true. People 
have said, well, are you going to say that just because 
everybody does it, it is all right?
    No, that is never true. It is true, however, when people 
that have given one punishment in one case then want to give a 
much harsher punishment in a very similar case make that 
argument, it is legitimate to say they are motivated by 
something other than what they admit.
    We heard people suggest that if the President is 
notimpeached, this will undermine morale in the military and lead to an 
outbreak of lying in the military. I think our military is of sterner 
stuff than that. I think when George Bush pardoned the Secretary of 
Defense because he had been indicted for perjury, that the military 
shrugged it off. I don't think that had a negative effect. I think when 
we have had lying alleged in other cases by the President and others in 
national security cases, that didn't have a negative effect on the 
military.
    The fact is that previous cases of lying have called forth 
not only less than condemnation but congratulations from some 
of the members of this committee. That leads me to believe that 
what we are talking about with impeachment is an effort to get 
rid of a President who has been inconvenient, not a consistent 
application of a principle.
    As far as the alleged offenses are concerned, I do believe 
that the President lied when he said he wasn't alone with 
Monica Lewinsky. I also believe that when you are giving a 
deposition in a civil case and are asked things that are not 
relevant, it is not in our interest to pursue that.
    Now I will say to some of my friends on my side, we should 
be examining--and I have been in the minority on my side from 
time to time in talking about curtailing the reach of private 
lawsuits. I think we do run into a problem where unlimited 
discovery, in the case of unlimited right to bring lawsuits, 
can lead to problems.
    I'm not going to give the ultimate punishment to the 
President of the United States because he lied, in a private 
lawsuit to which this issue was not relevant--and I believe 
that a purely consensual affair was in fact irrelevant to the 
Paula Jones case--I believe that this is not something that 
rises to that level.
    As far as the grand jury is concerned--and that, I think, 
is the heart of the argument, that he committed perjury in the 
grand jury--I know Mr. Schippers goes beyond Mr. Starr in his 
allegations of grand jury perjury. I think that is 
unpersuasive, that Mr. Starr was somehow being soft on the 
President.
    But he does it in part because the central charge that Mr. 
Starr made for grand jury perjury is that the President, having 
acknowledged an inappropriate sexual affair, having 
acknowledged that there was sexual contact between Monica 
Lewinsky and himself, shortchanged us on the details.
    The President stands charged with being insufficiently 
graphic. He did not talk about what he did in reciprocation, 
and that is not a basis for impeachment. What it is, in my 
judgment, is a basis for censure.
    I now want to talk about the difference between the two. I 
alluded to my own personal life before for a reason. I am 
struck by those who have argued that censure is somehow an 
irrelevancy, a triviality, something of no weight.
    History doesn't say that. There are two Members of this 
House right now who continue to play a role who were 
reprimanded for lying, myself and outgoing Speaker Gingrich. We 
both were found to have lied, not under oath but in official 
proceedings, and were reprimanded.
    I would tell you that having been reprimanded by this House 
of Representatives, where I am so proud to serve, was no 
triviality. It is something that, when people write about me, 
they still write about. It is not something that is a matter of 
pride. I wish I could go back and undo it. I don't think 
Speaker Gingrich's political problems subsequent to his 
reprimand were unrelated to the fact that he was reprimanded.
    I am, indeed, surprised that Members who share my reverence 
for this institution, my reverence for democracy, my deep, 
abiding faith in what Thomas Jefferson eloquently called a 
decent respect for the opinions of mankind, for all of us who 
are in this business of dealing with public opinion and 
courting it and trying to shape it, and trying to make it into 
an instrument for the implementation of our values, could be 
dismissive of the fact that the United States House of 
Representatives or Senate might vote a condemnation, as if that 
doesn't mean anything. Members know better.
    I cannot think of another context in which Members would 
have argued that a censure, a solemn vote of condemnation, 
would not have meant very much. Certainly former Senators 
Thomas Dodd and Joseph McCarthy would not have believed that 
for a minute.
    We have one last point. The Founding Fathers could have 
consigned impeachment to the court. They could have said, if 
there was an accusation of impeachment, the court would try 
it--they did, after all, recognize it as quasi-judicial--but 
bring the Chief Justices in. They didn't. They said it will be 
done by Congress.
    Those who say there shall be no political element fly in 
the face of the Founding Fathers. They knew if you ask 535 
politicians to decide something politics would be essentially 
that, and it ought to be. We are talking here about democracy; 
about whether or not an act of misbehavior was so grievous as 
to justify overturning the most solemn decision ever made by 
the American people, as far as election.
    We are not debating whether or not it was right or wrong, 
it was wrong. But is it so wrong, so outrageous, that it must 
be overturned? I do not believe it is.
    If I could have 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman, I would note a 
particular problem with that.
    Chairman Hyde. Yes.
    Mr. Frank. Reality from time to time ought to be addressed. 
We have a very close vote coming. There are, by my count, six 
Members of the House of Representatives on the Republican side 
and one on the Democratic side who were defeated in the 
November election, either for reelection or for another office, 
who were replaced by someone of the opposite party.
    For the most solemn democratic decision possible to be made 
by the American people to be narrowly reversed by a margin less 
than the number of people who were defeated in the last 
election, and in which impeachment was an issue, and were 
replaced by people who had the opposite opinion, is an absolute 
derogation of democracy.
    It is simply not sustainable that people who lost their 
right to represent the people in the last election to people 
who had a directly opposite view on this question ought to be 
the deciding votes. Censure is the appropriate response, and I 
hope the Republican leadership will not allow partisanship to 
keep the American people from seeing the decision they want and 
have a right to have made, censureship of this President.
    The Chairman. The distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas.
    Mr. Gekas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, we have reached the moment of truth for our 
distinguished committee and for each member thereof. And 
speaking of the moment of truth, if the President had indulged 
in a moment of truth in that first deposition in January of 
1998, one small moment of truth, we would not be debating this 
momentous issue here today. But the President chose otherwise, 
throwing us into this morass of trouble and distinct tumult 
that we have engaged in for months now. So that moment of truth 
went by, was ignored, and now we are in trouble.
    I say that a thousand historians and a swarm of political 
opinion polls and a gaggle of media programs and talk shows, 
nothing, none of those things, can change the vital facts in 
this case. And that is that falsehoods were uttered in a court 
proceeding under oath, both in the depositions and later in a 
criminal Federal grand jury.
    The Starr report, which was full of tapes and Tripps and 
conspiracies and machinations of people behind the scenes, and 
theories of executive privilege and all of that, put it all 
together, package it all, and leaping out of that are the 
salient facts that the President uttered falsehoods under oath 
in the depositions and in grand jury, and later even to the 81 
questions circulated by the Committee on the Judiciary.
    Now, I, myself, in reading and analyzing the materials of 
the Independent Counsel, came to a conclusion very early that I 
would not automatically adopt, as some people charge who are 
against impeachment--I would not automatically approve ofand 
fall into lock-step with the allegations by the Independent Counsel.
    In fact, I made it known early to my colleagues, to the 
media, and everyone else, that I was taken aback by the 
averment, the allegation in the Starr report, his allegation 
that the assertion by the President of executive privilege 
constitutes, by itself or packaged with other matters, as an 
abuse of power.
    I rejected that out of hand, and then began to solidify my 
thinking on it until this moment, when I announce again that 
when the time comes in these proceedings that we will be 
dealing with that part of the articles of impeachment, that I 
will renew my objection to inclusion of the assertion of 
executive privilege as an abuse of power.
    But still, leaping out of that mass of documents in those 
boxes in the Ford Building and in all the testimony that we 
have had here is the recurring theme of perjury, perjury, 
falsehood under oath. We can't escape it. No matter what other 
allegations you bring in against Dave Schippers or against Abbe 
Lowell or against any member of the committee, and especially 
against the Independent Counsel, perjury still resounds 
throughout the meeting, in this chamber, and throughout the 
congressional area of the Washington, D.C. Capitol of the 
United States. Wherever we go, perjury still rings out in all 
of these proceedings.
    When the witnesses continuously refer to, it is not an 
impeachable offense because it is, as many of my colleagues 
have said, really based on sexual misconduct, lies about sex, 
and that is so insignificant that we should not have bothered 
with it, notwithstanding that other individuals, our fellow 
American citizens, are undergoing sentences imposed by the 
court for lying under oath about matters that you and I in our 
lives would consider trivial, yet they are undergoing sentence 
of the court, perjury and falsehood under oath still leaps out 
at us.
    So when that moment of truth passed by, the ability to end 
everything by the moment of truth in the depositions which 
passed by, there was another chance for a moment of truth 
preceding the one we are engaged in now. That was at the grand 
jury. Again, that moment of truth could have saved us the 
embarrassment and the humility and indignity of having to 
decide the fate of the President of the United States. And that 
moment, where truth could have prevailed, again was swept away 
by the motivations, however you want to ascribe them, of the 
President of the United States.
    When I engaged in a discussion with one of the witnesses on 
high crimes and misdemeanors, and the comparison between 
bribery and perjury, I was struck by the fact that they 
maintain--and I think it is absolutely correct--that if one 
finds bribery as an offense committed by the President of the 
United States, a 10-minute transaction in which either he as a 
bribee or as a briber passes money or receives money for 
something not having anything to do with national security, or 
not having anything to do with the conduct of his office, but 
an exchange of money, bribery, 10 minutes in its duration could 
constitute grounds for impeachment. Does anyone disagree with 
that?
    But perjury, which is viewed by scholars and these same 
historians who enter our premises and spout the holiness of 
their positions, they would agree that perjury, even in our 
statutory law, in our common law perceptions, and in practical 
application of the statute, is more serious than bribery.
    And when coupled with the reality that every act of perjury 
strikes at the heart of the judicial system, endangering our 
individual rights to receive justice at the hands of our fellow 
citizens in the court system, then you can see that bribery, 
that quickly-passing offense not having anything to do with the 
national weal, all of a sudden, in the face of perjury, we 
cannot face the reality that that perjury, falsehood under 
oath, has the capacity to destroy a branch of government, two 
branches of government; as a matter of fact, all three branches 
of government.
    If it is uttered by the President of the United States, he 
is diminishing the presidency, the executive branch. If he does 
so in a court of law, he is trampling against the walls of 
security that the court system provides all of us. And he 
injures the legislative branch, because he forces upon us the 
indignity, I say, of having to deal with misconduct of a 
president that might lead to impeachment.
    When all is said and done, the moment of truth will recur. 
It will recur as each one of us finally indicates to the Chair 
and to the clerk the final vote in this issue. I cannot erase 
from my mind or from the atmosphere of the Capitol of the 
United States or from the entire land, from the entire globe, 
the falsehoods uttered under oath.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    The distinguished Senator-elect from New York, Mr. Schumer.
    Mr. Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When the Founding 
Fathers designed the government of this country, they realized 
that there would be rare and crucial times in history when it 
would be necessary to break into the regular order of how our 
government works to pull the Nation out of crisis and in fact 
save the republic. They devised the process of impeachment for 
these times, to be used rarely and only in times of national 
crisis.
    Several weeks ago the notion that we would be on the verge 
of actually using the hammer of impeachment to remove the 
President for just the third time in 200 years was unthinkable. 
Now we are only one day from possibly passing a resolution to 
remove a duly-elected president from office.
    The actions that we take tomorrow far transcend the conduct 
of Bill Clinton, and will have profound consequences on the 
future of the country. If we vote articles of impeachment, I 
fear that we will be setting a precedent that could seriously 
weaken the office of the presidency, whether the President is 
removed from office or not.
    In my judgment, we will be substantially lowering the bar 
for removing a sitting president so that we will be in danger 
of all too frequently investigating presidents and seeking to 
remove them from office; this, as we enter a century which 
demands a strong and focused president of the United States. 
And what would we be removing him for? Sex and lying about sex.
    Today we have four charges before us against the President, 
two perjury counts, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. 
I would venture to say that if the obstruction and abuse 
charges were brought before an impartial jury of randomly 
selected American citizens and tried by competent lawyers on 
both sides, the President would be acquitted by a 12 to 0 
margin. Neither case is supported by the evidence.
    Regarding obstruction of justice, the level of exculpatory 
evidence exonerating the President concerning the job search, 
the gifts, and the President's conversations with Ms. Currie is 
overwhelming and convincing. The abuse of power charge does not 
pass the laugh test. Indeed, the charge itself is at least as 
much an abuse of prosecutorial power as the actions of the 
President in this count.
    And perhaps the most Kafkaesque of all the charges is that 
when the President misled his staff, under no oath whatsoever, 
by denying an extramarital affair, he was committing a crime.
    So this case, this impeachment, boils down to two perjury 
charges. I agree that the President's testimony was misleading, 
maddening, evasive, prevaricating, and designed to shed as 
little light as possible on his embarrassing personal behavior. 
I have said so since September, that the President lied in his 
testimony and to the American people, but that he did so about 
a sexual relationship, not about matters of governance.
    The Republicans want the American people, or most 
Republicans want the American people to equate lying under oath 
about sex with lying under oath about matters of State. In 
their wisdom, most Americans can easily see the distinction. 
The American people know that being evasive about an 
extramarital relationship is worlds apart from being evasive 
about matters that go to the core of running thisRepublic. That 
is why there is such a huge gap between what the majority on this 
committee want and what the majority of Americans want.
    Yesterday former prosecutor Sullivan stated the average 
citizen would not be tried, would not be punished, for 
committing such acts as the President is accused of. However, 
the President is not an ordinary citizen. He has to be held to 
a higher standard. He should be sanctioned, not as a political 
denouement, but because we cannot let posterity believe that a 
president who so misleads under oath can be allowed to avoid 
punishment.
    So the question before us is not whether to punish the 
President. The question is the magnitude of the punishment. The 
question is what punishment fits his actions. I agree with the 
majority of Americans that impeachment would be wrong. A strong 
censure motion, such as the motion before this committee, 
signed and acknowledged by the President, is the appropriate 
punishment.
    It would be a miscarriage of justice to impeach the 
President over a private affair or about lying about that 
affair. That is not simply my subjective view, that is what the 
Founding Fathers intended when they put the impeachment clause 
in the Constitution. That is what they intended by spelling out 
the terms of bribery, treason, and other high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
    In September when I first saw the President's testimony on 
tape it angered me. When I saw it today, it angered me again. 
While the President may not have committed perjury, he misled 
in such an artful way that I can see why people, liberals and 
conservatives, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, men 
and women, would be angered and disappointed in the President.
    But I was also angered and disappointed by the Ken Starr 
referral. It was unbalanced, it was full of prosecutorial and 
partisan zeal, it was intentionally salacious, it lacked the 
seriousness and gravitas of a document that would guide this 
Congress on the crucial question of impeaching the President. 
It raised obvious questions about Ken Starr's partiality and 
veracity.
    I believe that because Starr knew that a case solely about 
sex and lying about sex would never pass muster with the 
American people, that he leveled the unsupportable charges of 
obstruction of justice and abuse of power. Many House 
Republicans, because of their hatred of President Clinton, were 
only too eager to accept the OIC's case without question.
    The four articles before us, with rare exception, seem like 
a rubber stamp of the Starr report, and this is a very sad 
indictment of what should be a very solemn and judicious 
process. It leads us to today. The American people may wake up 
Sunday morning to find out that this committee has passed 
articles of impeachment on the President. The American people 
may wake up next Friday morning to discover that the House of 
Representatives has indeed impeached the President.
    Do you know, I think the American people still don't 
believe that we are foolish enough or partisan enough to do 
this. I think the American people are waiting for us to come to 
our senses and end this political game of chicken. But to the 
American people, I say that the House may very well do the 
unthinkable. If the vote were held today, I believe the House 
would impeach the President by a thin margin. I don't think 
many from the other party are willing to buck the siren calls 
of the radical right.
    I read one columnist who said that impeachment won't really 
tie things up, or not for too long. They said the Senate will 
never convict, and it will be over in a few weeks. Let's not 
delude ourselves. If the House impeaches, we will tie up all 
three branches of government for months and months. The House 
Judiciary Republicans will prosecute the case with all the zeal 
we have seen thus far. The President will call witness after 
witness, because he can, and because to defend himself he must. 
The Supreme Court Chief Justice will hear the case in the 
Senate, the Senate will be paralyzed for legislating. It will 
poison relations between the House and Senate, between the 
Congress and the White House, between Democrats and 
Republicans, for a long time after the trial is over, and all 
the while, the crushing problems around us in Iraq, in the 
Middle East, with the world economy, with health care, with 
education, with Social Security, will fester.
    Clearly, if the President's actions were so egregiously 
wrong that they went to the heart of the continuance of the 
Republic, we would have no choice but to move forward, even 
with the risk of all these problems being ignored. But now the 
majority wish us to go through this ordeal simply about an 
extramarital relationship and lying about it.
    To the members of this committee, to the members of this 
House, before we act, remember, this is not simply about 
President Clinton. It is not about the opportunity of the 
moment to tarnish a president who has frustrated you and 
maddened you. It is about the careful balance designed by the 
Founding Fathers that has served our country well for over 200 
years. Don't upset it without the most careful deliberation and 
the strongest of reasons. We may never be able to put the genie 
back in the bottle. God willing, please let history, justice, 
wisdom be your guide.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner [presiding]. The gentleman's time has 
expired.
    The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Much has been made 
about the absence of bipartisanship on this issue, and I want 
to reiterate my position on that. Do not point accusatory 
fingers at Republicans or Democrats because there is 
disagreement. Assuming we vote our consciences and exercise 
sound judgment, little else can be asked. Some favor 
impeachment, some oppose it. The process then will move 
forward.
    I want to direct my attention to perjury, Mr. Chairman. I 
know of no situation, my friends, where sanctity is so 
generously laced as when one submits to an oath, then violates 
it. At this point, perjury rears its unsavory head.
    I represent a district far removed from the Beltway and its 
accompanying mentality. Here we are surrounded by Beltway 
advisors who demand fees in excess of $500 per hour. Many of 
these adept advisors, lawyers, counselors, are spinmeisters. 
They attach their spin, and oftentimes confusion results.
    But when I return to my district, I sometimes motor south 
on Highway 29 through the fox and the wine country of Virginia. 
As I approach the North Carolina boundary line, my mind begins 
to clear, as I am at that point removed from the Beltway spin. 
All of a sudden, I am aware of the definition of sex. All of a 
sudden I know the meaning of ``alone.'' I know what is ``is,'' 
as do the majority of my constituents.
    Many have compared the present White House crisis to 
Watergate. There are similarities. There are distinctions. One 
glaring similarity in my opinion, my friends, is this: If 
President Clinton and President Nixon had come before the 
American people in a timely way--and by that, Mr. Chairman, I 
mean early in the game--and sincerely apologized for their 
offenses or crimes, we likely would not be here today. 
Watergate misconduct, as well as current White House 
misconduct, are, in my opinion, subject to impeachment.
    The American people are a forgiving people. But neither 
President Nixon nor President Clinton saw fit to pursue the 
course I have just outlined. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, sin 
has many tools, but the lie is the handle that fits them all. 
The centerpiece to this scenario I am convinced, ladies and 
gentlemen, is not sex; it is indeed perjury. It is the lie. It 
is the handle to the tool.
    As best I can determine, there are no exceptions to the 
perjury statutes. If we turn a blind eye to perjury in this 
instance, what precedent do we establish when subsequent cases 
involving perjury must be resolved fairly and impartially?
    Finally, I take umbrage to charges that some are out to get 
the President. Mrs. Bono, the gentlewoman from California, 
earlier said this week that it is not we on this committee who 
created the problem that is now before us. Itwas the 
President's doing.
    I take umbrage, as well, to those who claim that some 
approach this arduous task in a gleeful manner. I take no joy 
in discharging this duty before us, but it remains our duty, 
nonetheless.
    Mr. Chairman, every 25 years, it seems, the House Committee 
on the Judiciary charts its course through impeachment waters. 
We spend the remaining years in relative obscurity, compared to 
some of our House committees that enjoy higher levels of 
profile than we. I must confess, and I may be speaking for all 
the members on the Committee on the Judiciary, I must confess, 
I long for the days of relative obscurity. That may come one of 
these days.
    My good friend from Michigan, the distinguished ranking 
member, referred to the shutdown of the government when he said 
the Congress shut down the government. Let me talk a minute 
about that. When the government shut down in 1991, President 
Bush was blamed for the shutdown. When the government shut down 
in 1995, the Congress was blamed for the shutdown. I still 
haven't figured that one out.
    I think the truth of the matter is that President Bush and 
the Congress closed down the government in 1991. President 
Clinton and the Congress closed down the government in 1995, 
for almost identical circumstances, the inability to agree on 
spending measures.
    So I don't believe that--assuming impeachment will follow, 
I don't think that will accelerate the shutting down of the 
government. My good friend from New York talked about it is 
going to tie everything up. It may well tie it up to some 
extent, but I am the eternal optimist. I forever see that glass 
half filled, and I can't see that this is going to shut down 
the government or tie it up, assuming it does advance to the 
Senate.
    Having said all that, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to report 
the red light is not illuminated, and I yield back my time.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde, wherever you are, I often disagree with you, 
but I have always known you to be a fine and decent man, and 
you have often been unfairly attacked throughout this process. 
And I, for one, want to commend you for the way you have 
handled these proceedings.
    I also want to express to my friend, Mr. Conyers, wherever 
he is, my appreciation for his effective and wise leadership as 
my ranking minority member.
    The often-repeated mantra that everybody lies, certainly 
everybody lies about sex, all presidents lie, and many 
presidents have affairs, must be addressed from this side of 
the table.
    It is certainly true that people sometimes lie, and that 
people often lie about sex, and it is true that presidents have 
been known to lie, and that some presidents have had affairs. 
But that mantra has nothing to do with the issues before us. 
That mantra does not address the allegations of lying under 
oath or coaching potential witnesses in legal proceedings in 
order to evade responsibility for personal wrongdoing. Our 
proceedings are too momentous to be bogged down by this 
political spin.
    What is an impeachable offense? A precise definition is 
difficult to glean from the Framers of the Constitution, 
American history, or scholarship. I find the best answer, 
albeit on a different subject, contained in the concurring 
opinion of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, from which I 
quote: ``The court was faced with the task of trying to define 
what may be indefinable. I shall not today attempt to further 
define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced, and 
perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so, but I 
know it when I see it.'' Justice Stewart was ruling on the 
definition of obscenity, not impeachment. And given his subject 
matter, some may think this analogy too apt.
    But as regards the basic concept of what constitutes an 
impeachable offense, for me the logic applies: I know it when I 
see it. And on balance, given the totality of the wrongdoing 
and the totality of the context, this isn't it.
    In fact, though reasonable people may disagree, I don't 
think it is a close call. The President's behavior that 
reflects so badly on the presidency and the country, the 
President's disregard for his obligations as a law-abiding 
American, the President's refusal to respect a commonsense 
interpretation of the English language, this conduct does not 
rise to the level that justifies thwarting the public's mandate 
as expressed in the 1996 election.
    My vote to oppose impeachment turns on three factors. The 
first factor is, though this is not just about sex, it is 
colored by sex.
    Second, and more importantly, impeachment must not be 
pursued if the center of gravity of the body politic opposes 
impeachment. We are privileged to live in a unique and 
wonderful system. Every 4 years we come together to elect a 
president. This is the defining moment in American political 
life, and is portentous in its implications. Each American 
takes responsibility, and as a whole, all America takes 
collective responsibility for the decision to vest awesome 
power in this one person.
    There must have been a reason why the Framers vested this 
power of impeachment in a political body, the people's house, 
the House of Representatives. If they wanted impeachment to be 
a nonpolitical decision, totally divorced from public opinion, 
they would have vested impeachment powers in the judicial 
branch.
    The impeachment process must, at a minimum, pay some 
deference to the totality of the people's views. Unlike every 
other vote we cast, where conscience may play a determinative 
role regardless of public opinion, a vote for impeachment 
cannot be blind to the views of those who vested power in the 
President. It would be very, very wrong to expunge the results 
of an election for the President of the United States without 
the overwhelming consent of the governed. It should not be 
contemplated unless the wrongdoing is so egregious as to 
threaten our form of government.
    The third factor in my decision is the belief that the 
corrosive effects on American society and America's legal 
system of allowing the President to serve out his term have 
been overstated. It is true that the President's defense is 
very troubling. His grand jury testimony, his public statements 
following the grand jury testimony, his agent's public 
statements, his answers to the questions submitted to the 
committee, are more serious than any wrongdoing that caused 
this process to begin.
    There is something Alice in Wonderland like watching 
someone so smart and so skilled, so admired by the American 
people for his intellect and his talents, digging himself 
deeper and deeper and deeper into a rabbit hole, and us along 
with him, and allowing him to escape accountability. This 
troubles me greatly, and I know it motivates many of the calls 
for impeachment.
    People do have a right to ask, what will America's children 
believe about lying, about reverence for the law, about lying 
under oath? Will more Americans think it is okay to lie under 
oath if the subject matter is sex or if the subject matter is 
embarrassing, or to evade liability in a sexual harassment 
suit, or to evade criminal liability?
    Many thoughtful Americans wonder whether the deconstruction 
of our language, the hairsplitting, will damage the culture 
even beyond the legal system. What will happen if words no 
longer have commonsense meaning, if everything is equally true 
or not true, because, after all, it depends on what your 
definition of ``is'' is?
    Of course, there has been and will be harm to our culture 
and the legal system, but let's keep it in perspective. This is 
not a court of law. We are not empowered to decide whether or 
not the President should be indicted or convicted of a criminal 
offense.
    While not above the law, the President, the most powerful 
man on the planet, the man who has control over our nuclear 
weapons arsenal, the man whom we vest with the authority to 
protect and defend the interests of the people of the 
UnitedStates, and indeed, to protect all civilization, is a special 
case. Everybody is equal under the law, but we make special provisions 
for one person while he is serving as president.
    Few would dispute the fact that the President is immune 
from criminal prosecution during his term of office. Many would 
argue, I certainly would, that a wise Congress should pass 
legislation to immunize the President from civil litigation 
during his term of office. We vest the secret service with the 
responsibility of taking the bullet so our Commander in Chief 
will serve out his term.
    Most Americans can be criminally prosecuted at any time. 
Most Americans can be civilly sued at any time. Most Americans 
do not have a cadre of heroes providing personal protection for 
them and their loved ones.
    That the President's conduct is not impeachable does not 
mean that society condones his conduct. In fact, it does not 
mean that the President is not subject to criminal prosecution 
after he leaves office. It just means that the popular vote of 
the people should not be abrogated for this conduct, when the 
people clearly do not wish for his conduct to cause that 
abrogation.
    The point is, most Americans know and will instruct their 
children to know that conduct that may not be impeachable for 
the President of the United States is not necessarily conduct 
that is acceptable in the larger society. Those who argue that 
the institutions of government or the fabric of our society 
will be irreparably harmed by a failure to impeach the 
President seriously underestimate the American people. America 
is too strong a society, American parents are too wise, the 
American sense of right and wrong too embedded to be confused. 
We all know that the word ``is'' has a commonsense meaning. We 
all know that lying under oath will get us in a lot of trouble.
    I have anguished over the question: Were the facts the same 
for a Republican president and a Democratically controlled 
Congress, would I vote the same way, oppose impeachment? I pray 
that my decision would be the same, regardless of party, 
regardless of political position. I hope I have considered only 
what meets the constitutional standard and what is best for 
America.
    I find the answer unambiguous. Impeachment must be 
defeated.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to 
acknowledge the thoughtful statement made by the gentleman from 
California who just spoke.
    Mr. Berman. Will the gentleman change his vote?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, our Constitution tells us the 
President, the Vice President, and all civil officers of the 
United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for 
and conviction of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and 
misdemeanors.
    To impeach, which lies only within the power of the House, 
means to accuse or charge with a crime. Only the Senate can 
actually convict and remove from office. As a distinguished 
Democratic member of the Committee on the Judiciary said during 
the Nixon impeachment proceeding, ``It is wrong, I suggest, it 
is a misreading of the Constitution, for any member here to 
assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment 
means that that member must be convinced that the President 
should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn't say 
that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check 
in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon 
the encroachment of the executive.
    ``In establishing the division between the two branches of 
the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one 
the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the 
framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not 
make the accusers and the judges the same person.''
    After consideration of all the evidence presented, I am 
convinced it is sufficient for the House to charge the 
President with several wrongful actions. I feel the evidence 
shows that the President committed perjury by lying under oath, 
obstructing justice, and abused the power of his office.
    Both historical precedent and current practice support the 
conclusion that perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor. The 
Constitution applies that same phrase both to the President and 
to all civil officers of the United States. Several Federal 
judges have been impeached and removed from office for perjury. 
That is why the President can be, too.
    Also, bribery and perjury are equivalent means of 
interfering with the justice system. The Federal sentencing 
guidelines include bribery and perjury in the same guideline.
    Some of the President's defenders would like to change the 
subject and talk about anybody else but the President, and 
about anything else except the allegations of lying under oath, 
obstruction of justice, and abuse of office. Such efforts are 
an affront to all who value truth over tactics, substance over 
spin, principles over politics.
    Judiciary Committee members will be consistent if they 
follow the precedent established in 1974. Individuals from both 
parties agreed with the Democratic Congresswoman from Texas 
when she said, ``The President engaged in a series of public 
statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful 
investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the 
President has made public announcements and assertions which 
the evidence will show he knew to be false.'' ``These 
assertions, false assertions,'' she said, ``are impeachable.''
    By any common sense measure, the President did not tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as his oath 
required, when he testified before a judge and then before a 
grand jury, as several Democratic members of this committee now 
admit.
    We should not underestimate the gravity of the case against 
the President. When he put his hand on the Bible and recited 
his oath of office, he swore to faithfully uphold the laws of 
the United States; not some laws, all laws.
    As committee witnesses have testified, many people have 
gone to jail for doing what the President did--lying or 
knowingly making false statements after swearing in court not 
to do so. However, others have not been punished for failing to 
tell the truth. So, if the President were just an ordinary 
person living in the United States, it is not certain that he 
would be found to have committed a crime.
    What, then, makes this a case that rises to the impeachment 
level? I think there are two factors: the repeated and 
deliberate nature of the lies, and the uniqueness of the Office 
of the Presidency.
    It was determined by the Independent Counsel that, ``On at 
least six different occasions, from December 17th, 1997, 
through August 17th, 1998, the President had to make a 
decision. He could choose truth or he could choose deception. 
On all six occasions, the President chose deception, a pattern 
of calculated behavior over a span of months.
    During this time, not only did the President tell a judge 
and then a grand jury less than the truth, he also told lies to 
the American people, the news media, Members of Congress, his 
Cabinet, and senior White House advisors.
    One of his own former advisors commented, ``President 
Clinton turned his personal flaws into a public matter when he 
made the whole country complicit in his cover story. This was 
no impulsive act of passion, it was a coldly calculated 
political decision. He spoke publicly from the Roosevelt Room. 
He assembled his Cabinet and staff and assured them that he was 
telling the truth. Then he sat back, silently, and watched his 
official spokespeople, employees of the U.S. government, 
mislead the country again and again and again.''
    The President himself, when he was a law professor in 
Arkansas, defined an impeachable offense this way: ``I think 
that the definition should include any criminal acts, plus a 
willful failure of the President to fulfill his duty to uphold 
and execute the laws of the United States. Another factor that 
I think constitutes an impeachable offense would be willful, 
reckless behavior in office.''
    The President consciously and persistently made an effort 
to deceive, give misleading answers and tell lies. He made 
statements and engaged in actions designed to impede the 
investigation of the Independent Counsel. We all know the 
President still might be deceiving us today, were it not for 
physical evidence that forced him to change his story.
    As to the uniqueness of the office the President holds, he 
is a person in a position of immense authority and influence. 
He influences the lives of millions of Americans. He sets an 
example for us all.
    A sixth-grader from Chisholm Middle School in Round Rock, 
Texas, recently wrote me. She said bluntly, ``He has lied to 
the American people, and although I realize what he lied about 
has nothing to do with him running the country, then what else 
would he lie about? He let us down. Kids that think he is a 
role model now are heart broken.''
    The President sets an example for adults, too. When he took 
the oath of office, he swore to preserve, protect and defend 
the Constitution of the United States and to take care that the 
laws be faithfully executed. The President has rightly been 
called the number one law enforcement officer of the country. 
As such, he has a special responsibility to take care that he 
not commit any crime, particularly such a serious one as 
perjury, a felony for which a person can go to jail for up to 5 
years.
    When someone is elected president, they receive the 
greatest gift possible from the American people--their trust. 
To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for 
office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in 
a position of authority, for example, a business executive, a 
military officer or a professional educator, had acted as the 
evidence indicates the President did, their career would be 
over.
    The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried 
for impeachment, had he not resigned, contain this statement: 
``The Office of the President is such that it calls for a 
higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United 
States.''
    The President has a higher responsibility for another 
reason. The Arkansas Rules of Conduct for attorneys state that 
lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities 
going beyond that of other citizens because they know how 
important the rule of law is to a stable and civilized society.
    The President does not hold just any public office, he 
holds the most powerful one in the world. For these two 
reasons, the President's premeditated and repeated efforts 
while under oath to tell less than the truth, and the special 
responsibility that comes with holding the highest office in 
our country, I feel the President's actions have reached the 
level of impeachable offenses.
    I have been surprised by the assertions of the President's 
defenders that we should not impeach him for his actions 
because it would set a precedent.
    Mr. Chairman, I notice that I am out of time, but I have 
never asked for unanimous consent for additional time before, 
and, if I could, I would like to have another minute, perhaps, 
to offset the compliment I issued to the gentleman from 
California.
    The Chairman. Well, reluctantly, without objection, the 
gentleman is given another minute.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    If our actions send a message that future presidents should 
not lie under oath, should tell the truth, the whole truth and 
nothing but the truth, as President Clinton swore to do when 
giving testimony before a judge and then a grand jury; that 
future Presidents should uphold the law, as President Clinton 
swore to do when he took the oath of office as President; that 
future Presidents should not obstruct justice, as President 
Clinton did for 7 months as he admittedly deceived the American 
people and those associated with the investigation; if these 
are the precedents Congress sets, if these are the standards 
future presidents then live by, we need not fear our actions.
    This will not be an easy task. In fact, it is a difficult 
ordeal for all Americans, but we will get through it. We are a 
great Nation and a strong people. Our country will endure 
because our Constitution works and has worked for over 200 
years.
    As much as one might wish to avoid this process, we must 
resist the temptation to close our eyes and pass by. The 
President's actions must be evaluated for one simple reason: 
The truth counts. As the process goes forward, some good 
lessons can be reaffirmed: No one is above the law; actions 
have consequences; always tell the truth.
    We, the people, should insist on these high ideals. That 
the President has fallen short of this standard does not mean 
we should lower it. If we keep excusing away the President's 
actions, we as a Nation will never climb upwards, because there 
will be no firm rungs.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman be allowed to complete his statement.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Mr. Smith. I am almost finished. I appreciate the 
indulgence of my colleagues.
    Let me quote another insightful letter from a student in 
that same sixth-grade class.
    ``As everyone knows,'' it begins, ``President Clinton is 
going through hearings about lying under oath and tampering 
with the evidence. Perjury, especially in front of a grand 
jury, is unacceptable. These many months of investigations 
could have been avoided if President Clinton would have told 
the truth in the beginning.''
    She concludes her letter with words I will use to conclude 
my remarks: ``I know you are being bombarded with letters, each 
with different opinions. But this is a big issue. Now it is up 
to you and your fellow Congressmen to decide to the best of 
your ability what should happen next. Please take into 
consideration what I have stated and make a decision that would 
be the best for America's future.''
    That, my colleagues, to me, says it all.
    I yield back the balance, of my time.
    [The statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.028
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.029
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.030
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.031
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.032
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.033
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.034
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has long since 
expired.
    The Chair would ask the members to please try to time their 
statements to fit as closely to the 10 minutes that were 
announced by the Chair and agreed to by unanimous consent as 
possible.
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
    I would like to join with others who have expressed similar 
remarks in expressing my appreciation to Chairman Hyde and also 
to the ranking Democrat on this committee, John Conyers, for 
the leadership that they both have provided during what has 
been an oftentimes difficult process. I think they have both 
performed well, and I want to thank them for it.
    I have reviewed carefully the information that has been 
presented to this committee by the Independent Counsel and by 
other witnesses who have testified before the committee, and I 
have concluded that a congressional response is required to the 
actions of the President.
    The President made false statements concerning his 
reprehensible conduct with a subordinate. He wrongfully took 
steps to delay discovery of the truth. He has diminished his 
personal dignity and that of the Office of the Presidency. He 
has brought the presidency into disrepute and impaired theimage 
of the President as a role model for younger Americans.
    The question we must now decide is whether to adopt a 
resolution censuring and rebuking the President for these 
actions or whether we should adopt articles of impeachment 
directed towards his removal from office.
    In deciding which of these alternatives is more 
appropriate, I have carefully reviewed the historical 
precedents for the use of both in light of the facts which have 
been presented to this committee, and I have concluded that a 
statement by the Congress formally censuring and rebuking the 
President for his conduct is more appropriate in these 
circumstances.
    Of particular value to me in this analysis was the most 
recent congressional pronouncement on the proper use of the 
impeachment power. It is found in the report issued on a broad 
bipartisan basis by this committee in its 1974 proceeding in 
the Watergate inquiry.
    That report concludes that the framers of the Constitution 
vested the impeachment power in the House of Representatives 
with the intent that it only be used to advance the national 
interest. It was designed to remove from office a chief 
executive whose conduct threatens the Nation.
    Not all presidential misconduct, whether criminal or 
noncriminal, justifies impeachment. To quote this committee's 
report, ``Only that misconduct which is seriously incompatible 
with either the constitutional form and principles of our 
government or the proper performance of the duties of the 
presidential office will justify a use of the impeachment 
power.''
    This is the standard that we should apply today. It was 
applied by our predecessors on this committee in 1974. It gives 
further definition to our common understanding that overturning 
a national election and removing a President from office is a 
drastic remedy to be used only when the survival of our 
constitutional form of government is at stake.
    The facts now before this committee which arise from a 
personal relationship and the effort to conceal it simply do 
not rise to that standard. While the President's conduct was 
reprehensible, it did not threaten the Nation. It did not 
undermine the constitutional form and principles of our 
government, and it did not disable the proper performance of 
the constitutional duties of the presidential office. It does 
not rise to the standard for impeachment set by our 
predecessors in 1974.
    It is equally clear that impeachment was never intended as 
a punishment for misconduct by the Chief Executive. The 
Constitution in Article I, Section 3, specifically provides 
that the President can be tried in the criminal courts after he 
leaves office for any crimes that are committed during his 
presidential tenure.
    Since the President is clearly subject to the criminal 
justice process, the rule of law will be upheld, and the 
principle that no person, including the President, is above the 
law will be honored.
    This President, I should note, is also subject to sanctions 
being imposed by the Federal judge in Arkansas who presided in 
the civil lawsuit in which he gave the deposition which has 
been such a subject of discussion in these proceedings. 
Impeachment should not be employed as punishment to the 
President. That punishment can come through the criminal courts 
or through the sanctions imposed by the Federal judge in 
Arkansas.
    Also weighing against the use of the impeachment power is 
the virtual certainty that the Senate would not convict the 
President and remove him from office if the House of 
Representatives votes favorably on articles of impeachment. A 
vote of two-thirds of the Senate would be required for that 
action, and it is universally acknowledged that a two-thirds 
vote in the Senate to convict the President and remove him from 
office cannot be obtained.
    Therefore, for the House of Representatives to approve 
articles of impeachment would simply prolong this national 
debate for many more months without bringing closure, further 
polarizing the country and hardening the divisions that exist 
in our population at the time, diverting the President and the 
Congress from attending to our urgent national business, 
immobilizing the Supreme Court while the Chief Justice presides 
over a prolonged trial in the Senate, lowering the standard for 
future presidential impeachments and possibly causing 
disruptions in the financial markets to the detriment of our 
national economy.
    For all of these reasons, I am convinced that impeachment 
is not the appropriate remedy in this case. Its use would not 
well serve the national interest.
    I share the public's deep disdain for the actions of the 
President, and I am truly concerned that if Congress takes no 
actions, many troubling, unanswered questions will remain with 
regard to the example that his conduct sets.
    A resolution of censure passed by both Houses of Congress 
requiring the signature of the President as an acknowledgment 
of the public's rebuke of his tawdry conduct is the preferable 
alternative. Tomorrow, I will offer with colleagues of like 
mind such a resolution of censure for consideration by this 
committee. Our congressional censure of the President for his 
conduct, combined with his susceptibility to the criminal 
justice process and to possible sanctions by the Federal court 
in Arkansas, will constitute an appropriate admonishment for 
his conduct which we all disdain.
    It is my hope that in the days ahead a consensus can be 
achieved which leads to this sensible conclusion, if not in 
this committee then on the floor of the U.S. House of 
Representatives which, more than any other approach, will 
simultaneously acknowledge our long constitutional history and 
place the Nation, the Congress and the presidency on a path 
toward the restoration of dignity.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance of my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. That is appreciated.
    [The statement of Mr. Boucher follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.035
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.036
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.037
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.038
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.039
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, we have been waiting for months for President 
Clinton or his representatives to offer facts that negate the 
charges in Judge Starr's referral to this committee. During 
those long months I made a commitment to refrain from judging 
the President's guilt or innocence until we had the facts. This 
has been a very trying time. In a democracy there are few more 
serious acts than to consider the possible impeachment of a 
President. I can tell you in good conscience it has caused me 
many sleepless nights.
    The charges presented by Judge Starr against President 
Clinton were strong, but they were only charges. I wanted to 
hear the evidence that would prove the charges were false. I 
believed that was the only fair way to proceed, and it was also 
my solemn constitutional duty and immense responsibility. I 
waited, I read, and I listened.
    Finally, last week President Clinton announced he would 
launch a vigorous defense. On Tuesday morning Mr. Craig, the 
President's counsel, said that he would present a powerful 
case, based on the facts already in the record and on the law, 
against the impeachment of our President.
    What I heard, unfortunately, was more legal hair-splitting. 
Even some of the President's witnesses saidPresident Clinton 
had lied. Only presidential attorney Mr. Ruff mounted a vigorous 
defense of the facts and the record, but I found his conclusions 
flawed.
    I have carefully weighed the evidence, Mr. Chairman. I can 
only conclude that the President repeatedly lied under oath. I 
believe his lies under oath were intentional and premeditated.
    First, in December, 1997, the President lied under oath in 
his written answers to a Federal court.
    Second, in January, the President lied under oath 
repeatedly in the Jones deposition.
    Third, he willfully and knowingly influenced witnesses and 
obstructed justice in Ms. Jones' pending lawsuit. He lied to 
the American people. He lied to Congress, his staff, his 
cabinet, his party leaders, all to protect himself and 
frustrate justice.
    Fourth, in August, the President lied under oath before a 
Federal grand jury. The President lied to the American people 
when he addressed us after that appearance.
    Finally, only days ago, the President lied under oath again 
when he answered the 81 questions posed to him by this 
committee.
    The President had many, many opportunities to come clean 
and tell the truth. Instead, he continued to lie under oath. He 
lied under oath despite bipartisan pleas to testify truthfully.
    It has been argued that we should not impeach President 
Clinton because we should not hobble future presidents with the 
possibility they could be impeached for the same thing. Mr. 
Lowell, the Democratic counsel, this morning said we should not 
impeach to punish but rather to preserve the public trust. 
Future presidents should fear impeachment for lying under oath. 
Impeaching a President for lying under oath would do what Mr. 
Lowell suggests: protect the public trust.
    Instead of acting presidential and putting the country 
before his own self-interest, President Clinton chose his own 
self-interest time and time again. By doing so, he undermined 
the rule of law and violated his oath of office.
    The President, his delegates and my Democratic colleagues 
argue that even if these facts are provable, they do not rise 
to the level of impeachment. With all due respect, I believe 
they are wrong. Lying after swearing before God and country to 
tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is a 
very serious offense. It is taken very seriously by our 
judicial system, one of the three equal branches of government 
in the United States.
    In this case, President Clinton's lies under oath before a 
Federal judge and a grand jury are a direct attack on the 
constitutional separations of power. On a more basic level, his 
lies under oath directly attacks the rule of law. This is about 
a President of the United States lying under oath, undermining 
our legal process and violating his oath of office. It is about 
violating Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution which 
states, the President shall take care that the laws be 
faithfully executed.
    President Clinton's actions clearly fall under the heading 
of high crimes and misdemeanors. Our legal system, which 
protects the rights and liberties of all citizens, is dependent 
on people telling the truth under oath. The President is our 
chief law enforcement officer and our chief magistrate. When he 
lies under oath, he undermines the integrity of our judicial 
system and threatens the rights and liberties of every one of 
us.
    Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer, one of the few non-lawyers 
on this committee. However, everyone who knows me knows that I 
believe the rule of law is fundamental to our society. Society 
without laws is anarchy. Societies that ignore the laws are 
condemned to violence and chaos.
    The President's actions have already affected children in 
my district. An educator at a Moorpark junior high school 
called me this week. She said, in the last few months students 
have lied about bad conduct and tried to excuse themselves with 
the comment, ``Well, the President did it; why can't I?'' That 
bothers me.
    My district is considered among the safest communities in 
the Nation. We have fine police officers, which certainly 
helps, but every officer from the chief to the beat officer 
will tell you a low crime rate begins with citizens who obey 
the law. Every citizen must obey the law. Every law. No citizen 
has a right to pick and choose what laws he or she may follow 
just because it may be embarrassing or inconvenient.
    Our course is certain. Before us is clear evidence that the 
President knowingly and willfully lied under oath repeatedly 
and consistently. Those lies under oath are an attack on the 
rule of law against the very fabric of our society. He violated 
his oath of office and willfully sought to deny justice to 
another citizen. He violated the Constitution. To condone this 
would be to condemn our society to anarchy.
    Mr. Chairman, I cannot and will not condone such action. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    [The statement of Mr. Gallegly follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.040
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.041
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, today for only the third time in our Nation's 
history this committee meets to consider articles of 
impeachment against the President of the United States. This is 
a momentous occasion; and I would hope that, despite the sharp 
partisan tone which has marked this debate, we can approach it 
with a sober sense of the historic importance of this matter.
    I believe we need to get back to basics, the Constitution 
and what the impeachment power conferred on the Congress 
requires of us. Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution says 
that a President ``shall be removed from Office on Impeachment 
for and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes 
and Misdemeanors.''
    We have received testimony from some of the Nation's 
leading scholars and historians who agree that impeachable 
offenses are those which are abuses of presidential power that 
undermine the structure and functioning of government or 
constitutional liberty. Benjamin Franklin called impeachment a 
substitute for assassination. It is, in fact, a peaceful 
procedure for protecting the Nation from despots by providing a 
constitutional means for removing a President who would misuse 
his presidential power to make himself a tyrant or otherwise to 
undermine our constitutional form of government. To impeach a 
President, it must be that serious.
    The history of the language is also clear. At the 
Constitutional Convention the Committee on Style, which was not 
authorized to make any substantive changes, dropped the words 
``against the United States'' after the words ``high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors'' because it was understood that only high crimes 
and misdemeanors against the system of government would be 
impeachable, that the words against the United States were 
redundant and unnecessary.
    History and the precedents alike show that impeachment is 
not a punishment for crimes but a means to protect our 
constitutional system and was certainly not meant to be a means 
to punish a president for personal wrongdoing not related to 
his office.
    Some of our Republican colleagues have made much of the 
fact that some of the Democrats on this committee in 1974 voted 
in favor of an article of impeachment related to President 
Nixon's alleged perjury on his tax returns, but the plain fact 
is that a bipartisan vote of that committee, something we have 
not yet had in this process on any substantive question, 
rejected that article. That is the historical record, and it 
was rejected largely based on the belief that an impeachable 
offense must be an abuse of presidential power, a great and 
serious offense against theNation, not perjury on a private 
matter.
    I have heard it said tonight that perjury is as serious an 
offense as bribery, that it is equivalent to bribery, a per se 
impeachable offense. But bribery goes to the heart of the 
president's conduct of his constitutional duties. It converts 
his loyalties and efforts from promoting the welfare of the 
republic to promoting some other interest.
    Perjury is a serious crime and, if proven, should be 
prosecuted in a court of law. But it may or may not implicate 
the president's duties and performance in office. Perjury on a 
private matter, perjury regarding sex, is not a great and 
serious offense against the Nation. It is not an abuse of 
uniquely presidential power. It does not threaten our form of 
government.
    The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will 
of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not 
overturn an election and remove a president from office except 
to defend our very system of government or our constitutional 
liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without 
an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their 
representatives in Congress of the absolute necessity. There 
must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment 
substantially supported by one of our major political parties 
and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would 
lack legitimacy and produce the divisiveness and bitterness in 
our politics for years to come and will call into question the 
very legitimacy of our political institutions.
    The American people have heard all of the allegations 
against the President, and they overwhelmingly oppose 
impeaching him. The people elected the President. They still 
support him. We have no right to overturn the considered 
judgment of the American people.
    There are clearly some members of the Republican majority 
who have never accepted the results of the 1992 or 1996 
elections and who apparently have chosen to ignore the message 
of last month's election. But, in a democracy, it is the people 
who rule, not political elites, and certainly not those members 
of political elites who will not be in the next election in the 
next Congress, having been repudiated at the polls.
    Some members of this committee may think that the people 
have chosen badly, but it is the people's choice, and we must 
respect it, absent a fundamental threat to our democratic form 
of government that would justify overturning the repeated 
expression of people's will at the ballot box. Members of 
Congress have no power, indeed they have no right to arrogate 
to themselves the power to nullify an election absent such a 
compelling threat.
    We have also received testimony from some outstanding 
former prosecutors, including the former Republican Governor of 
Massachusetts, Bill Weld, who headed up the Criminal Division 
of Ronald Reagan's Justice Department, who compellingly 
explained why all the loose talk about perjury and obstruction 
of justice would not hold up in a real prosecutor's office, 
that the evidence that we have been given would never support a 
criminal prosecution in a real court of law.
    For those who demand that the President prove his innocence 
rather than his accusers having to prove his guilt or even to 
state clearly the specific charges, we received answers from 
Mr. Ruff yesterday and from Mr. Lowell this morning in which 
they meticulously pointed out, using Mr. Starr's own work, how 
the charges were not supported and were indeed contradicted by 
the evidence that Mr. Starr's own office had assembled.
    In fact, Mr. Starr has stated in his referral to Congress 
that his own star witness is not credible except when her 
uncorroborated testimony conflicts with the President's, and 
then it proves his perjury.
    We have received sanctimonious lectures from the other side 
of the aisle about the rule of law, but the law does not permit 
perjury to be proved by the uncorroborated testimony of one 
witness, nor does the law recognize as corroboration the fact 
that the witness made the same statement to several different 
people. You may choose to believe that the President was 
disingenuous, that he was not particularly helpful to Paula 
Jones' lawyers when they asked him intentionally vague 
questions or assert that he is a bum, but that does not make 
him guilty of perjury.
    This committee, this House, is not a grand jury. To impeach 
the President would subject the country to the trauma of a 
trial in the Senate. It would paralyze the government for many 
months while the problems of Social Security, Medicare, a 
deteriorating world economy and all of our foreign concerns 
festering without proper attention. We cannot simply punt our 
duty to judge the facts to the Senate if we find mere probable 
cause that an impeachable offense may have been committed. To 
do so would be a derogation of our constitutional duty. The 
proponents of impeachment have provided no direct evidence of 
impeachable offenses. They rely solely on the findings of a so-
called independent counsel who has repeatedly mischaracterized 
evidence, failed to include in his report exculpatory evidence 
and consistently misstated the law. We must not be a rubber 
stamp for Kenneth Starr. We have been entrusted with the grave 
and awesome duty by the American people, by the Constitution 
and by history. We must exercise that duty responsibly. At a 
bare minimum, that means that the President's accusers must go 
beyond hearsay and innuendo and beyond demands that the 
President prove his innocence of vague and changing charges. 
They must provide clear and convincing evidence of specific 
impeachable conduct. This they have failed to do. If you 
believe the President's admission to the grand jury and to the 
Nation of an inappropriate sexual relationship with Ms. 
Lewinsky and his apologies to the Nation were not abject 
enough, that is not a reason for impeachment. Contrition is a 
remedy for sin, and is certainly appropriate here. But while 
insufficiency of contrition may leave the soul still scarred, 
unexpiated sin proves no crimes and justifies no impeachments. 
Some say that if we do not impeach the President, we treat him 
as if he is above the law. Is the President above the law, 
certainly not. He is subject to the criminal law, to indictment 
and prosecution when he leaves office like any other citizen 
whether or not he is impeached.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Nadler. I ask for one additional minute.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    And if the Republican leadership allows a vote, he would 
likely be the third President in U.S. history and the first 
since 1948 to be censured by the Congress. But impeachment is 
intended as a remedy to protect a nation, not as a punishment 
for an errant President. The case is not there, the proof has 
not been put forward. The conduct alleged, even if proven, does 
not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. We should not 
dignify these articles of impeachment by sending them to the 
full House. To do so would be an affront to the Constitution 
and would consign this committee to the condemnation of history 
for generations to come.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Canady.
    Mr. Canady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by 
thanking Mr. Hyde for his outstanding leadership of this 
committee during these difficult days. In the face of a 
determined effort to undermine and discredit the work of the 
committee, Mr. Hyde has conducted these proceedings with his 
accustomed dignity, grace and honor, and for that I express to 
Mr. Hyde my gratitude and my respect.
    Many have asked why we are even here in these impeachment 
proceedings. They have asked why we can't just rebuke the 
President and move on. That is a reasonable question, and 
Icertainly understand the emotions behind that question. I want to move 
on. Every member of this committee wants to move on. We all agree with 
that. But the critical question is this: Do we move on under the 
Constitution or do we move on by turning aside from the Constitution? 
Do we move on in faithfulness to our own oath to support and defend the 
Constitution, or do we go outside the Constitution because it seems 
more convenient and expedient? Why are we here? We are not here to deal 
with the sins of the President. That is a matter between the President 
and his family and God.
    Unfortunately, however, the President's sins led him to 
commit crimes. His sins led him to engage in a calculated and 
sustained pattern of lying under oath and obstructing the due 
administration of justice, and that indeed is the proper 
subject of our inquiry.
    Why are we here? We are here because we have a system of 
government based on the rule of law. A system of government in 
which no one, no one is above the law. We are here because we 
have a Constitution. A Constitution is often a most 
inconvenient thing. A Constitution limits us when we would not 
be limited. It compels us to act when we would not act. But our 
Constitution, as all of us in this room acknowledge, is the 
heart and soul of the American experiment. It is the glory of 
the political world, and we are here today because the 
Constitution requires that we be here. We are here because the 
Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power 
of impeachment. We are here because the impeachment power is 
the sole constitutional means granted to Congress to deal with 
the misconduct of the chief executive of the United States.
    In many other countries a matter such as this involving the 
head of government would have been quietly swept under the rug. 
There would of course be some advantages to that approach. We 
would all be spared embarrassment, indignity and discomfort; 
but there would be a high cost if we followed that course of 
action. Something would be lost. Respect for the law would be 
subverted and the foundation of our Constitution would be 
eroded. The impeachment power is designed to deal with exactly 
such threats to our system of government. Conduct which 
undermines the integrity of the President's office, conduct by 
the chief executive which sets a pernicious example of 
lawlessness and corruption is exactly the sort of conduct that 
should subject a President to the impeachment power.
    Alexander Hamilton himself acknowledged that those who 
``set examples which undermine or subvert the authority of the 
laws lead us from freedom to slavery.'' That is what William 
Jefferson Clinton has done.
    There must be a constitutional remedy. The first Chief 
Justice of the United States, John Jay, said that ``no crime is 
more extensively pernicious to society'' than perjury. That is 
the crime that William Jefferson Clinton has committed 
repeatedly in a calculated effort to thwart justice. There must 
be a constitutional remedy. There is a constitutional remedy 
for such high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional 
remedy is impeachment.
    I freely acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree 
with the weight of the evidence on certain of the charges. For 
example, I think there is doubt about the allegations that the 
President willfully lied concerning the date his relationship 
with Ms. Lewinsky began. But when we set aside any doubtful 
matters, we are still left with compelling evidence that the 
President made multiple false statements under oath both in a 
civil rights case and before a Federal grand jury, that he 
engaged in other conduct to corruptly influence the 
administration of justice and that he lied in sworn statements 
submitted to this very committee. He did this not simply to 
avoid personal embarrassment, of course that was one of his 
objectives, but on the contrary he lied under oath and 
obstructed justice in a calculated effort to defeat the rights 
of a plaintiff in a Federal civil rights case. Having done 
that, he went on to lie before a grand jury to cover up and 
avoid responsibility for his earlier crimes. Then he compounded 
his offense by submitting false statements under oath to this 
committee.
    Of course the President continues to assert his innocence 
of any criminal wrongdoing. We heard his counsel assert that 
before us. The President's defense is based on the claim that 
he was telling the truth when he said under oath that he had no 
specific recollection of ever being alone with Ms. Lewinsky. It 
hinges on the claim that he was telling the truth when he said 
under oath that he never had an affair, a sexual relationship, 
or sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. All of the facts point 
to the conclusion that the President was willfully lying when 
he said these things. We would have to be blind to the facts to 
reach any other conclusion. No clever lawyers' arguments, no 
legal gymnastics, no attempts to distort the plain meaning of 
the English language can change the simple facts that any 
honest review of the record will reveal.
    The President's claim that he did not lie in his deposition 
and before the Federal grand jury rests, as his counsel 
acknowledged yesterday, on the argument that Ms. Lewinsky had 
sex with him, but he did not have sex with her. The simple 
statement of this argument exposes its absurdity. The President 
of the United States has been reduced to making such arguments.
    Governor Weld, one of the witnesses called to testify 
before this committee by the President's lawyers, testified he 
``assumed perjury'' had been committed by Mr. Clinton. Mr. 
Ruff, the White House counsel, admitted that the President, in 
his acknowledged efforts to mislead, intentionally walked up to 
the line of lying and that reasonable people could conclude 
that he in fact crossed that line.
    I candidly submit that a reasonable person is driven by all 
of the facts and circumstances to conclude that the President 
most certainly lied and that he did so repeatedly when he was 
under oath. A reasonable person is also driven to conclude that 
the President engaged in other corrupt acts to obstruct the 
administration of justice. The evidence is clear and 
convincing. It requires a willful suspension of rational 
judgment to conclude otherwise. Henry Adams, the grandson of 
John Quincy Adams, said that practical politics consist in 
ignoring the facts.
    I don't think that there is much doubt in this room that 
the practical political thing to do in this matter would be to 
ignore the facts and drop these proceedings. All of our lives 
would be more comfortable if we had never started this 
impeachment inquiry. All of our lives would be more comfortable 
if we simply ignored the facts, folded our tents and went home. 
That would be the politically practical thing to do.
    But there are moments when constitutional duty collides 
with practical politics. We on this committee through no choice 
of our own have come to such a moment. We cannot ignore the 
facts. The oath that we have taken to protect and defend the 
Constitution requires that we acknowledge the facts before us 
and exercise the momentous power entrusted to us under the 
Constitution. It is our duty to act against the misconduct of 
President William Jefferson Clinton within the framework 
established by the Constitution. The Constitution does not 
authorize a censure of a President who is guilty of high crimes 
and misdemeanors. The Constitution provides for the impeachment 
of a President who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
    Do we have so little faith in our Constitution and the 
institutions of our government that we will turn aside from the 
pattern established in our Constitution and devise what we 
consider a better way to call the President to account for his 
misdeeds? Do we believe that our own wisdom exceeds the framers 
of the Constitution? The answer is clear. We must say no.
    William Jefferson Clinton must be called to account as the 
Constitution provides. He must be impeached and called before 
the Senate to answer for the harm that he has done. He must be 
called before the Senate to answer for the harm he has caused 
by undermining the integrity of the high office entrusted to 
him by the people of the United States.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired. 
Thegentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Virginia congressional 
delegation, I take great pride in the contributions that those 
from the Commonwealth have made to ensure the viability of our 
constitutional form of government. Washington, Jefferson, 
Madison, Mason and others were Virginians who led the 
constitutional form of government and endeavored to protect and 
defend it. In that great tradition, a former member of this 
committee, fellow Virginian Caldwell Butler, is someone who I 
hold in high regard. As a Republican, Mr. Butler faced the 
daunting prospect in 1974 of voting to impeach a President of 
his own party. After a fair process, he was looking at 
overwhelming evidence of the President's guilt, and had the 
courage under those circumstances to vote to impeach the 
President of his own party. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this 
party has neglected its constitutional responsibilities and is 
engaged is an unprecedented, substantive and procedural abuse 
of Congress's impeachment powers. Since the beginning, a number 
of colleagues and I have called for a fair, expeditious and 
focused process. Such a process would have first specified the 
allegations. It would have then established a standard for 
determining which, if any, of those allegations constituted an 
impeachable offense. If any of the offenses were alleged which 
might have constituted an impeachable offense, the process 
would then have determined, with a presumption of innocence, 
whether those allegations were true by using cross-examination 
of witnesses and other traditionally reliable evidentiary 
procedures.
    If any such impeachable allegations were determined to be 
true, then we would judge whether they had the substantiality 
to justify the removal of the President from office. We did not 
proceed on such a logical constitutional process. Instead, we 
dumped mountains of salacious, uncross-examined and otherwise 
untested materials onto the Internet, and then started sorting 
through boxes of documents to selectively find support for a 
foregone conclusion.
    Our first step in a logical process should have been to 
look to determine whether or not, even if true, some of those 
allegations might constitute impeachable offenses.
    This committee has completely gutted our impeachment 
precedents. We have been warned repeatedly that these 
allegations are nowhere near what is necessary to overturn a 
national election and to impeach a President.
    Despite these cautionary flags, this committee has turned a 
deaf ear to hundreds of years of precedents and to the 
Constitution that has kept this country strong and unified.
    Mr. Chairman, we did have a hearing at which we considered 
the constitutional standards for impeachment. At that hearing 
scholars told us that there was no constitutional authority to 
impeach a President simply because we dislike him or because we 
disapprove of his actions when those actions do not constitute 
treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. And by 
proceeding with an inquiry based on allegations that do not 
meet that high standard, we have done irreparable harm to our 
system of government by establishing a dangerous and partisan 
impeachment-at-will precedent that will forever weaken the 
institution of the presidency.
    The presidency was intended to be free from subversion from 
the legislature. Three separate and co-equal branches were 
envisioned by the drafters of our Constitution, and it is this 
reason that impeachment is limited to the constitutionally 
explicit treason, bribery or other high crimes and 
misdemeanors. Impeachment was to be a mechanism to protect us 
against conduct, as described by Professor Ackerman yesterday, 
that constitutes a threat to the very foundation of the 
republic. We know from the Nixon impeachment proceeding that it 
does not cover half a million dollar income tax fraud. We heard 
that all of the scholars agreed on one panel, ten of them, that 
treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors does 
not cover all felonies, and so it was not intended to be a 
crafty way for Congress to be able to remove a President based 
on a standard of no confidence.
    Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, at the hearing when I posed the 
question of whether any of the witnesses on the hearing's 
second panel believed that the count involving invoking 
executive privilege should be considered an impeachable 
offense, the clear consensus on the panel was that the charge 
was not an impeachable offense. In fact, one Republican witness 
said, I do not think invoking executive privilege even if 
frivolously, and I believe it was frivolous in these 
circumstances, but that does not constitute an impeachable 
offense.
    In addition, scholars have refuted attempts by impeachment 
supporters to argue that the last three impeachments support 
lowering the impeachment standard to impeach President Clinton 
for ``perjury,'' despite the fact that all of these 
impeachments involve judges and the effects their actions had 
on their offices and the fact that two of the judges were 
actually in prison during their impeachment trials.
    The impeachment cases of Judge Claiborne and Judge Nixon 
were referred to several times as representing private conduct. 
However, both of those were tried, convicted and were in prison 
for crimes when evidence was that Judge Claiborne had lied on 
his income tax return for not including funds received from 
bribes and Judge Nixon for lying about contacting a prosecutor 
to influence the drug case of a business associate.
    If we are to impeach the President, it should be at the end 
of a fair process. But these decisions we have made in the last 
few weeks have been made on a strictly partisan basis. Campaign 
finance reform was put into play by the committee on a party-
line basis, but news reports indicate it was taken off the 
table by a strictly partisan phone conference without any 
discussion with Democratic members.
    Likewise, there has been no involvement of Democrats in 
either the issuance or deadline set in the 81 questions posed 
to the President. Neither has there been any discussion as to 
the standard of proof to be applied and no discussion about the 
apparent presumption that uncross-examined testimony from 
witnesses testified by one side would be sufficient to require 
the President to prove his innocence. Instead, without any 
process for determining which if any of the allegations even if 
true would be impeachable, we have wandered blindly through an 
inquiry without any specific allegations or scope.
    The accused should have at least some reasonable notice of 
the charges against him. Mr. Starr started out with 11 
allegations and came back with 10. Republican counsel said 15. 
Mr. Hyde, a couple of days after that, said we should have two 
or three but didn't say which they should be. SomeRepublican 
members, including the Chairman, essentially dropped one count or 
another because they did not seem to be significant. Others have been 
adding charges this very week.
    Mr. Chairman, we finally have what are supposed to be the 
definitive allegations, the articles of impeachment, but they 
were not available to the President's counsel yesterday when he 
was asked to respond to the charges, and we had the spectacle 
this morning of watching the Democratic counsel trying to 
defend the allegations without knowing the specifics behind the 
articles of impeachment.
    Mr. Chairman, at the end of a fair, democratic process, the 
President might very well have been impeached by a bipartisan 
vote of this committee if substantial actual evidence had been 
considered. But instead of following a reasoned approach, we 
have subjected the committee to ridicule and scorn.
    And so here we are on the verge of impeaching a United 
States president, overturning a national election, plunging our 
Nation into constitutional crisis in contradiction of 
everything that the Founding Fathers labored to avoid on a 
totally partisan basis.
    And so, Mr. Chairman, I do not have the heart-wrenching 
decision that former Congressman Caldwell Butler faced, who 
found himself at the end of a fair process facing overwhelming 
actual evidence of guilt of the president and actual offenses 
which were clearly impeachable. I find myself facing 
allegations which most scholars agree would not be impeachable 
even if they were true and allegations which are presented to 
us by way of contradictory, uncross-examined hearsay and 
dubious inferences. Under these circumstances, it is totally 
inappropriate to vote to remove the President from office.
    Chairman Hyde [presiding]. Mr. Inglis, the gentleman from 
South Carolina.
    Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank you for the way that you have conducted 
these proceedings and congratulate you on the demeanor with 
which you have conducted them and the fair way with which you 
have conducted them.
    Obviously, my point of view differs considerably from the 
gentleman who just spoke. I would like to talk about three 
things: talk about truth, talk about principle over 
convenience, and talk about our constitutional obligation.
    First, it seems to me that what we are witnessing here is a 
conflict, a clash between two very different views. One view is 
that there is absolute truth. The other view is that everything 
is relative. This is not new. This is not a new debate in this 
country. It has actually been going on quite a while.
    And most of us on this committee are lawyers and remember 
that Oliver Wendell Holmes sort of established the school of 
legal realism which basically said, let us abandon the search 
for truth and let us do relative justice between people because 
there is no truth out there to find. That was a significant 
statement and set us on a significantly different course in our 
legal tradition than where we started at the foundation of the 
country.
    And really what we are seeing in President Clinton, I 
believe, is the culmination of that. He is the perfect 
embodiment of everything being relative. He is the epitome of 
somebody who says there is no truth. Everything is relative.
    And that's the big conflict here. For those of us who 
believe that there is truth, that telling the truth is crucial 
and that there are right statements and there are wrong 
statements, we find it incumbent upon us to act.
    For those who are willing to dismiss, well, it was a lie in 
the case of sex, so, therefore, it is not a real lie, it is a 
little lie about a little matter, they take the opposite view 
and say, you surely can't impeach a President for something 
like that because, relatively speaking, it is not as bad. So 
there are around us some vestiges of this old system of 
absolute truth.
    You know, we had a witness here, Steve Saltzburg, who 
taught me evidence at the University of Virginia Law School, 
and at UVA we have something called the single sanction honor 
code. If you lie, cheat or steal, you are gone. Single 
sanction. No intermediate sanctions, no disciplinary actions 
against you. If you commit any of those infractions, you are 
gone from Mr. Jefferson's academic village.
    That is an old view. And the reason that I recommend Mr. 
Jefferson, he said, we hold these truths to be self-evident.
    Let me rewrite that in the way that the White House spin 
machine would write it.
    We hold these relativistic moral assertions to be 
relativistically true. They work for me; see if they work for 
you. That's the way the White House spin machine would rewrite 
the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.
    Mr. Jefferson said, we hold these truths to be self-
evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed 
by their creator with the right to life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness.
    So for those of us who take that view that Mr. Jefferson 
was right, we come upon a guy, William Jefferson Clinton, who 
asks us to believe that ``alone'' depends on the geographic 
definition of alone and ``is'' depends on how you define ``is'' 
and all of these other hair-splittings, and we say this is 
unacceptable.
    Now, I understand that there are others who don't take that 
view. They want to usher us into this relativistic age. They 
want to push on Oliver Wendell Holmes' ideas. They want legal 
realism to be the rule of the day. They want a very different 
rule from where we started in this country.
    I, for one, hope that we reassert here at the end of this 
millennium and the beginning of the next that truth matters, 
that it matters whether the President of the United States lied 
or not. That, I believe, is the real question behind this.
    Now, there is a lesser question there, too. It is not quite 
as high a question of truth as opposed to relativism which is 
the rule of law, and there what we are looking at is that, for 
those of us who believe in true truth, absolute truth, we 
believe that the rule of law is crucial. There are those that 
take a different view, and they are willing to excuse this 
breach of the rule of law.
    Perjury is a crime that I believe undermines the very basis 
of our judicial system, the very basis of the rule of law, and 
we have heard that repeatedly from witnesses before this 
committee. So the first issue is truth.
    The second issue is the issue of principle over 
convenience. And we have heard a lot of discussion from the 
other side and particularly from the White House counsel about 
how the economy could suffer, about how legislation may be held 
up, about how the Supreme Court's activities may be held up if 
we go forward with a trial.
    And, of course, they also tells us that polls for the 
moment tell us that the President shouldn't be impeached. Those 
same polls said that Richard Nixon early on shouldn't be 
impeached, although at this point in the process they had 
turned.
    The polls early on told George Bush not to go to the 
Persian Gulf conflict. But he led, and I believe it isincumbent 
upon us to lead even in the face of that.
    Because, you know, in 1992, when I first ran for Congress, 
we had a wonderful volunteer, a college student, who proudly 
brought in a T-shirt to the campaign office that had a slogan 
that many will recognize: A politician thinks of the next 
election, a statesman thinks of the next generation.
    And here, rather than studying the polls and figuring out 
what we should do about the next election, I think we must 
think about the next generation and decide that we are going to 
establish the principle or really restate the principle here at 
the end of this century that truth does matter, and it is 
important to state that even if it causes short-term 
inconvenience by the way of interruption of legislation or the 
interruption of the functioning of the Supreme Court because 
this is an important matter.
    The third thing that I think is important to point out here 
is that we have a constitutional obligation to act. And there 
are a lot of folks who would counsel, let's just move along. It 
is sort of the Clinton so-what offense: So what, I committed 
perjury. So what, I broke the law. Let's just move along.
    I believe we have a constitutional obligation to act. And, 
of course, there are those that overlook that constitutional 
obligation, and they refer again to the polls, and they say, 
but look at the polls. And in a pure democracy, of course, it 
can do anything as long as you have a majority. In fact, if 
there are more Baptists than Roman Catholics, the Baptists can 
vote that there can be no masses on Sunday. In a pure 
democracy, that is completely acceptable.
    But, thank goodness, we are not a pure democracy. We are a 
constitutional republic. And in a constitutional republic we 
are constrained by principles set out in the Constitution, and 
those principles call on us in this case to act against the 
President of the United States and to punish his perjury and to 
act against his obstruction of justice and to say that we will 
not tolerate abuse of power.
    Censure is not an option. It is an extra-constitutional 
remedy. It can't be found in the Constitution.
    And the fines that are being discussed, I think we heard 
from a number of witnesses, would be bills of attainder, 
clearly violating that Constitution that I just was describing. 
So that means that we are left with the constitutional 
procedure, the majestic constitutional procedure of 
impeachment, and I hope that we go forward, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    [The statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.042
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.043
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.044
    
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    There is hardly a member of this committee who has spoken 
up to this point, either Republican or Democrat, who has not 
said something with which I agree. I want to pay special 
tribute to Mr. Scott and Mr. Boucher, because I associate 
myself with substantial parts of their statements. And I also 
want to associate myself with some of the comments that Mr. 
Gallegly made, because I believe, like Mr. Gallegly asserted, 
that without the rule of law we have anarchy in this country.
    When I was in the 8th grade, one of my teachers looked at 
me and said: ``You like to talk a lot. You must be going to be 
a lawyer.'' And there was no precedent in my family for it. I 
didn't really know what a lawyer was. But from that very moment 
I set out saying to myself and others that I wanted to be a 
lawyer. And later in life I did end up going to law school, and 
I started to understand what the rule of law was all about and 
why it was necessary.
    And then I went back after law school and started 
practicing law, and I practiced law for 22 years before I was 
elected to the Congress of the United States. And there I 
started to understand even more the importance of the rule of 
law.
    And I have seen the rule of law undermined in a number of 
different ways. I have seen it undermined by inequality of 
resources of people who come into the courtroom. I have seen it 
undermined by racism and bias and even have been called by a 
judge in a court ``nigger.'' I have seen it undermined by the 
lack of due process. I have seen the rule of law undermined by 
lying under oath. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it happens 
regularly in the courts of America, as at least one witness has 
said before this body.
    But there is not a single way that the rule of law is 
undermined that is more disparaging and more important than a 
disregard for the law and the established standards of the law. 
What does the law say? And that is why I was so outraged by the 
presentation by the majority counsel today, and I would like to 
talk about four of the things that he said that I especially 
was offended by.
    At the bottom of page 36 and going over to page 37 of the 
majority counsel's statement he said, ``This is a defining 
moment both for the presidency and especially for members of 
this committee, for the presidency as an institution because if 
you don't impeach as a consequence of the conduct that I have 
just portrayed, then no House of Representatives will ever be 
able to impeach again.''
    He went on to say that ``the bar will be so high that only 
a convicted felon or a traitor will need to be concerned.''
    My friends, that's what the rule of law says, that you can 
convict, you can charge, you can impeach a President only when 
that standard is met.
    He said on page 27 of his written statement ``whether the 
offenses of President Clinton are criminally chargeable is of 
no moment. This is not a criminal trial nor is it a criminal 
inquiry. It is a fundamental precept that an impeachable 
offense need not be a criminal act.''
    My friends, the Constitution of the United States defines 
the grounds for impeachment as bribery, treason, or ``other 
high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' What does other high crimes and 
misdemeanors mean if it does not mean a criminal act? What do 
the words mean? Are we going to disregard that?
    At page 26 of his statement the majority counsel said, this 
is not a trial. It is in the nature of an inquest. Any witness 
whose testimony is referred to in this proceeding will be 
subjected to full cross-examination if a trial results in the 
Senate. That is the time to test credibility. As it stands, all 
of the factual witnesses are uncontradicted and amply 
corroborated.
    I just absolutely disregard and reject that as the basis on 
which we should be proceeding. Think about what that means for 
future impeachment proceedings. Anybody who wants to start an 
impeachment proceeding and gets it into this committee and puts 
any evidence before us, we don't ever have to test the 
credibility of it. He couldn't possibly mean that, but that is 
exactly what he said the standard should be. I can't go along 
with that standard.
    Finally, on page 36 of the majority counsel's statement, he 
said these words which I vigorously agree with: ``One of the 
witnesses that appeared earlier likened the government of the 
United States to a three-legged stool. The analysis is apt 
because the entire structure of our country rests upon three 
equal supports: the legislation, the judicial, and the 
executive. Remove one of those supports, and the state will 
totter. Remove two, and the structure will either collapse 
altogether or will rest upon a single branch of government. 
Another name for that is tyranny.''
    He is absolutely right. And where we are today is that we 
are trying to remove the executive of this country. We are 
about to tie up the judiciary and its Chief Justice in an 
impeachment trial in the Senate of the United States. And so 
the majority counsel apparently would have the legislative 
branch be the only standing leg of the stool.
    I don't believe that is what was intended. I reject that as 
a notion, and I beg of us not to take that authority and give 
it to the legislative branch. Let's continue to have a three-
legged stool as a part of our government.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Thank you. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, this is a somber occasion. I'm 
here because it is my constitutional duty, as it is the 
constitutional duty of every member of this committee, to 
follow the truth wherever it may lead.
    Our Founding Fathers established this Nation on a 
fundamental, yet at the time untested, idea that a Nation 
should be governed not by the whims of any man but by the rule 
of law. Implicit in that idea is the principle that no one is 
above the law, including the chief executive. Since it is the 
rule of law that guides us, we must ask ourselves what happens 
to our Nation if the rule of law is ignored, cheapened or 
violated, especially at the highest level of government.
    Consider the words of former Supreme Court Justice Louis 
Brandeis, who was particularly insightful on this point. ``In a 
government of laws, the existence of the government will be 
imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. For good 
or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. If the 
government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the 
law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself.''
    Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves what our failure to 
uphold the rule of law will say to the Nation and most 
especially to our children who must trust us to leave them a 
civilized Nation where justice is respected. The charges 
against the President include perjury, obstruction of justice, 
and abuse of power. These are serious charges deserving serious 
consideration. The question before the committee is whether the 
President intentionally misled our judicial system and the 
American people as part of a calculated, ongoing effort to 
conceal the facts and the truth and to deny an average citizen 
her day in court in a sexual harassment lawsuit. And did the 
President betray the public trust by perjuring himself before a 
Federal grand jury and obstructing justice.
    Let's take a minute to examine the facts of this case. On 
January 17, 1998, the President swore to tell the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a deposition given 
before a Federal district judge. The President testified that 
he didn't know that his personal friend, Vernon Jordan, had met 
with Monica Lewinsky, a Federal employee, a subordinant, and a 
witness in the Jones case in which the President was named as a 
defendant, and talked about the case. The evidence before the 
committee clearly indicates that the President lied under oath.
    The President testified that he didn't recall being alone 
with Ms. Lewinsky. The evidence before the committee clearly 
indicates that the President lied under oath.
    On August 17, 1998, seven months after his deposition in 
the Jones case, the President swore to tell the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand 
jury. The President testified that he didn't allow his attorney 
to claim that his affidavit in the civil case was true, when he 
knew it was false. The evidence before the committee clearly 
indicates that the President lied under oath.
    The President also testified before the grand jury that he 
didn't give false testimony in his deposition in the Jones 
case. The evidence before the committee clearly indicates that 
the President lied under oath.
    While the President's lawyers have denied the facts against 
him, they have not, because they apparently cannot, provide new 
evidence that rebuts those facts.
    Many of the legal scholars testifying at the request of the 
President have admitted that the President lied in both the 
Jones case and before the grand jury, but argue that those 
offenses are not impeachable. If the committee were to adopt 
this position, however, it would create a double standard that 
places the President above the law. Virtually every public 
official in America, including our Nation's governors, and 
virtually everyone in private employment would lose their job 
if they committed perjury or obstructed justice. In fact, many 
already have.
    We have had before the committee average Americans who have 
suffered these consequences and even incarceration because they 
committed perjury. And as more than one witness testified 
before this committee, a person with those charges against them 
would not even be nominated for a position in state or Federal 
Government. If we truly respect the presidency, we cannot allow 
the President to be above the law.
    Millions of law-abiding Americans from all walks of life, 
including my constituents, put in an honest day's work, follow 
the rules, and struggle to teach their children respect for the 
law and the importance of integrity. When a factory worker or 
medical doctor or retiree breaks the law, they do so with the 
knowledge that they are not above the law.
    This same principle must also apply to the most powerful 
and privileged in our Nation, including the President of the 
United States. To lose this principle devastates a legacy 
entrusted to us by our Founding Fathers and protected for us by 
generations of American families.
    Some of my colleagues have decided that a resolution of 
censure is the only appropriate remedy for the President's 
action. Their resolution admits that the President made false 
statements concerning his reprehensible conduct with a 
subordinate and wrongly took steps to delay the discovery of 
the truth. For those who might support this resolution, I would 
like to raise two key points.
    First, censure would set a dangerous precedent without 
foundation in the Constitution. Second, if you truly believe 
the allegations contained in the censure resolution, how can 
you not vote to impeach? The evidence against the President 
shows clearly and convincingly that he committed perjury and 
obstructed justice, and the consequences of ignoring the facts 
in this case for simple political expediency or of adopting an 
unconstitutional or ineffective censure resolution far outweigh 
the consequences of moving forward.
    I have a constitutional duty to follow the truth wherever 
it leads. The truth in this case leads me to believe that the 
President knowingly engaged in a calculated pattern of lies, 
deceit, and delay in order to mislead the American people, 
impede the search for truth, deny the right of his accuser to 
have her day in court, and to protect himself from criminal 
prosecution. Therefore, I have no alternative but to support 
articles of impeachment against President Clinton.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the way in 
which you have conducted this inquiry. It has not been easy. 
Your fairness and dedication to duty has been rewarded by 
personal attacks from the White House. Throughout this process, 
you have remained faithful to your oath of office and to the 
Constitution. That is what history will remember, and that is 
what each of us should strive to follow. When called to duty, 
you rose to the occasion and we thank you.
    The decision I have reached, while a sobering one, is, I 
believe, also the correct one. I have heard from many 
constituents who are deeply concerned that action be taken in 
this matter, and I appreciate them sharing their thoughts. One 
of those constituents is a 12-year-old 6th grade student from 
Linkhorn Middle School in Lynchburg, Virginia, named Paul Inge. 
He recently wrote: ``I am a Boy Scout who is concerned about 
the leadership of the President of the United States of 
America. It is my understanding that other ordinary citizens 
who lie under oath are prosecuted. The President should not be 
any different. He should also have to obey the laws.
    As a Boy Scout, I have learned that persons of 
goodcharacter are trustworthy and obedient. I feel that the character 
of the President should be at least as good as the leaders that I 
follow in my local troop and community. Is this too much to ask of our 
country's leaders?''
    The precious legacy entrusted to us by our founders and our 
constituents is a Nation dedicated to the ideal of freedom and 
equality for all her people. This committee must decide whether 
we will maintain our commitment to the rule of law and pass 
this precious legacy to our children and grandchildren, or 
whether we will bow to political pressure for the sake of 
convenience or expediency. Much of our hopes and dreams for our 
children, like Paul Inge, and for the integrity of our Nation 
depends on the answer to that question.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Thank you very much for your very generous 
remarks. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. This is a sad day in our Nation's history. 
Unfortunately, it seems to be one more day in a long sad 
season. We have finally reached the logical conclusion of what 
happens when a legislative chamber is obsessively preoccupied 
with investigating the opposition rather than legislating for 
the people who elected them to office.
    We now consider removing the President of the United States 
from the office to which he was twice elected, and barring him 
from ever holding office again, for misconduct that is hardly a 
high crime or misdemeanor.
    For more than 200 years, a directly elected chief executive 
has been one of the great distinctions between our wonderful 
country and parliamentary democracies. That is why, unlike so 
many other countries, we don't have a rapid succession of 
governments, one after another, as votes of no confidence drive 
out prime ministers who hardly have time to govern before they 
must stand for reelection.
    Our system of government and its stability has contributed 
to our success. But this system needs checks and balances. The 
founders were well aware of the tyranny of the Crown, so they 
established a legislative safety valve against a tyrannical 
executive, the process of impeachment, by which they could 
remove the President if his conduct subverted the government.
    The founders designed this safety valve for abuses so grave 
that, in Ben Franklin's words, they suggested assassination as 
the remedy. Impeachment was our founders' civilized substitute. 
That may explain why after more than two centuries' experience 
in this novel democratic experiment, the United States of 
America, not a single President has been impeached and 
convicted.
    The people's will must not be overridden by those who claim 
to know better; by those who believe they know what is best for 
the American people. The people's will may only be overridden 
and the government overthrown when the acts of the chief 
executive truly threaten our democratic institutions with 
injury to the state and to the people; in other words, when the 
threat the President poses is so great that we can't wait until 
the next election to remove him.
    A vote to impeach, therefore, must not merely pass the buck 
to the Senate for the real trial of the matter. A vote to 
impeach must be treated for what it is, a vote to remove the 
President. No one should consider it permissible to vote if he 
is not prepared to make the case that the President should be 
removed, not just tried, and no such case has been made here.
    We have heard much of the seriousness with which our courts 
must take the issue of perjury. No one questions that perjury 
is wrong, illegal, and a problem in our judicial system. But 
alleged acts of perjury by the President in a private, 
nongovernmental, civil litigation and covering up afterwards, 
as terrible as that is, does not threaten our democratic system 
or compromise our country's vital interests.
    Do not misunderstand. I do not condone the President's 
misbehavior. I'm only saying that impeachment is not the remedy 
for the President's misconduct, even if criminal. For that 
alleged criminal misconduct we have courts. Indeed, the course 
of action the majority proposes here punishes the Nation rather 
than the President.
    Under President Clinton's leadership, our country has 
prospered, but we still have serious matters to deal with, 
including public education, Social Security, Medicare, and 
abuses by HMOs. We have had foreign policy successes, but we 
still face challenges abroad, including the continuing 
financial and business crisis in Asian countries that has 
already been felt here and may get worse. The impeachment 
process may compromise our ability to deal with these problems.
    If the House adopts articles of impeachment, all three 
branches of government will be gridlocked in a Senate trial for 
as long as a year. The bipartisan action and cooperation needed 
to deal with America's problems will be drowned by this process 
while our people's needs are ignored.
    Impeachment of President Clinton, even if it does not 
result in conviction in the Senate, will weaken the executive 
branch of government and further divide this Nation. We have no 
precedent, nor evidence, that justifies placing this Nation at 
such risk.
    Today, I take my solace not in what we are about to do, but 
in my belief that the American people get it. No, not every 
person knows the specific constitutional provisions at issue, 
but they know their government. They know what is important. 
They knew the President they elected. They know what he has 
done. They know he has behaved badly, but they don't want him 
removed from office. They want him censured. It's that simple.
    Like the Constitution that established this government, the 
American people value freedom and despise tyranny. We have 
impeachment to correct the tyranny of the executive department, 
but what remedy do we have for legislative tyranny? Only this: 
the 2-year terms we serve and the electoral accountability at 
the end of that term.
    For those who are out to get the President, shame on you. 
But beware, next election the voters will be out to get you.
    How did we get to this point? Our President behaved badly 
and irresponsibly in this affair with Ms. Lewinsky, but his 
irresponsibility does not license us to act irresponsibly, to 
fail to adhere to our own oaths, to support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States.
    Like the Republicans who voted for impeachment in 1974, I 
would vote to impeach if the acts at issue here threatened our 
democracy. But in the absence of evidence that President 
Clinton committed acts that threaten the continuation of our 
democracy and its institutions, it is my clear constitutional 
duty, pursuant to my own oath of office, to oppose these 
reckless efforts to impeach the President. And I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from 
Indiana, Mr. Buyer.
    Mr. Buyer. I thank the Chairman. I couldn't help as I try 
to be a good listener to each of my colleagues' statements, I 
wonder at times if we come from the same world. You know, there 
are people all across America every day that help define the 
Nation's character and they exercise common sense virtues. 
Whether it is honesty, integrity, promise-keeping, loyalty, 
respect, accountability. They pursue excellence; they exercise 
self-discipline. There is honor in a hard day's work. There is 
duty to country. Those are things that we take very seriously. 
Those are things that the Founders also took seriously.
    Every time I reflect upon the wisdom of the Founding 
Fathers, I think their wisdom was truly amazing. They pledged 
their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to escape 
the tyranny of a king. They understood the nature of the human 
heart struggles between good and evil. So the founders created 
a system of checks and balances and accountability.
    If corruption invaded the political system, a means was 
available to address it. The founders felt impeachment so 
important it was included in six different places in the 
Constitution. The founders set the standard for impeachmentof 
the President and other civil officers as treason, bribery and other 
high crimes and misdemeanors. The House of Representatives must use 
this standard and circumstances and facts of the President's conduct to 
determine if the occupant of the Oval Office is fit to continue holding 
the highest executive office of this great country.
    I concur with the premise that the crimes alleged against 
the President may not directly involve the derelict exercise of 
executive powers, except the issues of possible misuse of 
executive privilege. The alleged crimes plainly do involve the 
derelict violation of the President's executive duties.
    The committee received testimony on American and English 
history and legal scholarship on precedents which made plain 
that personal misconduct, violations of trust, and other 
charges of a more private nature can be impeachable offenses. 
The question before the committee is: Does perjury to conceal 
private misconduct and other wrongful conduct to thwart and 
impede the justice in a civil rights case in Federal court, and 
efforts to obstruct justice in a criminal proceeding, and 
perjury before a grand jury rise to the level of an impeachable 
offense?
    When the President had the opportunity to tell the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he lied. Before the 
court in the Jones deposition, the President lied. Before the 
court in the Jones case in answers to discovery 
interrogatories, the President lied. Before the grand jury, the 
President lied. Before his Cabinet and senior aides, the 
President lied. Before the Judiciary Committee of Congress in 
the answers to requests for admissions, the President lied. 
Before the American people, the President lied.
    What are the consequences if this committee leaves a known 
perjurer in the Oval Office? First, perjury and obstruction of 
justice drive a stake in the heart of the rule of law. When the 
Constitution was ratified, it was christened as ``the grand 
American experiment.'' America stood alone in being governed by 
the rule of law as opposed to the rule of kings, tyrants, 
czars, monarchs, emperors, chiefs, sheiks, lords, barons and 
nobles.
    To our founders' credit they created a Republic based on 
the rule of law rather than a Nation based on the whims of man. 
The American legacy is that we have become the beacon of 
liberty to nations around the world who seek systems of 
government just like ours. We have an obligation to preserve 
the heritage of the rule of law now and for future generations.
    The President's lawyers give us a fantasy defense. The 
President's defenders would have us believe that the 
President's misconduct was only private and therefore not 
impeachable. If the President's verbal engineering prevails, 
then an evasive, incomplete, misleading and even maddening 
statement is not a lie. No one is ever really alone in the 
cosmos. ``Is'' is not a state of being. A person performing a 
sex act is having sexual relations, but the person receiving 
the sexual favor is not having sex. And a cover story is not a 
concocted rendition of an event with the willful intent to 
mislead others by lies, but instead a cover story is a simple 
harmless revision of an historical event.
    This is neither believable, reasonable, rational nor 
acceptable. The President's defense is completely misguided in 
its interpretations, parsing and hair-splitting of words. C.S. 
Lewis called this technique, quote, ``verbicide, the murder of 
a word,'' end quote. When plain spoken English language is 
twisted into the vague and ambiguous, society is devoid of 
trust. It undermines our social interaction, commerce, indeed, 
the rule of law and government itself.
    I believe in civility and self-evident truths as a 
statement of stable social order under the rule of law. If the 
President's view of nontruth prevails, we set a double 
standard. The presidential perjurers in the future will have no 
consequences to face. Everybody else could go to jail. We will 
also set a double standard with regard to the behavior of the 
Chief Executive and as Commander in Chief. Conduct that would 
strip an admiral or general of his position, land a sergeant in 
prison, or deprive an administrative nominee of a Cabinet post 
is condoned for the President. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen 
and marines will be bound by the high ethical code, which they 
should be. But our President as Commander in Chief who has the 
power to send them into harm's way can conform his conduct to a 
lower standard. I disagree. Leadership is by example and 
setting the higher standard.
    Retired Admiral Edney, who teaches ethics at the Naval 
Academy, came before this committee and testified: ``Dual 
standards and less accountability at the top will undermine the 
trust and confidence so essential to good order and 
discipline'' in the military. I believe the Office of the 
President is one in which is reposed the special trust of the 
American people by virtue of having gained the majority of the 
American people's electoral vote. If the President can lie 
repeatedly without remorse with regard to his personal conduct, 
can the President be trusted by the American people, by 
Congress, by foreign governments to conduct the official 
business of the United States?
    The trust given the President by the people, I believe, has 
been broken and betrayed. The President is no longer entitled 
to the benefit of the doubt as to his actions and his 
judgments, such as the use of military force and his foreign 
travel on behalf of the people of the United States. He is now 
second-guessed by everyone in coffee shops all across this 
country.
    If this committee cannot bring itself to impeach a 
perjurious President, the bar will be raised for future 
circumstances that the House and this committee might face. Our 
children and grandchildren will face presidents who seek to 
flout the rule of law in a more ambitious manner because of the 
precedent set through inaction.
    I will defend the Constitution and serve as a protector of 
our national heritage and help define our Nation's character. I 
will not cave in and permit our Nation to be ruled by polls, 
emotion, or a distortion of words by ``verbicide.''
    An ancient Greek philosopher stated: ``A man's character is 
his fate.'' I am saddened and disappointed that the character 
of President Clinton brings us to an impeachment vote for only 
a third time in over 200 years. We are debating articles of 
impeachment today not because of partisan spite or an 
overzealous prosecutor, but because of the truth of the 
President's own actions.
    As difficult and wrenching as this matter is, this 
committee must do its constitutional duty and report articles 
of impeachment to the full House of Representatives for the 
sake of our Constitution, for the sake of our children and for 
the sake of our country.
    I yield back the remaining balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Buyer follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Congressman Steve Buyer
    Mr. Chairman. Every time I reflect upon the wisdom of the Founding 
Fathers, I think their wisdom was truly amazing. They pledged ``their 
lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor'' to escape the tyranny of 
a King. They understood the nature of the human heart struggles between 
good and evil. so, the Founders created a system of checks and balances 
and accountability. If corruption invaded the political system, a means 
was available to address it. The Founders felt impeachment so important 
it was included in six different places in the Constitution.
    The Founders set the standard for impeachment of the President and 
other civil officers as ``treason, bribery, and other high crimes and 
misdemeanors.'' The House of Representatives must use this standard, 
and the circumstances and the facts of the President's conduct, to 
determine if the occupant of the Oval Office is fit to continue holding 
the highest executive office of this great country.
    I concur with the premise that the crimes alleged against the 
President may not directly involve the derelict exercise of executive 
powers, except the issues of possible misuse of executive privilege. 
The alleged crimes plainly do involve the derelict violation of the 
President's executive duties.
    The Committee received testimony on American and English history 
and legal scholarship on precedents which made plain that personal 
misconduct, violations of trust, and other charges of a more private 
nature can be impeachable offenses.
    The question before the Committee is: Does perjury to conceal 
private misconduct and other wrongful conduct to thwart and impede 
justice in a civil rights case in federal court; and, efforts to 
obstruct justice in a criminal proceeding and perjury before a grand 
jury, rise to the level of an impeachable offense?
    When the President has the opportunity to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, he lied.
    Before the court in the Jones deposition, the President lied.
    Before the court in the Jones case, in answers to discovery 
interrogatories, the President lied.
    Before the grand jury, the President lied.
    Before his Cabinet and his senior aides, the President lied.
    Before the Judiciary Committee of the Congress in answers to 
requests for admissions, the President lied.
    Before the American people, the President lied.
    What are the consequences if this Committee leaves a known perjurer 
in the Oval Office?
    First, perjury and obstruction of justice drive a stake in the 
heart of the rule of law. When the Constitution was ratified, it 
christened the ``grand American experiment.'' America stood alone in 
being governed by the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of kings, 
tyrants, czars, monarchs, emperors, chiefs, sheiks, lords, barons, or 
nobles.
    To our founders' credit they created a republic based on the rule 
of law, rather than a nation based on the whims of man. The American 
legacy is that we have become the beacon of liberty to the nations 
around the world who seek systems of government just like ours. We have 
an obligation to preserve the heritage of the rule of law now and for 
future generations.
    The President's lawyers have given us a fantasy defense. The 
President's defenders would have us believe that the President's 
misconduct was only private, and therefore, not impeachable.
    If the President's verbal engineering prevails then an evasive, 
incomplete, misleading, and even maddening statement is not a lie;
    No one is ever really alone in the cosmos;
    ``Is'' is not a state of being;
    A person performing a sex act is having sexual relations, but the 
person receiving the sexual favor is not having sex;
    And a cover story is not a concocted rendition of an event with the 
willful intent to mislead others by lies, but instead, a cover story is 
a simple harmless revision of an historical event.
    This is neither believable, reasonable, rational, nor acceptable. 
The President's defense is completely misguided in its interpretations, 
parsing, and hair-splitting of words. C.S. Lewis has called this 
technique ``verbicide, the murder of a word.''
    When the plain spoken English language is twisted into the vague 
and ambiguous, society is devoid of trust. It undermines our social 
interactions, commerce, indeed, the rule of law and government itself. 
I believe in civility and self-evident truths as a statement of stable 
social order under the rule of law.
    If the President's view of nontruth prevails, we set a double 
standard. Presidential perjurers in the future will have no 
consequences to face. Everybody else could go to jail.
    We will also set a double standard with regard to the behavior of 
the Chief Executive and as the Commander in Chief. Conduct that would 
strip an Admiral or General of his post, land a sergeant in prison, or 
deprive an Administrative nominee of a Cabinet post, is condoned for 
the President. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will be bound 
by the high ethical code, which they should be. But our President, who 
has the power to send them into harm's way, can conform his conduct to 
a lower standard. I disagree. Leadership is by example and setting the 
higher standard.
    Retired Admiral Edney, who teaches ethics at the Naval Academy, 
came before this committee and testified: ``Dual standards and less 
accountability at the top, will undermine the trust and confidence so 
essential to good order and discipline'' in the military.
    I believe the Office of the President is one in which is reposed 
the special trust of the American people by virtue of having gained the 
majority of the American people's electoral vote. If the President can 
lie repeatedly and without remorse with regard to his personal conduct, 
can the President be trusted by the American people, by the Congress, 
by foreign governments to conduct the official business of the United 
States? The trust given the President by the people, I believe, has 
been broken and betrayed. The President is no longer entitled to the 
benefit of the doubt as to his actions and judgments, such as the use 
of military force and his foreign travel. He is now second guessed by 
everyone in coffee shops all across this country.
    If this Committee cannot bring itself to impeach a perjurious 
President, the bar will be raised for future circumstances that the 
House and this Committee might face. Our children and grandchildren 
will face Presidents who seek to flout the rule of law in a more 
ambitious manner because of the precedent set through inaction.
    I will defend the Constitution and serve as a protector of our 
national heritage and help define our Nation's character. I will not 
cave in and permit our Nation to be ruled by polls, emotion, or the 
distortion of words.
    An ancient Greek philosopher stated, ``A man's character is his 
fate.'' I am saddened and disappointed that the character of President 
Clinton brings us to an impeachment vote for only the third time in 
over 200 years.
    We are debating articles of impeachment today not because of any 
partisan spite or an overzealous prosecutor, but because of the truth 
about the President's own actions. As difficult and wrenching as this 
matter is, this Committee must do its constitutional duty and report 
the articles of impeachment to the full House of Representatives for 
the sake of our Constitution, for the sake of our children and for the 
sake of our country.

    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman, and the gentlewoman 
from California, Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members 
of the committee, as a Member of Congress and this Judiciary 
Committee and the House of Representatives, I have been thrust 
into a role I never envisioned. The action of the past few 
weeks have caused me to tremble. I woke up in the middle of the 
night with flashes of the struggles of my African ancestors for 
justice.
    I am reminded of the terrible sacrifice of the heroic men 
and women of this Nation who have fought for Americans to be 
able to be free of a police state and to be free of 
intimidation and harassment. I knew I would have to fight for 
the rights of minorities, women, the poor and the marginalized 
for the rest of my life. Never did I believe I would have to 
fight to protect the rights of the so-called most powerful 
individual of the free world.
    This is a sad time in the history of this Nation. We are on 
the brink of a Republican partisan impeachment of the President 
of the United States of America. The articles of impeachment 
are not based on his undermining of the Constitution, not based 
on actions that threaten the security of our Nation, not based 
on treason, bribery or a threat to our democracy, but rather 
because of the blind political determination of individuals who 
are philosophically and diametrically opposed to Bill and 
Hillary Clinton and their politics.
    However, tyranny knows no boundaries. This impeachment 
tyranny by the right ignores the most profound document of our 
society, the Constitution of the United States. It further 
disregards and disrespects the basic rights of the accused. 
This right wing driven assault on our Constitution poses a 
clear and real danger to our future. If the architects of this 
anarchy win, we surely place the rights of all American 
citizens at risk.
    After reading the Independent Counsel's referral, reviewing 
the supporting documents, listening to numerous witnesses and 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I have become 
more resolved to defend the Constitution of the United States 
and all its protections. As I witnessed the unfolding of this 
march to impeachment, I was jolted by the circumstances 
surrounding Independent Counsel Ken Starr's incessant pursuit 
of President William Jefferson Clinton.
    In 1994, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Kenneth 
Starr as the Independent Counsel to investigate Whitewater. 
Soon after, Mr. Starr's investigation extended into the death 
of Vince Foster, the FBI files, the White House Travel Office 
files. Finally, after 4 years and over $40 million later, the 
President was exonerated by Kenneth Starr. This revolution of 
exoneration was not made by way of a planned press conference, 
but rather Mr. Starr casually asserted the President's 
exoneration in his statement before the Judiciary Committee on 
November 19, 1998, 16 days after the November 3rd election.
    At this same hearing, Mr. Starr appeared as an advocate for 
impeachment; an extraordinary appearance by an Independent 
Counsel whose professional responsibility is to gather the 
facts and evidence for the Members of Congress to arrive at our 
own conclusion. Mr. Starr's flagrant disregard for the 
constitutional protection that one is innocent until proven 
guilty, is apparent in many forms.
    For some time now Mr. Starr's bias and ruthless 
investigative tactics have gained the attention of legislators, 
many civil rights groups and citizens of this Nation. No 
justice-loving American can respect the ill-gotten, ill-
conceived, convoluted allegations based on the investigation of 
a private, personal, sex-related affair. Mr. Starr tripped 
backwards into the Lewinsky matter because everything else he 
was investigating yielded him nothing. Zilch. Zero.
    Mr. Starr's obvious bias and dislike of the President, his 
investigatory tactics, and his flimsy case does not meet the 
constitutional standard for impeachment. For example, Mr. Starr 
had a relationship with Paula Jones's lawyer, Gilbert Davis. In 
fact, Mr. Starr failed to disclose that he had six 
conversations with Mr. Davis in the summer of 1997 prior to his 
request to extend the Whitewater jurisdiction into the Clinton-
Lewinsky affair.
    Mr. Starr failed to disclose that Richard Porter, a law 
partner in his Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis, was doing 
legal work on the Paula Jones case earlier this year, including 
filing a brief to the Supreme Court. At least one week prior to 
January 12, 1998, when Linda Tripp is supposed to have 
contacted Starr's office, Jerome Marcus, a Philadelphia lawyer 
with ties to the Paula Jones legal team, informed a law school 
friend who is employed by Mr. Starr, of the accusations related 
to President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Mr. 
Marcus filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of the 
Jones case on behalf of the Independent Women's Forum, a 
conservative organization. Curiously, this is the same 
organization for which Mr. Starr helped prepare a brief in the 
Jones case.
    Mr. Starr's investigations relied on illegally obtained 
information from Linda Tripp. Simply put, Mr. Starr came to the 
position of Independent Counsel with unclean hands. By failing 
to disclose to Attorney General Reno his conflicts of interest, 
when he requested an extension of the Whitewater jurisdiction 
into the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, Mr. Starr displayed 
prosecutorial misconduct.
    Mr. Starr's investigative tactics are unparalleled. He has 
subpoenaed hundreds of witnesses, creating legal bills for 
innocent people who had no relationship to the facts of the 
case, and abusing his power by denying witnesses their basic 
rights. Among the victims are Monica Lewinsky, who was 
sequestered and whose pleas for her lawyers were ignored; 
Monica Lewinsky's mother who was called in to testify against 
her own daughter about her daughter's sexual activities; Julia 
Steele, whose tax returns were examined, her finances 
investigated, and to add insult to injury, the origins of the 
adoption of her 8-year-old Romanian child were questioned. Rob 
Hill, Jr., whose 80-year-old mother, two adult daughters, his 
brother, his sister-in-law, and his 16-year-old son were 
subpoenaed regarding Mr. Hill's misuse of political funds. Mr. 
Hill's 16-year-old son was served a subpoena at his high 
school.
    Mr. Chairman, I am not here to blindly support or defend 
President Clinton. I have opposed President Clinton on such 
issues as NAFTA, Fast Track, the crime bill, welfare reform, 
and much more. As I sit here today, and as God is my judge, if 
I felt Bill Clinton was guilty of impeachable offenses, I would 
join with the most right wing of my colleagues to impeach him. 
Witness my support of the McDade-Murtha bill, where I joined a 
right wing Republican in a measure that would hold Federal 
prosecutors accountable for their abuse of power.
    Rather, I am here in the name of my slave ancestors to 
insist that the President be afforded the constitutional 
protections that should be available to every citizen in this 
country. The President is neither above the law or below the 
law. As Members of Congress have sworn to uphold the 
Constitution, we must always insist on equal and just treatment 
under the law.
    The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is central 
and basic to our system of justice. The right to be free from 
intimidating and coercive self-incrimination is at the core of 
our criminal justice system. I have seen too many and I know 
too much about the violation of the rights of my own people. I 
can never remain silent in the face of injustice.
    Kenneth Starr's presentation of impeachable offenses is 
illegitimate. He has not made a credible case for perjury, 
obstruction of justice, or abuse of power.
    Finally, Mr. Starr has undermined his own investigation by 
his overzealous and unethical pursuit characterized by a ``get-
Bill-Clinton-by-any-means-necessary'' attitude. Americans 
across the Nation are offended that a prosecutor could have 
unlimited powers to delve into one's private, personal life. We 
have heard Members of Congress describe the President's actions 
as sickening, reprehensible and unacceptable; however, the 
Constitution does not allow for the impeachment of a President 
because we are upset by his personal behavior.
    Mr. Chairman, the 19 experts who appeared before the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, over 400 historians, 400 
legal scholars, 10 out of 12 of the Nation's most respected 
legal minds, and the American people agree that Mr. Starr's 
allegations do not reach the level of high crimes and 
misdemeanors. The Congressional Black Caucus under my 
leadership assigned to ourselves the role of fairness cops. We 
dedicated ourselves to exposing abuses.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Ms. Waters. Unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.
    Chairman Hyde. Surely.
    Ms. Waters. We vowed to speak up and to speak out. We 
decided to share the knowledge and experience of our people as 
we have struggled to make the criminal justice system fair. 
This committee may vote out articles of impeachment; however, 
we will not be deterred in our struggle for justice. We will 
fight impeachment on the House floor and we will join the fight 
in the Senate if necessary.
    The American people must realize, if the President can be 
impeached on these unsupported charges, no citizen is safe in 
our country, despite the sacrifices of the gallant men and 
women who have fought and died to ensure freedom, justice, and 
equality for all.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from 
Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant. I thank the Chair. The intersectional collision 
of President Clinton's deplorable conduct with our Constitution 
has set in motion this inquiry of impeachment. Each member must 
now match his or her action with the only authority the 
Constitution delegates to the House of Representatives. No 
more, no less.
    As such, we must not invent, for the purpose of expediency, 
a remedy which does not exist. The House cannot and should not 
be able to reprimand, censure or fine the other two branches of 
government--the judiciary or the executive branches. Rather, 
members must be prepared to vote their consciences on whether 
or not to impeach; that is, to charge the President with an 
impeachable offense. This is our single role in this process.
    Further, impeachment is not a part of the criminal law. 
It's not governed by the rules of criminal procedure or court 
precedents and not necessarily the rules of evidence. 
Impeachment is truly a unique constitutional process combining 
elements of the legal and political systems.
    Numerous scholars have come forward suggesting that not 
every crime is impeachable. Likewise, it is clear that an 
impeachable offense does not require a criminal law violation. 
The distinguished Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia has 
stated, ``An impreachable offense does not have to be an 
indictable offense of law.''
    Before we begin our evaluation of the charges, let's be 
clear that the standard we must attain in this House, before we 
can impeach, is not, and I repeat, is not the same case as that 
against President Nixon in 1974. Some intimate that the Nixon 
case is the magic threshold and anything less shouldn't be 
considered for impeachment. That is simply, as the President's 
legal team put it, ``a misleading statement.''
    Analogize this situation to the prosecutor in a law court 
who fails to indict the bank robber who robbed five banks 
because the prosecutor had previously indicted a robber of 20 
banks!
    As for our own evaluation, our first task is to ascertain 
the facts. The second task is to determine if the facts support 
an impeachable offense.
    As for the facts: President Clinton was sued by Paula Jones 
in a civil sexual harassment case. In her case, Ms. Jones tried 
to establish a particular pattern and practice of behavior by 
the President. This was not unique to her case. Most sexual 
harassment cases have to establish such a pattern.
    After former White House intern Monica Lewinsky was listed 
as a potential witness, a series of illegal acts ensued. The 
evidence establishes the President engaged in the following 
misconduct, in an apparent effort to prevent Ms. Jones from 
recovering a monetary damage judgment against him and to 
protect his presidency. The facts surrounding these unlawful 
events are:
    Number one, perjury. The President, through a series of 
calculated lies over a period of months, attempted to evade, 
mislead and provide incomplete responses to Paula Jones, the 
judiciary system and the American people. Disregarding the 
recognized legal standard of a ``reasonable man'' used in all 
courts, the President repeatedly used verbal gymnastics to 
redefine words and phrases such as ``alone,'' ``is,'' and 
``sexual relations.'' The latter interpretation, as admitted by 
his lawyer, results in the ridiculous conclusion that one party 
to a particular sex act may be involved in a sexual relation 
while the other party is not!
    And they also come into this high room and talk about how 
the President can give an incomplete answer and yet still 
comply with the oath he takes to tell the whole truth. 
Incomplete answer, whole truth, and give a misleading answer, 
yet tell nothing but the truth? And I am still waiting for an 
answer as to how you can square those concepts. But if anybody 
can do it, I'm sure this President can.
    Number two, obstruction of justice. Once the question arose 
concerning an ``improper affair'' with Ms. Lewinsky, suddenly 
there was a series of incidents to cover the tracks of this 
affair, including ridding the immediate area of evidence in the 
Jones case and Ms. Lewinsky. While the President's 
``fingerprints''--and I use that in quotes--aren't clearly on 
these actions, almost by magic the President is benefited by 
physical evidence disappearing from Ms. Lewinsky's apartment 
and reappearing under his personal secretary's bed. Ms. 
Lewinsky lands her long-sought job with a New York Fortune 500 
company within 24 hours of signing a false affidavit supportive 
of the President in the Jones case. How lucky can one man be?
    Number three, abuse of power. Any claim the President has 
had that his affair was a private matter and, at worst, grounds 
for a divorce changed when he brought the powers of his high 
office into play. The facts show that in the President's zeal 
to keep his affair from the Jones lawsuit, he allowed 
government-employed White House counsels, policy advisors, 
Cabinet members and a communications team to defend him and 
perpetuate those lies. He continued to use his staff for a 
period of more than 7 months to deny, stonewall and lie to 
those investigating this case.
    Now we must use a common sense approach to this evidence 
and look at the results of this series of calculations and 
incidents. Washington is a ``wink and nod'' community, where 
people do not need to say exactly what they want in order to 
get what they want done.
    Nor can we judge each act in a vacuum. The context, the big 
picture must also be considered. Just look at the time line, 
look at the actions, and the results which all benefit the one 
person who says he had nothing to do with anything.
    Throughout this process, we have also had the daunting task 
of determining whether these charges meet the standard of 
``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' and whether the rule of law 
can be interpreted to include these offenses.
    Surely, one cannot seriously argue perjury and obstruction 
of justice are not impeachable. They are fraternal triplets of 
bribery, which is spelled out in the Constitution. Each of 
these have the same effect of thwarting the truth in our court 
system.
    As former Attorney General Griffin Bell has testified, 
``The statutes against perjury, obstruction of justice and 
witness tampering rest on vouchsafing the element of truth in 
judicial proceedings--civil and criminal and particularly the 
grand jury.''
    Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington Law 
School told Congress that, ``The allegations against President 
Clinton go to the very heart of the legitimacy of his office 
and the integrity of the political system.''
    For those remaining few who persist that this is merely 
private or an example of trivial conduct, I draw your attention 
to the testimony before this committee of John McGinnis, a 
professor of law from the Benjamin H. Cardozo Law School, who 
said: ``Integrity under law is simply not divisible into 
private and public spheres . . . . It would be very damaging 
for this House to accept a legal definition of `high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors' that creates a republic which tolerates `private' 
tax evasion, `private' perjury, and `private' obstruction of 
justice from officials who would then continueto have the power 
to throw their citizens into prison for the very same offenses.''
    In addition, Steven B. Presser of the Northwestern 
University School of Law testified before this Congress: ``They 
are not trivial matters having to do with the private life are 
thus impeachable offenses. The writings and commentary of the 
framers [of our Constitution] show that they would have 
believed that what President Clinton is alleged to have done, 
if true, ought to result in impeachment and his removal from 
office.''
    Harvard professor Richard D. Parker also stressed the rule 
of law in his testimony before us: ``Now, consider another 
hypothetical situation: Suppose the President were shown to 
have bribed the judge in a civil lawsuit against him for sexual 
harassment, seeking to cover up embarrassing evidence. As 
bribery, this act would be impeachable [under the 
Constitution], despite its source in the President's sex life. 
What is the difference between that and lying under oath or 
obstructing justice in the same judicial proceeding--to say 
nothing of before a Federal grand jury--for the same purpose? 
By analogy, both sorts of behavior would seem grossly to 
pervert, even to mock, the course of justice in a court of the 
United States.''
    And finally, when one wants to blame the Congress for all 
of this--and we hear that very often--I issue the reminder that 
it was President Clinton and only President Clinton who 
consistently made wrong choices instead of right choices and 
who brought us to this point of national exhaustion.
    Also, remember the additional words of Professor McGinnis 
about our forefathers and their paramount concern about the 
integrity of our public officials: ``They recognized that the 
prosperity and stability of the Nation ultimately rest on the 
people's trust in their rulers. They designed the threat of 
removal from office to restrain the inevitable tendency of 
rulers to abuse that trust.''
    Could I have just one minute?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner [presiding]. Without objection.
    Mr. Bryant. Since these allegations were brought to the 
attention of the committee, my office has been inundated with 
phone calls and mail, and I have received an overwhelming 
number of calls in support of impeachment.
    However, I understand the concerns of both sides. I want my 
constituents back in Tennessee to understand I do not relish 
this position that I am in or the opportunity to vote in this 
impeachment matter. It is going to be the toughest vote that I 
am going to make as a Congressman.
    There are no winners or losers today. America has truly 
suffered. But the facts remain that our President has placed 
himself before the law and the Nation.
    In conclusion, I would join the more than 100 newspapers 
and numerous other Americans to call upon the President to do 
the right thing and the honorable thing, to resign from the 
Office of the Presidency. I thank the Chair.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    [The statement of Mr. Bryant follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.045
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.046
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.047
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.048
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.049
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.050
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.051
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.052
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.053
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.054
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.055
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.056
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.057
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3323.058
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. The rule of law. We have heard much about it 
over the past few weeks and we will surely hear more about it 
over the next few days. Above all, we have rightly heard that 
the rule of law must apply equally to President and pauper. 
Otherwise, law shall be the exception and not the rule.
    But in striving to fix the boundaries of the rule of law, 
we must not restrict our sights to the President. The rule of 
law must rule here as well. And there is one body of law and 
only one body of law that governs this committee's action when 
it meets to consider articles of impeachment: The Constitution 
of the United States.
    No, the law in this room is not Title 18 and Sections 1621 
and 1623 of the United States Code, the perjury statute, but 
rather Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United 
States: The President, Vice President, and all civil officers 
of the United States shall be removed from office on 
impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other 
high crimes and misdemeanors.
    If we forsake this constitutional standard and the 
precedents in which it has been applied, let there be no doubt 
about it, our actions will be lawless.
    I have read the words of our Founding Fathers and I have 
reviewed the precedents, and I am left to conclude that 
impeachable conduct is conduct which clearly, concretely and 
convincingly demonstrates that a President lacks the capacity 
to govern, that a President is unable or unwilling to fulfill 
his or her core responsibilities or respect the boundaries of 
his or her power.
    I also have a good sense about what isn't impeachable 
conduct. Being a bad husband is not in itself impeachable 
conduct. Failing to live up to the expectations of those who 
elected you is not, in and of itself, impeachable conduct. And 
breaking a law is not, in and of itself, impeachable conduct.
    So we must ask ourselves, how does Bill Clinton's conduct 
reflect upon his capacity to govern?
    Let us start with what we have learned about Bill Clinton. 
We have learned that he is more reckless in his private life 
than we even imagined--maddeningly reckless for someone with so 
much potential and so much to lose. We have learned that his 
instinct is to deceive when he is asked about his private 
recklessness, particularly when those doing the asking are 
linked to his political enemies. We have learned that this 
particular instinct to deceive carries into a judicial 
proceeding, though not without a competing instinct to act 
lawfully.
    What we see in Bill Clinton's sworn testimony are these two 
competing instincts at war. I believe that the instinct to act 
lawfully was surprisingly successful in battle, given the 
strength of its enemy. Yet that war produced two casualties 
that we should all lament: forthrightness and clarity. And 
lines might indeed have been crossed on occasion, most 
prominently with respect to the President's testimony about 
precisely where he touched Monica Lewinsky.
    I disparage Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica 
Lewinsky. I disparage what he did in his testimony, legal or 
not. I disparage what he said to the American people about this 
matter, and I disparage what he put this country through over 
the last 12 months.
    But can I conclude clearly, concretely and convincingly 
from the President's conduct that he lacks the capacity to 
govern? Only if I willfully blind myself to the rule of life, a 
phrase I borrow from Professor Lawrence Tribe. The rule of life 
teaches us that people are complex. They do wrong in certain 
contexts, yet the forces behind that wrongdoing do not 
necessarily infect every context of their lives. Where they 
have erred, they sometimes come to realize it, regret it, and 
confine it.
    Branding a President who teetered on the edge of illegality 
in testifying about an illicit affair a tyrant or a traitor-in-
waiting clearly defies the rule of life. In fact, when I look 
at Bill Clinton's acts of governance, I see no failure to 
execute our laws properly or no lack of respect for the 
boundaries of presidential power.
    It also defies the rule of life to suggest that allowing 
the President to remain in office will result in diminished 
respect for the rule of law or abandonment of reality. The 
American people are smart enough to know the difference between 
right and wrong; to realize that supposed role models who do 
wrong are models for nothing in those instances; to recognize 
that the President is already paying a steep price for his 
deception; and to understand that he remains subject to 
indictment and prosecution for any illegality he might have 
committed, whether we impeach him or not.
    Yet this committee, nonetheless, proceeds on a lawless path 
to impeachment, destined to arrive there on Saturday, December 
12, 1998. And despite the awesome constitutional and practical 
significance of impeachment, we have been proceeding as if we 
are about to do anything but something exceptional.
    Material witnesses? None to be found here, even though 
there are multiple instances of conflicting testimony on 
critical issues. We instead appear to have embraced a new 
theory of jurisprudence whereby the defense must prove its 
innocence to stave off punishment, or at least the burden 
shifts to the defense after the prosecution claims it hasmade 
out a prima facie case of some unrevealed charge.
    Accountable? Not us. We simply pass scandal on to the 
Senate, leaving it to the other body to do the dirty work of 
determining fact and meting out proportional punishment.
    Restraint? Only restraint from criticizing ourselves for 
having dumped a gratuitously salacious referral on the American 
people without even having read it first.
    I observe the polls indicating that the American people 
overwhelmingly oppose impeachment, observe how we have 
conducted this impeachment inquiry, and I find myself 
suspecting that I am witnessing some grand scheme to convince 
the American people not to take this process seriously, to tune 
us out and let us commit a constitutional wrong without anybody 
noticing.
    For those who might hope for this outcome, let me say to 
you that whether or not the American people tune us in today or 
in the following days, history will not tune us out. The 
leading constitutional law treatise describes history's view of 
the 1867 impeachment of former President Andrew Johnson with 
the following words, ``The congressional attempt to oust 
Johnson was itself an abuse of power.''
    I am sick at heart today, for I believe that similar words 
will come to characterize the actions of this committee and, 
perhaps, those of the House. Indeed, I fear not only how 
history will treat us, but how our actions will shape history. 
We lay the groundwork today for a startling precedent, a 
precedent by which private wrongs readily become grist for a 
reopening of elections; by which major constitutional clashes 
between executive and legislative branches are triggered by 
mere party line votes within the legislature; and by which the 
American people's views on what makes for a high crime and 
misdemeanor are flatly ignored.
    So, I say to my colleagues outside this committee who may 
not have made their minds up on whether or not to impeach the 
President and are watching us tonight, it is not only this 
President's and the Nation's fate that hangs in the balance, 
but also the fates of Presidents-to-be.
    Thirty more seconds?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Meehan. But also the fates of Presidents to be, and our 
fate in the eyes of history. Please, save the Constitution from 
an overreach. Save our Nation from a prolonged Senate trial. 
Save the House from the condemnation of history, and save 
history from this committee's excesses. Thank you.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, every member of our 
committee recognizes that this is likely the most important 
vote we will ever cast, and all of us would prefer that the 
President's actions had not led us down this fateful path. 
However, we have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, and 
we must fully accept that responsibility.
    As a father of two children, I am deeply troubled by the 
events of the last year. My children, who were taught at home 
and in church and at school that honesty and integrity do 
matter, have witnessed the President of the United States 
shamelessly lie to the American people. As a Member of 
Congress, and as an attorney, I am very troubled that every day 
in courthouses throughout this Nation, Americans raise their 
right hands and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth. They do so under the penalty of perjury. 
Yet in this case the President of the United States, the chief 
law enforcement officer of this land, has made an utter mockery 
of that fundamental precept. That is a travesty.
    No person stands above the law. All Americans, no matter 
how rich, how powerful, how well connected, should be held 
accountable for their actions--every American must be held 
accountable.
    Back in 1972 I cast my first ballot in a presidential 
election. I was 19 years old, a college student. Like a 
majority of Americans that year, I voted for a Republican, 
Richard Nixon. Four years later, however, I voted for a 
Democrat, Jimmy Carter. That decision stemmed from my profound 
disappointment over Watergate and a strong conviction that 
President Nixon should not have received a pardon, that he 
should not have gotten away with his actions.
    Since that time, I always hoped that our country would 
never again be confronted with an impeachment proceeding 
against an American President. But President Clinton's actions 
have again brought us to the brink of impeachment and he has no 
one to blame but himself.
    The grand jury didn't force the President to commit 
perjury. Judge Starr did not encourage the President to 
obstruct a lawful investigation, and, in fact, this committee 
did give the President innumerable opportunities to refute the 
evidence before us. Instead, the President chose to run from 
the truth, justifying his lies with twisted definitions of 
``is'' and ``alone.''
    But despite President Clinton's linguistic contortions, the 
evidence is strong, convincing and clear. The President of the 
United States, William Jefferson Clinton, has engaged in a 
pattern of cover-up and deceit. Standing alone, each individual 
offense is extremely serious. Collectively, they're 
overwhelming. It has become clear to me that the President lied 
under oath before a Federal grand jury, he lied under oath in a 
sexual harassment case, and he obstructed justice, and he 
abused his constitutional authority.
    Let me again review the facts. President Clinton lied to a 
Federal grand jury. He lied about whether or not he committed 
perjury in a civil deposition, and about the extent of his 
relationship with a subordinate government employee. President 
Clinton lied in a civil deposition in order to defeat a civil 
rights suit in which he was a defendant. He attempted to 
mislead the plaintiff's attorneys, relying on contrived cover 
stories and embracing false repetitions of, ``I don't recall,'' 
when he clearly did.
    President Clinton obstructed justice by encouraging others 
to lie in judicial proceedings. He sought to influence the 
testimony of a potentially adverse witness with job assistance, 
and he attempted to conceal evidence that was under subpoena.
    Finally, in conducting this cover-up, President Clinton 
used the power of his office to mislead, impede, and obstruct a 
Federal grand jury, a civil deposition, and the American 
people. He used government resources, including government 
attorneys and staff, to disseminate his deceitful story to the 
public and to the grand jury.
    Back in 1974, Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who served 
on the Judiciary Committee during Watergate, said that she 
would vote to impeach President Nixon in part because, and I 
quote, ``The presidential cover-up is continuing even through 
today.'' We find ourselves facing a similarly unfortunate 
situation. To this day, President Clinton continues to deny and 
distort. He continues to dispute the undeniable facts before 
our committee and before the American people. The President 
refuses even to admit what several prominent Democratic members 
in this committee have publicly concluded to be true: President 
Clinton lied under oath. Several Democratic members of this 
committee have acknowledged that.
    The historic record, the law and the Constitution tells us 
that the charges against the President do, indeed, rise to the 
level of impeachable offenses. They constitute serious 
violations of criminal law and fall squarely within our 
Founding Father's definition of high crimes and misdemeanors.
    Mr. Chairman, impeaching the President is an extremely 
serious matter. Throughout these proceedings I've tried to keep 
an open mind, giving the President every opportunity to refute 
the facts that have been laid before our committee. But now all 
of the evidence is in and a decision is at hand. It has become 
apparent to me that impeachment is the only remedy that 
adequately addresses this President's illegal and unethical 
acts.
    Allowing the President's actions to go unpunished would 
gravely damage the office of the President, our judicial 
system, and our country.
    I have not reached this decision lightly. I have done my 
share of soul-searching, I have listened carefully to the views 
of my constituents, and I have reviewed the evidence in 
excruciating detail, and much of it wasn't particularly 
pleasant, I can assure you; and I have been guided by our 
Constitution. In the end, the appropriate course is clear: 
impeachment. That is, regrettably, our only option.
    The argument has been made by the President's defenders 
that voting for articles of impeachment would set a terrible 
precedent. I respectfully disagree. To the contrary, burying 
our heads in the sand and refusing to acknowledge the gravity 
of the President's crimes would set a far more dangerous 
precedent. Giving the President a pass or a censure would set a 
dangerous precedent for future Presidents, for those who 
testify in our courts, and for our children whom we try to 
raise with respect for the truth and a sense of what is right 
and what is wrong.
    I ask my colleagues to search their hearts and answer this 
question: What message are we sending the youth of America if 
we abdicate our constitutional duty and allow perjury, 
obstruction of justice and abuse of power to go unpunished?
    When we cast our votes, we are not voting as Republicans or 
Democrats, we are voting as Americans. Our allegiance does not 
lie with any one President or with our country. Our charge is 
not handed down from any one political party, but from the 
Constitution. Every Member of this body is duty-bound to put 
politics aside, following our consciences, and uphold our oath 
of office. William Jefferson Clinton has disgraced the sacred 
office of the President. I have come to the conclusion that it 
is our duty to impeach.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner [presiding]. The gentleman's time has 
expired.
    The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to ask each of you to imagine you have been 
summoned to defend yourself in court. You don't know what you 
are charged with because there is no indictment. The prosecutor 
has spent four years investigating your financial dealings, but 
when you get to the courtroom he only wants to talk about 
sexual indiscretions.
    He sends the jury a 445-page report telling just his side 
of the story, and releases thousands of pages of secret grand 
jury testimony to the public. He calls none of the witnesses 
quoted in his report, so you can't challenge their accuracy. In 
fact, he calls only one witness: himself. Then it turns out 
that he has never even met your chief accuser.
    The judge allows new charges to be raised in the midst of 
the trial, but then drops them. He warns that you will be 
convicted if you do not offer a defense. Then, when you do so, 
he tells you not to hide behind legal technicalities.
    The scene I have just described wasn't dreamed up by George 
Orwell or Franz Kafka; it is not a Cold War account of a Soviet 
show trial. In fact, it is similar to what is taking place here 
in America during the course of this impeachment inquiry.
    We are about to impeach the President of the United States 
on charges that never even would have been brought against an 
ordinary citizen. We have delegated our constitutional duty to 
substantiate those charges to an unelected prosecutor. We have 
called no witnesses to testify to the charges except the 
prosecutor himself, and he admitted he has no personal 
knowledge of the facts and never even met Monica Lewinsky. None 
of his witnesses were subject to cross-examination to test 
their credibility, despite the majority counsel, Mr. Schippers' 
statement that they should be.
    Having put before the public a one-sided case for the 
prosecution, some members of the committee have suggested that 
the President has the burden of proving his innocence. When he 
has attempted to do so, those same members have accused him of 
splitting hairs. We have required the President's counsel to 
prepare his defense without knowing what the formal charges 
would be, and we released articles of impeachment to the press 
before Mr. Ruff had even finished his presentation.
    At our hearing the other day, one of my Republican 
colleagues alluded to those he considers real Americans. To me, 
the real America is a land where every person, whether pauper 
or President, is accorded due process of law. Due process has 
nothing to do with legal hairsplitting. It has everything to do 
with requiring those who wield the awesome power of the state 
to meet their burden of proof.
    That is what distinguished this country from a totalitarian 
one. That is the genius of the Constitution, crafted by men who 
knew and understood the nature of tyranny. As former U.S. 
Attorney Sullivan testified, those who complain most loudly 
about such technicalities are the first to resort to them when 
it is they who stand accused.
    For weeks members of the majority have cited the famous 
passage from ``A Man For All Seasons'' in which Thomas More 
defends the rule of law against those who would cut down every 
law in England to get after the devil. More says, and I quote, 
``And when the last law was down and the devil turned round on 
you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This 
country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's 
laws, not God's, and if you cut them down, and you are just the 
man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in 
the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the devil benefit 
of law for my own safety's sake.''
    We would all do well to ponder those words, Mr. Chairman, 
for though we have invoked the rule of law, we have failed to 
embrace it. How can the American people accept our verdict 
unless they are satisfied we have conducted ourselves in as 
orderly, deliberate and responsible a fashion as did the 
Watergate Committee in 1974, respectful of due process? 
Chairman Rodino did not proceed with the Nixon impeachment 
until it was clear that it had substantial bipartisan support.
    Chairman Hyde began these proceedings by observing that 
without such consensus, impeachment ought not go forward. Yet, 
this has been the most partisan impeachment inquiry since the 
infamous trial of Andrew Johnson five generations ago. It is 
like a runaway train.
    Within the committee, some of us have attempted to apply 
the brakes, developing a respectful though ultimately 
unsuccessful dialogue with our colleagues across the aisle. 
Elsewhere, growing numbers of thoughtful Republican leaders, 
from Governor Racicot of Montana to Governor Rowland of 
Connecticut, have expressed dismay, yet the train continues to 
gather speed. From my own perspective, this isn't even about 
President Clinton anymore.
    That he deserves our condemnation is beyond all doubt, but 
as President Ford has written, the fate of one particular 
President is less important than preserving public confidence 
in our civic institutions themselves. Article II of the 
Constitution provides a mechanism for removing our Presidents. 
It is called an election, and it happens every four years. 
Whatever the Founders meant by ``high crimes and 
misdemeanors,'' the one thing that seems certain is that 
impeachment should be reserved for situations in which the 
incumbent poses so grave a danger to the Republic that he must 
be replaced ahead of schedule.
    The House debated proposed term limits for Members of 
Congress. One of the most respected leaders of the House led 
that fight against that legislation, choosing principle over 
party. In his speech he said, ``The right to vote is the heart 
and soul, it is the essence of democracy. Our task today is to 
defend the consent of the governed, not to assault it. Do not 
give up on democracy. Trust the people.''
    The author of these elegant words is my friend, the 
Honorable Henry Hyde of Illinois. I remind him of these words 
today, not to throw them back at him, but because itseems to me 
that the consent of the governed is once more under assault and we 
sorely need such eloquence again.
    The President committed serious indiscretions. In the 
effort to conceal his misdeeds, he compounded them, abusing the 
trust of those closest to him and deliberately, cynically lying 
to the American people. Knowing this, the people went to the 
polls on November 3rd and rendered their verdict, and it is 
illegitimate for a lame duck Congress to defy the will of the 
electorate on a matter of such profound significance. The 
voters did not condone the President's behavior; far from it. 
But they knew the difference between misdeeds that merit 
reproach and abuses of office that require a constitutional 
coup d'etat.
    Some have said we are just a grand jury whose only role is 
to endorse the prosecutor's conclusion that there is probable 
cause to indict, and don't worry, they say, the Senate won't 
convict. This view is both dangerous and irresponsible. 
Impeachment is not some routine punishment for Presidents who 
fall short of our expectations. It is the political equivalent 
of the death penalty, with grave consequences for the Nation 
that all of us, Republicans and Democrats, so dearly love. We 
should not use the ultimate sanction--may I have an additional 
30 seconds?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner [presiding]. Without objection.
    Mr. Delahunt. We should not use the ultimate sanction when 
there is an alternative at hand, the joint resolution which my 
colleagues and I intend to offer, expressing our disapproval of 
the President's misbehavior and censuring him for it.
    If the President really did commit perjury or other 
criminal acts, the law will deal with him in due course. Our 
job is to safeguard the Constitution and the principle of 
popular sovereignty that is, in the stirring words of Henry 
Hyde, its heart and soul.
    There is still time to trust the people, Mr. Chairman. Let 
us do so before it is too late. I yield back, and I thank the 
Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The, gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    For four months now this committee and the Nation have 
struggled with issues at the very heart of our legal system: 
perjury, the rule of law, and impeachment. I have strived to 
keep an open mind, to study the historical precedents, to 
listen carefully to all who have spoken, no matter their party 
or political views, and to conduct myself in a manner that my 
constituents, history, and my children will respect.
    Now, I must make a decision. I do not believe that anyone 
should impeach the President of the United States without first 
discovering the truth. But while Judge Starr chose to submit a 
report charging the President with perjury, abuse of power, and 
obstruction of justice, the majority in charge of this 
committee never called even one of the witnesses who were 
supposed to have known the events firsthand. We did not hear 
from one of these fact witnesses. The college professors 
brought before us were not fact witnesses. Those convicted of 
felonies brought before us were not fact witnesses. There was 
not one person who could testify to what had actually happened 
in this case.
    Instead, we were forced to rely on Judge Starr's report, a 
series of portions of statements from a civil deposition, from 
people his staff chose to question before the grand jury, and 
Judge Starr's inferences and conclusions that he drew from all 
of these. None were ever cross-examined by the President's 
lawyers, even though there was a great deal of conflicting and 
ambiguous testimony given by each of those witnesses.
    David Kendall, Charles Ruff, the President's counsel, and 
Abbe Lowell, the Minority counsel, in their oral and written 
responses rebutted and refuted each and every one of the 
charges brought by Mr. Starr. And so, with the facts thus in 
doubt, I firmly believe it was incumbent upon those advancing 
the impeachment of a sitting President of the United States to 
bring forth the fact witnesses so that we on the House 
Judiciary Committee could hear them, see them, and most 
importantly, question them.
    Having the right to question and confront witnesses is an 
integral part of the very foundation of our American legal 
system, as is placing the burden of proof on those who are 
making accusations. I continue to hear from my Republican 
colleagues who say, why hasn't the President produced evidence 
exonerating himself? Well, look back at your law books, my 
friends. The accused is not required to prove his or her 
innocence. To put the burden of proof on the accused, in this 
case President Clinton, not only corrupts the Congress's 
impeachment power, but subverts 200 years of American justice.
    Some argue that the House Judiciary Committee does not have 
to delve into the whole case. We can just ship it along to the 
Senate, and let them get to the truth. They talk as if we were 
passing a bill to determine what the national flower should be. 
But what we are debating here is the impeachment of a sitting 
President of the United States, twice elected by the people. It 
strikes at the very heart of our Constitution and the balance 
of powers that has served us so well for more than 200 years; a 
balance of powers that has included a very high bar for the 
impeachment of a President, one which apparently the Republican 
majority now wishes to significantly lower.
    It is my opinion that a clear and convincing standard of 
proof must be met before the House Judiciary Committee and the 
House of Representatives can send an impeachment matter to the 
Senate.
    In the Federal Papers, the Founders showed a very real fear 
that a Congress dominated by one political party could 
recklessly and for pure political benefit impeach the President 
of an opposing or the opposite political party without 
sufficient cause or proof, causing a terrible shock and 
disruption to the entire American political system. That is why 
the framers set the bar for impeachment of a President so high. 
They rejected standards, such standards as maladministration 
and failure to demonstrate good behavior. Instead, they chose 
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. 
According to most constitutional scholars, that phrase clearly 
meant offenses as serious a threat to the Republic as treason 
or bribery.
    The President is not above the law. When he leaves office, 
criminal charges can be filed against him, and at any time he 
can be sued civilly for his actions. So the world knows and our 
children know that the rule of law applies to all of us, even 
the President, and he will have to confront the consequences of 
his own actions.
    But our responsibility today is not to enforce the civil or 
criminal law. That is what the civil and criminal courts are 
for. Our job is to determine whether the facts in Judge Starr's 
case have been sufficiently proven, and if so, whether the 
Constitution then requires our President to be removed from 
office.
    With no fact witnesses to prove the charges, with no 
opportunity to question them, with no opportunity to get to the 
truth, the prosecution here has not met its burden. Therefore, 
I am compelled and I will vote against the articles of 
impeachment against President Clinton based on Judge Starr's 
charges.
    But that does not end this matter. We must address the fact 
that in January of 1998 President Clinton wagged his finger and 
volunteered to us on television that he never had sexual 
relations with Monica Lewinsky. The President was adamant, and 
demanded that we believe him. At that time, he had no reason to 
rely on the narrow definition of sexual relations he believed 
he was held to in the Paula Jones civil deposition. He was not 
telling us the truth. He lied to us.
    While that lie does not rise to the level of treason, 
bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, the President's 
lie and his admitted adulterous behavior with Ms. Lewinsky in 
the White House demand our punishment. Only by punishing him 
for this conduct will we be able to look our children in the 
eyes and tell them that even Presidents will be punished if 
they lie and conduct themselves with dishonor.
    I will cast my vote with a heavy heart. This is a sad 
moment in our Nation's history, but I implore my colleagues to 
turn away from politics, turn away from shredding the 
Constitution with partisan shears and from bringing our Nation 
to the very brink of a constitutional crisis. Instead, turn and 
face history. Face the Founding Fathers and face the facts.
    Impeachment was never meant to be a political tool, nor was 
it meant to be a punishment for immorality. I implore you to 
reject impeachment and to preserve our Constitution. We must 
punish the President without punishing our system of 
government, our people, or our great Nation.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    That concludes the number of speakers for tonight. The 
committee stands in recess until 9 o'clock tomorrow.
    [Whereupon, at 9:40 p.m., the committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, December 11.]



                CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

                              ----------                              


                       FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1998

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:15 a.m., in Room 
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde 
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Henry J. Hyde, F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., Bill McCollum, George W. Gekas, Howard 
Coble, Lamar S. Smith, Elton Gallegly, Charles T. Canady, Bob 
Inglis, Bob Goodlatte, Stephen E. Buyer, Ed Bryant, Steve 
Chabot, Bob Barr, William L. Jenkins, Asa Hutchinson, Edward A. 
Pease, Christopher B. Cannon, James E. Rogan, Lindsey O. 
Graham, Mary Bono, John Conyers, Jr., Barney Frank, Charles E. 
Schumer, Howard L. Berman, Rick Boucher, Jerrold Nadler, Robert 
C. Scott, Melvin L. Watt, Zoe Lofgren, Sheila Jackson Lee, 
Maxine Waters, Martin T. Meehan, William D. Delahunt, Robert 
Wexler, Steven R. Rothman, and Thomas M. Barrett.
    Majority Staff Present: Thomas E. Mooney, Sr., general 
counsel-chief of staff; Jon W. Dudas, deputy general counsel-
staff director; Diana L. Schacht, deputy staff director-chief 
counsel; Daniel M. Freeman, parliamentarian-counsel; Joseph H. 
Gibson, chief counsel; Peter Levinson, counsel; Rick Filkins, 
counsel; Sharee M. Freeman, counsel; John F. Mautz, IV, 
counsel; William Moschella, counsel; Stephen Pinkos, counsel; 
Judy Wolverton, professional staff; Sheila F. Klein, executive 
assistant to general counsel-chief of staff; Annelie Weber, 
executive assistant to deputy general counsel-staff director; 
Samuel F. Stratman, press secretary; Rebecca S. Ward, officer 
manager; James B. Farr, financial clerk; Lynn Alcock, calendar 
clerk; Elizabeth Singleton, legislative correspondent; Sharon 
L. Hammersla, computer systems coordinator; Michele Manon, 
administrative assistant; Joseph McDonald, publications clerk; 
Shawn Friesen, staff assistant/clerk; Robert Jones, staff 
assistant; Ann Jemison, receptionist; Michael Connolly, 
communications assistant; Michelle Morgan, press secretary; and 
Patricia Katyoka, research assistant.
    Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law Staff 
Present: Ray Smietanka, chief counsel; Jim Harper, counsel; 
Susan Jensen-Conklin, counsel; and Audray L. Clement, staff 
assistant.
    Subcommittee on the Constitution Staff Present: John H. 
Ladd, chief counsel; Cathleen A. Cleaver, counsel; and Susana 
Gutierrez, clerk, research assistant.
    Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property Staff 
Present: Mitch Glazier, chief counsel; Blaine S. Merritt, 
counsel; Vince Garlock, counsel; Debra K. Laman; and Eunice 
Goldring, staff assistant.
    Subcommittee on Crime Staff Present: Paul J. McNulty, 
director of communications-chief counsel; Glenn R. Schmitt, 
counsel; Daniel J. Bryant, counsel; Nicole R. Nason, counsel; 
and Veronica Eligan, staff assistant.
    Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims Staff Present: 
George M. Fishman, chief counsel; Laura Baxter, counsel; Jim Y. 
Wilon, counsel; Cynthia Blackston; clerk; and Judy Knott, staff 
assistant.
    Majority Investigative Staff Present: David P. Schippers, 
chief investigative counsel; Susan Bogart, investigative 
counsel; Thomas M. Schippers, investigative counsel; Jeffery 
Pavletic, investigative counsel; Charles F. Marino, counsel; 
John C. Kocoras, counsel; Diana L. Woznicki, investigator; 
Peter J. Wacks, investigator; Albert F. Tracy, investigator; 
Berle S. Littmann, investigator; Stephen P. Lynch, professional 
staff member; Nancy Ruggero-Tracy, office manager/coordinator; 
and Patrick O'Sullivan, staff assistant.
    Minority Staff Present: Julian Epstein, minority chief 
counsel-staff director; Perry Apelbaum, minority general 
counsel; Samara T. Ryder counsel; Brian P. Woolfolk, counsel; 
Henry Moniz, counsel; Robert Raben, minority counsel; Stephanie 
Peters, counsel; David Lachmann, counsel; Anita Johnson, 
executive assistant to minority chief counsel-staff director, 
and Dawn Burton, minority clerk.
    Minority Investigative Staff Present: Abbe D. Lowell, 
minority chief investigative counsel; Lis W. Wiehl, 
investigative counsel; Deborah L. Rhode, investigative counsel; 
Kevin M. Simpson, investigative counsel; Steven F. Reich, 
investigative counsel; Sampak P. Garg, investigative counsel; 
and Maria Reddick, minority clerk.
    Chairman Hyde. The committee will come to order, please. A 
quorum being present, we will resume hearing opening 
statements, and the Chair now yields to the gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. Barr, for a 10-minute opening statement.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Barr starts, we had 
previously agreed to try to be as timely as possible; if we are 
going to have amendments, to let the other side know and let 
have the common decency of an opportunity to respond. I have 
been drafting amendments, but we haven't had, because of the 
time schedule, the opportunity to caucus, to determine which, 
if any, of those amendments might actually have support. So I 
just wanted to notify you that I may have amendments and will 
get them to you as soon as we possibly can.
    Chairman Hyde. The Chair would announce that at the 
conclusion of opening statements, we will have a 30-minute 
recess, and you folks can caucus and we can caucus so that can 
be more fully discussed.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Very well.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, it is morning in America, literally and 
figuratively. Children all across this land are now sitting 
down in their classes, having been led in the Pledge of 
Allegiance to our flag by dedicated teachers in classrooms 
large and small. Adorning the walls of those classrooms are 
pictures of great American heroes, such as George Washington.
    When asked to name the single most important gift America 
had given the world, Daniel Webster replied, the integrity of 
George Washington. How many of us have wondered, as a child, 
holding a shiny new quarter in our hand, why the profile of 
George Washington adorns more coin and paper money than any 
other national figure? Integrity.
    However, as we stand here today on the threshold of a new 
millennium, dazed by scandal and riddled with doubt, we are 
forced to confront the reality that in the words of Mark 
Halpern writing in the July 2nd, 1998, Wall Street Journal in 
an essay lamenting the decline of statesmanship, quote, we have 
only what we have.
    When I look out at this audience, Mr. Chairman, I see, we 
all see, America. We see Americans young and old, black and 
white, probably natural-born and naturalized, and just as 
probably rich and poor; citizens and likely hopeful citizens 
all drawn to America by something that makes generation after 
generation of boys and girls want to grow up in America, 
something that makes citizens of all other lands yearn 
desperately to come to our shores and become our fellow 
citizens.
    What is it that sets us apart, that draws people to America 
and keeps them here? Anyone who lives in this country, who 
visits America, quickly learns there is indeed something 
extraordinarily special about this place. It is something that 
all of us as Americans feel when we return to our shores from 
travel abroad. While there are indeed many things that make our 
Nation unique, in the final analysis everything that is special 
and unique about our country is built on and protected by one 
principle, the rule of law.
    Unfortunately, like many of the phrases in our national 
debate, the phrase ``rule of law'' has been so oft repeated, we 
risk losing our grasp on exactly what we mean when we say it.
    What is the rule of law? The rule of law finds its highest 
and best embodiment in the absolute unshakable right each one 
of us has to walk into a courtroom and demand the righting of a 
wrong. It doesn't matter what color your skin is, what God you 
pray to, how large your bank account is or what office you 
hold. If you are an American citizen, no one should stand 
between you and your access to justice.
    President John F. Kennedy put it this way: Americans are 
free to disagree with the law, but not to disobey it. For a 
government of laws and not of men, no man, however prominent 
and powerful, and no mob, however unruly or boisterous, is 
entitled to defy a court of law. If this country should ever 
reach the point where any man or group of men by force or 
threat of force could long defy the commands of our courts and 
our Constitution, then no law would stand free from doubt, no 
judge would be sure of his writ, and no citizen would be safe 
from his neighbors.
    This, though, is a the fundamental American right that 
President Clinton tried to deny a fellow citizen, Paula Jones. 
It could just as easily have been anyone here in this room, in 
the audience or on the committee. It could have been your 
husband, your wife, your child, your neighbor. It just happened 
to be Paula Jones.
    Whether one agrees with Paula Jones' case or not is 
irrelevant. What is very relevant is that, when she tried to 
exercise her indisputable right to take her case to the court, 
the highest official in our Nation tried to take that right 
away from her, that same public official who as Governor tapped 
her on the shoulder and had her escorted under the watchful eye 
of troopers to a hotel room and crassly demanded personal 
favors of her. Later, when Ms. Jones tried to walk into a 
courtroom, that Governor, now the President of the United 
States of America, slammed the door in her face, and it very 
nearly remained locked tight.
    In a society based on justice under law, such an egregious 
wrong cannot be ignored. We in this Congress on this committee 
absolutely cannot ignore it.
    Even more troubling is the evidence that this 
administration has used its power to do exactly the same thing 
to others. Need we remind America of the 900-plus FBI files 
brazenly and illegally misused by the White House.
    Anyone not possessing an infinite capacity for self-
delusion knows, whether they are willing to say it or not, that 
the President perjured himself on multiple occasions and 
committed other acts of obstruction of justice. It is also 
glaringly evident he enlisted others, from Cabinet officials to 
political operatives, in this endeavor, and that this endeavor 
continued into this very room.
    While reference for parallels with the Nixon impeachment is 
seductive but inappropriate, there are some points worth 
noting. In the Nixon case, for example, lying to Congress and 
to the American people in just such a manner provoked a 
separate article of impeachment. Is the danger of such an 
attack on our constitutional processes any less dangerous 
today?
    Sadly, I believe the case we are discussing today is but a 
small manifestation of President Clinton's utter and complete 
disregard for the rule of law. Throughout his Presidency, his 
administration has been so successful at thwarting 
investigations and obstructing the work of Congress and the 
courts that it may be decades before history reveals the 
vastness of his abuse of power or the extent of the damage it 
has wrought.
    President Clinton apparently subscribes to the same theory 
Richard Nixon articulated in a 1977 interview with David Frost. 
Nixon said, when the President does it, that means it is not 
illegal. That was dead wrong then, and it is dead wrong today; 
wrong, that is, unless one subscribes to the principle that the 
President is not only above the law, but that he is the law.
    With his conduct and his arrogance, William Jefferson 
Clinton has thrown a gauntlet at the feet of the Congress. 
Today, it lies at the base of this very dais. It remains to be 
seen whether we will pick it up.
    Throughout our history, there have been other times when 
the principle of equal justice under law was widely questioned. 
It happened when some Americans tried to deny other Americans 
access to justice based on their skin color. It happened when 
Japanese Americans were imprisoned in barbed wire stockades 
based on misguided fears. It happened in Watergate when a 
President abused his power in an effort to thwart political 
enemies.
    However, at each of these critical junctures, Americans, 
great and small, rose to the occasion. Justice, although 
sometimes delayed, did prevail. However, in each of these 
instances, good finally did prevail over evil. The rule of law 
survived, and we pulled back from the slippery slope, political 
slope that is, that ends in tyranny. And in each of these 
cases, America was guided by the law and the Constitution, not 
polls or focus groups.
    You know, as children all of us believed certain things 
with all of our hearts. We knew there was a difference between 
good and evil. We knew it was wrong to lie, and, equally 
important, that if we got caught, we would be punished. We knew 
that honesty and fairness were as much a part of why we 
respected our parents, pastors and teachers as we assuredly 
knew they were part of why we pledged allegiance to our flag.
    What happened to these simple things that we all knew in 
our hearts just a few short years ago? Why do so many adults 
now find it so hard to call a lie a lie, when as parents, 
teachers and employers we have no such hesitancy? Why do so 
many now resist the search for the truth and accountability 
when we do so day in and day out in our lives at home, in 
business, in school and in our religious institutions?
    In short, in the short time I have served in Congress, I 
have learned that this place, this city, has an incredible 
power to complicate the simple. The staggering ability to 
muddle simple issues is perhaps best illustrated by the fact 
that much of the President's defense has hinged on defining 
common words in ways that shock most Americans who think they 
have a rather firm grasp on the meaning of words, such as 
``lie,'' ``alone,'' ``is,'' ``perjury.'' But, of course, to the 
President's defenders, words, history and the records thereof 
are nothing more than leaves on a sidewalk in the fall, 
irrelevant items to be swept lightly away whenever one wants to 
walk from point A to point B.
    Where does all this leave us? What do we have? Do we have, 
in Mark Halpern's words, only what we have? I say, no. We are 
not locked in a strange parallel universe in which up is down, 
is becomes was, and being alone is a physical impossibility. We 
are not living in an alien world. We are living in America. We 
are living in an America in which we know that felons are 
prosecuted and not allowed to remain in office. We live in an 
America in which rights prevail, wrongs must be righted, and 
indeed we have to stand up today, tomorrow and forever for the 
rule of law, the Constitution and accountability.
    Vote articles of impeachment, which are the one tool given 
to us by our Founding Fathers to do precisely that, in 
precisely these circumstances with precisely this President.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.001
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.002
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.003
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.004
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.005
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.006
    
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Conyers, first let me thank 
you for your service to this committee.
    Fellow colleagues on both the Democratic and Republican 
side of the aisle, I am here today at this point in history, 
not to further the political divide, not with a liberal label, 
a Democratic label, Republican label or conservative label, 
because that battle has been fought these last few weeks, and 
no one has emerged the winner.
    I come here not angry at my Republican colleagues, but with 
a heavy heart. I come bearing feelings of somberness and 
sadness. I am sad not only because the House is considering 
articles of impeachment for the President of the United States, 
but because I recognize that we are doing it without clear and 
convincing evidence. Nor are we using the standard outlined by 
our framers of the Constitution: The President shall be removed 
from office on impeachment for conviction of treason, bribery 
or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
    Ironically, this is a sad moment, yet a historical one. It 
is sad because Congress has exercised its discretion to draft 
articles of impeachment which is almost equal to, if not 
greater than, the power to declare war. In 1691, Solicitor 
General Sommers told the British Parliament that the power of 
impeachment ought to be like Goliath's sword, kept in the 
temple and not used but on great occasions.
    Where do we go from here? Yes, the President did mislead 
the American people, and he alone must respond to them. 
However, have the accusations of perjury against the President 
been proven to warrant impeachment? No.
    Have the accusations of obstruction of justice against the 
President been proven to warrant impeachment? No.
    Have the accusations of abuse of power against the 
President been proven to warrant impeachment? No.
    By the response to the above questions, it is obvious that 
these articles of impeachment are not warranted. Nor are they 
demanded based on what this committee has before it. 
Impeachment is final and nonappealable.
    At the very outset, however, let me apologize to the Nation 
for being a party to a proceeding which has allowed an 
investigation to absorb the time and energies of this Congress. 
I know my fellow Americans across the Nation hope that we will 
be able to quickly get on with the people's business.
    Our challenge today is not to damage the Constitution, not 
to distort its clear meaning when it states in Article II, 
Section 4 that the President of the United States should be 
impeached only on grounds of treason, bribery and other high 
crimes and misdemeanors.
    The private acts of William Jefferson Clinton, no matter 
how reprehensible, do not, do not, constitute the intent of the 
framers by the above language, which suggests acts to undermine 
or subvert the government.
    What we have here are not proven facts, established like a 
court of law, by the give and take of questioning witnesses to 
what happens, through a legally constituted jury that has 
handed down a guilty verdict. All we have are allegations, 
brought to the Judiciary Committee by what appears to be a 
determined Independent Counsel.
    In perjury, the declarant must willfully offer testimony 
that the declarant believes is false before an individual can 
be convicted of perjury. No evidence presented by the majority 
has ever proven that the President believed that he gave false 
testimony. In fact, the credibility of a major witness relied 
upon by the majority was never tested in our committee.
    Mr. Schippers, the chief investigative counsel for the 
House Judiciary Committee, said ``Ms. Lewinsky's credibility 
may be subject to some skepticism.'' ``At an appropriate stage 
of the proceedings, that credibility will of necessity be 
assessed with the credibility of all witnesses in light of all 
the other evidence.'' That never happened.
    Mr. Schippers further charges the President with abuse of 
power. In committee I raised the following question to Mr. 
Ruff, the President's lawyer: Abuse of power requires the use 
of power. Did President Clinton in any way ask any of the 
members of his Cabinet to use the powers of their office to 
help cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky?
    His answer, in part, was, ``no, Congresswoman.''
    The American people have heard the charges of perjury, 
obstruction of justice, and they certainly know when a 
President has abused his power, caused his Cabinet officers to 
use the powers of their office in a conspiracy to cover up 
anything. This did not occur.
    How can we even begin to consider the statements of the 
President to his own wife to shield an inappropriate 
relationship that he had been having as an abuse of power? That 
is what the Independent Counsel would have you believe. It is 
preposterous, and it shortchanges the intelligence and 
perceptiveness of the American people.
    Now let me briefly note the process in which we have 
engaged in since the referral was sent to this committee in 
September 1998. There have been, including today, under 10 
hearings by this committee that would decide the fate of this 
Nation. There have been no fact witnesses brought by the 
Majority, who, under our well-understood system of justice, 
bear the heavy burden of proving that an impeachable offense 
has indeed been committed, and we have seen Mr. Starr,holding 
the same role as Leon Jaworski in 1974, remove his hat of objectivity 
and move from impartially referring the facts to being an advocate for 
the President's impeachment. Even worse, we have literally seen the 
prosecutor in this matter step away from his position as an officer of 
the court and step into the role of the witness in chief against the 
President of the United States, and this occurred to the horror of Mr. 
Starr's own ethics advisor, Sam Dash, who resigned because of it. This 
perverts the role of the Office of the Independent Counsel and violates 
the rules of professional conduct that all lawyers and judges must 
abide by.
    Mr. Jaworski was so concerned about subpoenaed material 
from the House Judiciary Committee in 1974, that he was willing 
to contest it. Now, however, where do we go from here?
    In Dr. Martin Luther King's book, Where Do We Go From Here, 
he talked about the limited gains that we have attained in 
civil rights. He said, however, conscience burned dimly. 
Justice of the deepest level had but few stalwart champions.
    We must find in this room today more stalwarts for justice, 
more champions for justice, those with courage to do the right 
thing, in fact, an uncommon courage. Somewhat similar to Daniel 
Webster, who I raise today, in his March 7th, 1850, speech 
when, in an attempt to hold this floundering Union together, he 
said, Mr. President, I wish to speak today not as a 
Massachusetts man, not as a northern man, but as an American 
and a Member of the Senate of the United States. I speak today 
for the preservation of the Union. Hear me for my cause.
    He was more concerned with avoiding the secession of the 
States. He wanted to maintain the liberty and the safety of the 
Union. When he finished, there was no applause, but Daniel 
Webster did succeed, but he succeeded in the light of great 
vilification. ``I know of no deed in American history done by a 
son of New England to which I can compare this but the act of 
Benedict Arnold.'' ``Webster,'' said Horace Mann, ``is a fallen 
star! Lucifer descending from heaven.'' But Daniel Webster 
maintained his support for the Union.
    So today I will join any colleagues in offering a censure 
resolution to bring the Nation together, to heal the political 
schism, sharp as it appears, rebuke, reprimand, condemn, 
censure the President. I believe censure is right, punitive and 
just, and we must have the courage to find that level of 
cooperation even in this committee.
    Those who will argue for impeachment want the ultimate act, 
removal of the President from office, and under these articles, 
a lifetime ban of the President ever being in public service 
again, appointed, voluntary. However, constitutional scholars 
have said there are no grounds for determining that Mr. 
Clinton's behavior subverted the Constitution. The punishment 
should fit the crime.
    Mr. Clinton has wounded his family and his country and 
admitted to an inappropriate relationship. Nevertheless, would 
deviance from traditionally moral, acceptable patterns of 
behavior be sufficient grounds for impeachment? A reading of 
the Constitution will suggest they had no such triviality in 
mind, but rather major offenses against the state.
    What actions have posed a threat to the security of the 
Nation and its position in world politics? Need one answer?
    I would not have anyone draw the conclusion that the 
behavior of the President should be condoned--his own counsel 
said it was maddening--or that I would recommend this as a 
model for our youth of America. God help our parents and our 
religious institutions to be their guide. On the contrary, I 
join with millions of other Americans in condemning the 
President's behavior. Yet, impeachment would not be grounded in 
the Constitution and has not been proven beyond a reasonable 
doubt.
    Wayne Owens, who served on this committee in 1974, said if 
you vote to impeach a President because of an improper sexual 
affair and avoided full disclosure, you impeach on that narrow 
base of personal, not official, misconduct, you do damage to 
the Constitution and to the stability of future Presidents. To 
those men and women, House Members who are now searching their 
souls, with censure you stamp this President's legacy forever, 
but you maintain the stability of the institution of the 
Presidency.
    In the gathering storm, Winston Churchill recommended 
special kinds of behavior under special conditions: In war, 
resolution; and in peace, goodwill. Because we are men and 
women of goodwill, always wanting the best for our Nation, when 
the dust of rhetoric and stage performance has settled, we 
should be able to sit down and reason together, for together we 
possess the qualities of men and women called by Jay Holland: 
God give us men and women a time like this demands, strong 
minds, great hearts, true faith; tall men and women who live 
above the fog in public duty and private thinking.
    Mr. Chairman, we are morally bound to make our disapproval 
known, but we can best do it through censure, an act which 
would help us maintain constitutional integrity and to ensure 
that Lincoln's dream of the future will remain a constant 
reality; that we will continue to live in a Nation where there 
is government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
    So today, Mr. Chairman, I vote no on the articles of 
impeachment and yes on censure to heal this Nation.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We are about to conclude an undertaking which this 
committee did not invite, a solemn responsibility that was 
thrust upon us after 430 Members of the House of 
Representatives voted for an inquiry of one magnitude or other. 
We are here to consider the conduct of a President of the 
United States.
    The committee did not initiate or encourage the conduct 
that brought us here. The Congress did not initiate or 
encourage the conduct that brought us here. The conduct was the 
conduct solely of the accused.
    Initially, it was a private matter that was met with 
reactions ranging from forgiveness to condemnation. Later, it 
gravitated to giving false testimony under oath in depositions 
and before a grand jury. We have heard sworn factual deposition 
testimony and sworn testimony from witnesses with a wide range 
of opinions.
    Most of the witnesses were very capable and well prepared. 
One witness recounted her own false testimony about a 
strikingly familiar personal relationship that led to her 
conviction for obstruction of justice. One witness appeared 
intent on dictating, even threatening, rather than informing, 
the committee, declaring in advance the historical condemnation 
of the committee and the entire Congress.
    Defense lawyers have constantly attacked the special 
counsel and his investigators. They have attacked the committee 
in their review of the referral of the special counsel. They 
have attacked the committee in accomplishing the task assigned 
to the committee by the full House of Representatives in House 
Resolution 581. It was not until the last day of the hearing, 
and then for a very few minutes, that defense counsel provided 
any factual evidence that the accused did not engage in the 
conduct charged or that the conduct did not constitute perjury, 
obstruction of justice or abuse of power.
    Wide-ranging testimony has been given to this committee 
about the burden of proof required to send this matter to the 
full House of Representatives. In my mind, the evidence is 
sufficient to vote some articles to the House of 
Representatives. Also, to fail to do so would deny the citizens 
across the United States, through their elected 
representatives, their voice and their vote on this divisive 
issue.
    From all of this, the committee must decide if the 
President committed perjury, obstructed justice or abused the 
power of his office, and if these constitute grounds for 
impeachment.
    Throughout this proceeding, many expressions of concern 
have been voiced about the Presidency itself. I share these 
concerns and have for decades. Since 1960, one President has 
been tragically assassinated. One President was driven out of 
office and did not seek reelection. One President was caused to 
resign. Three good Presidents were voted out of office after 
one full or a partial term of office. Only one President thus 
far, in almost four decades, has served two full terms in 
office.
    The Presidency, I think, is under attack, but amid this 
concern, there has been little mention that Presidents 
themselves can strengthen the Presidency by conducting 
themselves in a manner that brings pride and admiration and 
confidence to the minds of all of our citizens.
    We will soon know the conclusion of this committee's work. 
After it ends, whatever the outcome, I hope we will have a 
renewed and increased spirit of cooperation, to strengthen 
Social Security, to make our health care system more compatible 
to and considerate of patients and their physicians, to ensure 
that we have a strong national defense, to ensure that our 
children receive a good education.
    After all, we started this great Republic with a goal set 
out in the Preamble of the Constitution, to form a more perfect 
Union, to establish justice, to ensure domestic tranquility, to 
provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare 
and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our 
posterity.
    If there is a vote to impeach, it will not be the end of 
our Republic. Although our system is indeed fragile, it has 
survived impeachment; it has survived two world wars and 
numerous other conflicts, the Great Depression and a very 
bitter Civil War.
    The country survived these things partly because we 
believed that we all, and the least among us, are entitled to a 
measure of dignity and to be dealt with fairly and to not be 
overwhelmed by the most powerful among us. In order to continue 
that belief, those who have the mantle of leadership, who have 
power and privileges beyond the knowledge of the average 
citizen, and beyond the belief of some who have knowledge, must 
be expected to meet basic responsibilities. One of those 
responsibilities is to tell the truth under oath, as every 
citizen is required to do. If these responsibilities are not 
met, the average, ordinary American is overwhelmed. Our 
survival will indeed be in question. For those vested with 
great power and privileges, it seems to me that the simple code 
for them to follow is this: To whom much is given, much is 
expected in return.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Hyde. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Wexler, the gentleman from Florida.
    Mr. Wexler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would first like to commend our colleague from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, with respect to his opening remarks 
yesterday in which he described the powerful ramifications of 
being censured or reprimanded by this House. His comments, I 
believe, were courageous, and I hope illuminating.
    Mr. Chairman, this has been the scariest week of my life. I 
listened to Mr. Ruff, counsel to the President, and Mr. Lowell, 
counsel for the minority, each present a fact-by-fact rebuttal 
of the case against the President.
    I read the 184-page report by the President's lawyers that 
established the President did not commit grand jury perjury; 
did not obstruct justice; did not tamper with witnesses; and 
certainly the President did not abuse his office. But the 
Republicans on this committee did not listen. In fact, they 
drafted their articles of impeachment even before Mr. Ruff 
concluded the President's defense. This process has been a sham 
from the beginning.
    Wake up, America. They are about to impeach our President. 
They are about to reverse two national elections. They are 
about to discard your votes. They are about to exercise a 
congressional power that has been used only twice before in our 
Nation's history.
    Before the Starr Report was delivered to Congress, the 
Republicans said they would not even try to impeach the 
President over just the Monica Lewinsky affair. They promised 
grand White House conspiracies of misused FBI files, Whitewater 
land deals and Travel Office abuses. They promised patterns of 
lawbreaking. They found nothing.
    They said they would not impeach without public outrage, 
but much to their dismay, the minds of the American people have 
not changed. The overwhelming number of Americans do not want 
this President impeached based on this flimsy case.
    Well, wake up, America. This elitist group has decided that 
they know better than you. This committee will vote straight 
down party lines to impeach and remove the President of the 
United States of America.
    The articles of impeachment actually say William Jefferson 
Clinton warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office. 
And what is it all about? Sex. They use criminal terms like 
``perjury,'' but guess what the perjury is really about. The 
alleged perjury is about the discrepancy between the 
President's and Miss Lewinsky's testimony about the details of 
their relationship. You see, at the grand jury the President 
admitted he had inappropriate intimate contact with Monica 
Lewinsky of a physical nature. He acknowledged that it was 
wrong. But the President didn't specifically admit the details 
of his encounters with Ms. Lewinsky, like who touched whom and 
where. And the President denied having sexual relations with 
Ms. Lewinsky under the distorted definition put forth by the 
Paula Jones attorneys, a definition that even the presiding 
judge, Judge Wright, said was confusing.
    Imagine that the impeachment of the President of the United 
States hinges on a tortured definition of sex. That's what the 
perjury in the grand jury is all about, folks. But they are 
going to impeach the President anyway.
    The Republicans on this committee say the President 
tampered with witnesses. Well, you better wake up, America. You 
could be tampering with a witness and not even know it, because 
according to the Majority on this committee, you can be guilty 
of witness tampering a person who is not a witness in any case. 
The facts clearly show that Betty Currie was not listed as a 
witness or a potential witness at the time of the alleged 
tampering, but they are going to impeach the President anyway.
    They claim the President has obstructed justice, but let's 
look at the facts underlying these damning charges. Their star 
witness, Monica Lewinsky, testified under oath that nobody, 
nobody, asked her to lie, and nobody offered her a job for her 
silence. But they are going to impeach the President anyway.
    They claim the President abused his power. How? By 
asserting his constitutional rights and privileges pursuant to 
the advice of his lawyers. Well, wake up, America, because if 
they can do it to the President, they can do it to you. If this 
committee supports an article of impeachment for abuse of 
power, they will be saying that any American who goes into 
court and claims their constitutional protections is at risk. 
How un-American. But they are going to impeach him anyway and 
extend our national nightmare for another year, by sending this 
weightless case to the Senate for trial.
    So wake up, America. Our government is about to shut down. 
The public's business will grind to a halt. The Senate, the 
Supreme Court, and the House of Representatives will all be 
hostage to a process that never should have been triggered in 
the first place. If you are sick of all-Monica-all-the-time, 
you ain't seen nothing yet. Be prepared to turn on your TV and 
watch the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swear in Lucianne 
Goldberg, Linda Tripp, endless testimony in front of the whole 
world, showcasing America at its most absurd.
    When we started these proceedings, I expressed my fear that 
this impeachment, if successful, would forever lower the 
standard for impeachment for future Presidents. In my worst 
nightmare, I did not foresee this. There is no standard left. 
They have trashed it. They have trivialized the Founding 
Fathers' standard of treason, bribery or other high crimes or 
misdemeanors. They have made a mockery of this process. 
Clearly, there is no case for impeachment.
    The truth is, Mr. Chairman, if the question before this 
committee were about the morality of the President's actions, 
there would be no debate. The President's conduct was wrong. He 
did lie to the American people. In fact, for those of us who 
believe in this President, who are committed to his policies, 
who are motivated by his centrist philosophy, who are moved by 
his compassion for people, the President's relationship with 
Monica Lewinsky was more than wrong. It was heartbreaking. How 
could he have been so foolish? How could he have done such a 
reckless thing?
    There are no good answers to these questions, but I believe 
in my heart that morality is a complex equation; that good 
people sometimes do bad things; that moral people sometimes 
commit immoral acts. And when I look at the totality of this 
case, I am left with one undeniable conclusion: The President 
betrayed his wife. He did not betray his country.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Thank you, sir. The gentleman from Arkansas, 
Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    For over 25 years Bill Clinton has been a State and 
national star. President Clinton carried my State of Arkansas 
in the last election, he ran for the seat of Congress that I 
now hold, and has served my State as Attorney General and 
Governor. During this hearing, his negatives have been 
emphasized, but I am mindful that there are many qualities of 
Bill Clinton that I admire, and, of even greater significance, 
that people of my State admire. When he was elected President, 
it was a unique opportunity for a small State, not likely to be 
repeated.
    There is no question but that all of this impacts him and 
his family and when he expresses regret for his actions and 
requests forgiveness for his conduct, I have no hesitation in 
saying he should receive our compassion and encouragement. For 
those reasons, among others, this is not a pleasant experience 
for me.
    What I have discussed are personal issues of profound 
significance, but my responsibilities require me to consider 
the legal and constitutional consequences to the conduct in 
question. We on the committee are not jurors, but I am reminded 
of the instruction a judge gives to juries: ``You are not to be 
guided by your sympathies or prejudice, but by the facts and 
the law.'' In my judgment, that describes the duty of this 
committee. So let us look at the facts.
    The evidence has been established through sworn testimony 
under oath, corroborated in many instances by documentary 
evidence from computer disks to telephone records. The sworn 
testimony includes that of Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, Betty 
Currie, Vernon Jordan and others. The testimony establishes a 
pattern of false statements, deceit and obstruction. By 
committing these actions, the President moved beyond the 
private arena of protecting embarrassing personal conduct. His 
actions invaded the very heart and soul of that which makes 
this Nation unique in the world, the right of any citizen to 
pursue justice equally. The conduct obstructed our judicial 
system and at that point became an issue not of personal 
concern, but of national consequence.
    The clarion call for justice in this land was established 
in the Preamble to our Constitution, which states, ``We the 
people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect 
Union,'' and then it says, ``to establish justice . . . do 
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of 
America.''
    The second purpose stated for ordaining the Constitution 
was to establish justice. It is not for the President or his 
lawyers to determine who can or cannot seek justice. And if the 
President lied under oath in a Federal civil rights case, then 
he took it upon himself to deny the right of a fellow American, 
in this case a fellow Arkansan, equal access to relief in the 
courts. The President's lawyers have declared such a lie to be 
a small one, of small consequence, and therefore not 
impeachable, but I cannot see how denying the rights of a 
fellow citizen could be considered of small consequence.
    Now, speaking of the facts, it has been pointed out that 
the grand jury testimony of the various witnesses has not been 
subject to cross-examination. That is true. However, each of 
these witnesses are strongly sympathetic to the President. 
Vernon Jordan, his personal advisor and longtime friend; Betty 
Currie, his employee; and Monica Lewinsky, who resisted for 
months providing any statement to the Independent Counsel, and 
who would be subject to prosecution for any false statement.
    Of greatest significance, though, is the testimony of the 
President himself. The President's own words and admissions, 
combined with a dose of common sense, support the charge that 
the President lied under oath. The evidence not only shows the 
President giving perjurious statements, but he continues his 
assault on the judicial system by soliciting and encouraging 
false statements by others. This is evidence of an effort to 
obstruct justice.
    This leads me to the second argument raised by the 
President's lawyers. Even if the President lied under oath, 
even if he obstructed justice under these facts, that does not 
constitute an impeachable offense.
    Let me address that argument. Alexander Hamilton in the 
Federalist Papers said that impeachment must relate chiefly to 
injuries done immediately to society itself. Justice Story said 
impeachment should be reserved for great injuries to the state.
    I believe that damage to the state and to the integrity of 
government occurs when those in high office violate a court 
oath and the constitutional oath to ensure the faithful 
execution of the laws.
    One of the President's own witnesses, former Congressman 
Wayne Owens, stated in 1974 that for an action to be 
impeachable conduct, ``it must be a violation of a principle of 
conduct which Members of the House determine should be applied 
to all future Presidents and established as a constitutional 
precedent.''
    I believe Mr. Owens is correct. I have no trouble in 
setting a benchmark that future Presidents cannot willfully and 
repeatedly lie under oath in an official judicial proceeding 
without jeopardizing their office. On the contrary, I have a 
great deal of trouble in lowering the standards to say to 
future Presidents, lying under oath, no matter how often and no 
matter how intentional, is considered acceptable conduct.
    As the Supreme Court said in United States v. Holland, 
``Perjury, regardless of the setting, is a serious offense that 
results in incalculable harm to the function of the legal 
system, as well as to private individuals.''
    In my judgment, perjury goes to the heart of our judicial 
process and our very system of government and constitutes a 
high crime and misdemeanor.
    What happens if we fail to act? It appears to me that we 
quietly embrace and even aid in the gradual subversion of our 
core belief that we are a Nation of laws, and that all of us, 
regardless of wealth or power, deserve equal treatment in the 
eyes of the law.
    The next defense that is presented on behalf of the 
President is that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr did not 
conduct the investigation properly, and therefore we should not 
move forward. There have been many criticisms of Judge Starr, 
some justified and some without merit. In hindsight, I would 
have preferred that the Attorney General had appointed a 
different Independent Counsel on the Lewinsky matter; that 
Judge Starr had been more actively involved in interviewing the 
witnesses; that he had not engaged in outside representation, 
and that he had been less of an advocate and more of a conduit 
of the facts. But let meassure everyone that I have engaged in 
an independent review of the facts, and despite these criticisms, the 
President had a decision to make when he testified in the civil 
deposition and in the grand jury. He could tell the truth, or he could 
lie.
    The Supreme Court has said, in United States v. Mandujano, 
that the defendant was free at every stage to interpose his 
constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, but 
perjury was not a permissible option. The Court rejected the 
defendant's argument that his testimony, because it was 
obtained in violation of his rights, could not be used in the 
criminal prosecution. The conclusion is that allegations of 
misconduct on the part of the government are not an excuse for 
perjury.
    It is reminiscent of every criminal case that I have 
prosecuted to hear the President's lawyers attack the 
prosecutor, blame this committee, criticize the process and 
refuse to take responsibility. I concede his lawyers this 
tactic, but I have also urged him to show me compelling facts 
rebutting the long trail of evidence suggesting that the 
President lied under oath and obstructed justice. This they 
have not done to my satisfaction.
    The final argument of the President is that to go forward 
with an impeachment trial would traumatize the country. First, 
as usual, I believe that the trauma is overstated; but more 
importantly, the strength of the Constitution is understated. I 
believe our Constitution is strong, and we need to follow it 
and trust it. It will work as the Founding Fathers designed it. 
As Barbara Jordan stated at a similar time in 1974, ``My faith 
in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total.'' I 
share that belief.
    In the next few days I will cast some of the most important 
votes of my career. Some believe these votes could result in a 
backlash and have serious political repercussions. They may be 
right, but I will leave the analysis to others. My preeminent 
concern is that the Constitution be followed and that all 
Americans, regardless of their position in society, receive 
equal and unbiased treatment in our courts of law.
    The fate of no President, no political party and no Member 
of Congress merits a slow unraveling of the fabric of our 
constitutional structure. As John Adams said, ``We are a Nation 
of laws, not of men.''
    Our Nation has survived the failings of its leaders before, 
but it cannot survive exceptions to the rule of law in our 
system of equal justice for all. There will always be 
differences between the powerful and the powerless, but imagine 
a country where Congress agrees the strong are treated 
differently than the weak, where mercy is the only refuge for 
the powerless, where the power of our positions governs all of 
our decisions. Such a country cannot long endure.
    God help us to do what is right, not just for today, but 
for the future of this Nation and for those generations that 
must succeed us. Thank you.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    [The statement of Mr. Hutchinson follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.007
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.008
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.009
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.010
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.011
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.012
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.013
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.014
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.015
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.016
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.017
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.018
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.019
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.020
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.021
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.022
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.023
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.024
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.025
    
    Chairman Hyde. The distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, 
Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As we move toward consideration of articles of impeachment 
of a President for only the second time in the past 130 years, 
I recognize the gravity of the matter before us. For the 
decision we make today is important not only now, but important 
for future Members of Congress and for our children and 
grandchildren as well.
    The President's actions were wrong. It was wrong for him to 
make false statements concerning his reprehensible conduct with 
a subordinate, and it was wrong for him to take steps to delay 
discovery of the truth. But the constitutional question is not 
whether his actions were right or wrong. The question is 
whether his actions rise to the level of an impeachable 
offense, and if so, should we invoke this drastic 
constitutional remedy of impeachment, set aside the only 
national election in this country and remove him from office? 
And ultimately the question is what is best for the people of 
this country.
    To answer these questions, we have to ask another question: 
Who committed these sins? Were these the sins of Bill Clinton, 
the President, or Bill Clinton, the man? To some, this is a 
distinction without a difference, but I believe the framers of 
our Constitution contemplated a distinction when they wrote of 
treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. For if 
it was Bill Clinton, the President, if any wrongdoing he 
committed was committed against the body politic, if it 
undermined our representative form of government, then it would 
be necessary to remove him from office, not to punish him, but 
to ensure that our democratic form of government is 
safeguarded. But if the sin were committed by Bill Clinton, the 
man, sins nonetheless, the decision becomes more difficult.
    As our predecessors on this committee recognized 24 years 
ago, impeachment is reserved for grave offenses against the 
state, those that threaten our system of government. Not all 
crimes are impeachable. One must examine the conduct in 
question to determine whether it is impeachable. Most offenses 
undermine one thing or another; that is why they are proscribed 
by the criminal law. Most people would agree that running a red 
light does not fall within the narrow category of offenses that 
are impeachable, but if everyone did it, countless people would 
die on unsafe streets. So the question isn't whether lying 
under oath or perjury undermine the system of justice in a 
general sense. The question is whether the specific conduct 
represents a grave offense against the state and is a threat to 
our system of government.
    Assuming that the evidence before us, most of it 
hearsay,untested by cross-examination, did establish perjury and 
obstruction of justice, I would have to conclude that the matters the 
President allegedly lied about, the matters he allegedly obstructed 
justice about, are not, except in the most attenuated, abstract sense, 
a threat to our system of government. This case is not like Watergate, 
which involved the obvious and direct misuse of government power, and 
it is not a case of lying or obstruction on a matter of public concern. 
We cannot escape the fact that the President's misconduct related to 
his private life. It was not a great and dangerous offense against the 
state. It does not threaten our Republic, and we need not remove him to 
protect our democracy.
    I acknowledge that there are exceptions to the rule that 
high crimes and misdemeanors must relate to public conduct. If 
a President had committed murder, not an offense against our 
representative form of government, I would vote for 
impeachment. I believe I would be so offended by the immorality 
and the intrinsic wrongfulness of the act that our democratic 
system of government would have to be cleansed of the 
wrongdoing. The allegations against the President, although 
serious, do not rise to this level. So I must conclude that 
perjury, per se, does not constitute an impeachable offense as 
intended by our forefathers.
    This is where I pause. I pause because the allegations 
against the President do raise questions about his character. I 
ask myself, if it were a Republican President in this 
predicament, what would I do? Would I maintain consistency and 
impose impeachment even if I both opposed his public policies 
and personal conduct? I pray that I would treat the two 
situations consistently, and I pray I never have to face that 
question.
    To those who fear that a vote against impeachment would 
mean that it is okay to lie, it is okay to mislead and deceive, 
I submit that this President has not and will not escape 
punishment. He has suffered a public humiliation that few will 
ever know. And humiliation is not the end of his troubles. If 
we reject impeachment in the next few days, we can censure and 
condemn him for his conduct. There is no constitutional bar to 
censure. It is within our power. More importantly, it is the 
just and appropriate remedy for this misconduct. For a man 
undoubtedly concerned about his place in history, this is no 
small punishment. He would be only the second President of the 
United States ever censured.
    What is more, we should not forget that President Clinton 
is subject to criminal prosecution after he completes his term 
of office. He is neither above the law nor below it. He can and 
should be treated like every other citizen who may have 
committed similar offenses.
    Unfortunately, the President's conduct is not the only 
unsettling component to our present crisis. I am also deeply, 
deeply troubled by the events leading up to the President's 
deposition in the Jones case. There clearly was a channel of 
communication between Ken Starr's office and Paula Jones' 
attorneys through Linda Tripp, and I believe her motives and 
actions, in part personal and in part political, cannot be 
ignored here.
    If we are to set aside our only national election, we must 
be confident that political enemies or political motives did 
not set the stage for this political morality play. For if they 
did, then there is a potentially greater danger here to our 
democracy than lying about sex. The grave act of setting aside 
a national election cannot be agitated by those forces that 
failed to prevail at the ballot box.
    I stress again that my deep concern about the Linda Tripp 
connection in no way excuses Bill Clinton for his wrongdoing. 
That is why it is important that he remain subject to 
appropriate criminal and civil action after he leaves office. 
And that is why it is important that this institution impose a 
sanction appropriate to the President's actions. That is why I 
favor censure. A censure reflects the gravity of the 
President's wrongdoing.
    I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your decision to 
permit a vote on our censure resolution here in committee. I 
agree with you that it will foster comity. But I have another 
request, not just to you, but to all my colleagues on this 
committee. I have listened as many, if not most, Members on the 
Republican side of the aisle have asserted that this is a vote 
of conscience. And Mr. Schippers, in his closing argument, 
specifically noted the importance of voting one's conscience.
    I respect each and every member of this committee who votes 
his or her conscience. On a matter as important as this, party 
identification should not be, must not be, the deciding factor. 
Conscience must be. So my request to you is a simple and 
straightforward one. Please let me vote my conscience, both 
here in committee and on the floor. Please allow our censure 
resolution to move to the Rules Committee, either on a positive 
or a negative vote.
    I and many others in this Congress should not be denied the 
right to vote our conscience, the right that many here assert 
genuinely, I believe, as their rationale for supporting 
impeachment. To deny us that right would be the rawest of raw 
partisan politics. It would confirm the fear that party leaders 
and not conscience are dictating this committee's actions.
    Not a single Member of this institution should fear a vote 
of conscience. Not a single Member of this Congress should be 
part of any plan to deny other Members of Congress the 
opportunity to vote their conscience on an issue of as grave 
constitutional import as this.
    Mr. Chairman, as you know, I joined this committee the day 
it received the Starr Report. I am the most junior member. I 
honestly walked into the first hearing believing our proceeding 
would be nonpartisan. I don't know if I was more like Mr. Smith 
Goes to Washington or Gomer Pyle. I even thought that we might 
be sitting physically like grand jurors, individually, not 
divided by party, like gladiators fighting a partisan fight.
    Well, I was wrong, and I think many members of this 
committee on both sides of the aisle are disappointed on how 
partisan this has been. I don't think any of us intended it to 
be this way. Perhaps I am as naive now as I was when I first 
joined the committee, but I don't think so. I call it optimism, 
because I believe my colleagues on this committee recognize 
that our vote of conscience may be different from their vote of 
conscience. And I believe that you know in your heart of hearts 
that it would be a partisan tactic to prevent us from voting 
our conscience.
    Let's leave this room together, not as Democrats and 
Republicans, let us leave this room as Americans, hand in hand, 
and take the vote to the floor of the House of Representatives. 
Conscience will prevail. Conscience should prevail, and if that 
happens, justice will prevail.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Pease, the 
gentleman from Indiana.
    Mr. Pease. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The issues before this committee are of such nature and 
consequence that I, like so many others, have struggled to 
impose on myself a discipline of open-mindedness for as long as 
I possibly could. That decision has had its consequences as I 
have found myself criticized from across the political spectrum 
for not declaring myself, nor advocating a conclusion, even as 
the committee was still receiving evidence and hearing 
argument.
    I understand and accept those consequences as inevitable. 
Just as though I wish fervently this matter were not before us, 
wishing will not make it so.
    My intention was to prepare these remarks personally, 
following the conclusion of the President's defense on 
Wednesday, assuming I would have several hours to collect my 
thoughts, and do the best I could to present them in a fashion 
that measures up to the importance of the moment.
    Instead, I went to the Ford Building, reviewed again the 
evidence presented by Mr. Ruff in his thoughtful defense of the 
President, went to my office to review the notes I've made over 
the last few months, and went to God in prayer for guidance and 
strength. These thoughts, therefore, are collected in bits and 
pieces as time has availed itself in limited supply during the 
last day and a half, and now it is time for decisions. I 
believe I owe an explanation of the process by which I reached 
them.
    It seemed to me that I must first decide the role which 
this committee assumes. Some have argued that we are akin to a 
grand jury and that we need simply to find probable cause of 
commission of high crimes and misdemeanors in order to approve 
articles of impeachment. Others contend that we must be 
convinced that the trier of fact, in this case the Senate, 
would convict on an article before it could be reported out.
    Though there is a difference between this matter and the 
prosecution of a crime, I believe that there is a parallel 
between the decision to indict and the decision to impeach in 
this regard: While a prosecutor should not, in my view, bring a 
case unless he is convinced under the law and the facts that an 
unbiased jury would convict, the House and the committee in its 
role recommending to the House should not vote articles of 
impeachment unless it also believes that the Senate, looking 
only at the Constitution and the facts, would convict as well.
    As to the standard of proof, there are those who argue that 
since this is not a criminal matter, the usual standard in 
civil cases--preponderance of the evidence--should obtain. Some 
believe that since there are parallels to criminal law or 
because the matter is of such national import, the criminal 
standard of beyond a reasonable doubt should be employed.
    As I have already distinguished this from criminal 
prosecution, but because I believe that the standard must be 
higher than that normally the case in civil proceedings, I have 
determined to evaluate the allegations against the President by 
a standard of clear and convincing evidence.
    Most difficult is the determination of what constitutes a 
high crime or misdemeanor. The Founders deliberately left out a 
definition, and though it would in some sense have made our 
work easier had they crafted one, I believe that their decision 
was right for the Nation.
    Some contend that the action complained of must be and can 
only be an offense against the state, one that constitutes a 
direct attack on the body politic. Others observe that while 
such actions would clearly qualify, they are not exclusive of 
other actions, even personal actions, but of a clearly heinous 
nature. Others submit that since the constitutional language is 
``high crimes and misdemeanors,'' there can be no impeachment 
unless there is first a prosecutable crime. As I have earlier 
observed, I am not prepared to accept that the standard of 
performance for an American President is simply that he or she 
is not indictable.
    I agree with those who assert that every American is 
entitled to privacy in his or her personal life and that no 
matter what we may think of another's actions in that regard, 
it is, to use the vernacular, simply none of our business. 
Period. Our business does include, though, the performance of 
public duties, the integrity of the judicial process and the 
protection and defense of the Constitution.
    Accordingly, I have concluded that perjury or false 
statements under oath, obstruction of justice and abuse of the 
office of the presidency are all impeachable offenses. I 
believe, given the facts before this committee, that each of 
them has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence in this 
case. I also believe, though, that every presumption in favor 
of the President must be made, both regarding the facts and 
regarding the standard of proof. The more I have seen and read 
of the President's statements, both under oath and otherwise, 
the more difficult this has become, but I have persisted.
    Having reviewed and reviewed the material, I do not believe 
that all of the allegations presented meet the standard of 
being proven by clear and convincing evidence. The final 
assessment of which meet what I believe to be the necessary 
higher standard of proof will depend, in part, on the form the 
articles take after the committee completes the amendatory 
process. Given what I know now, though, I anticipate that I 
will conclude this matter the way I began it, somehow managing 
to irritate virtually everyone in my district who holds an 
opinion on the subject.
    Those who believe there's nothing here will be disappointed 
to know that I believe there is. Those who want me to do 
everything I can to vilify this President in every way possible 
will be disappointed to know that my assessment on the facts 
cannot allow me to do so.
    I long ago gave up the notion that I could depart these 
proceedings undamaged, so I have done what I have always known 
I must do anyway--depend on the Constitution as my compass, and 
my conscience as my guide.
    As I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer an 
observation about this committee. It has often been called one 
of the most polarized in the Congress. The confrontational 
approach, though regularly seen here, is one that I abhor and 
which has made service even more difficult for me than it might 
otherwise have been. There are membershere with whom I strongly 
disagree. There are some I find annoying, even abrasive. But I believe 
all of the members of this committee are decent human beings who are 
honestly trying to do the right thing as they see it.
    Over the last few months, I have met with a subset of this 
committee, Republicans and Democrats, in an effort to maintain 
communication, look for consensus, reaffirm respect. I have 
learned many things from them and from others on this committee 
for which I will always be grateful, but one seems especially 
pertinent today.
    Our votes will likely be characterized by many as strictly 
partisan, implying that decisions here will be made simply on 
the basis of party affiliation. I believe firmly that each of 
us honestly, sincerely struggled to do what he or she believed 
must be done and that party affiliation was not the basis for 
decisions made here. Those who contend otherwise regarding 
members in either party do a disservice to the members of this 
committee, to their work and to the Congress.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The distinguished gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as I begin, may I 
just thank you for your steady hand on the tiller of this 
committee. You've done so through personal criticism, whirling 
debate and alliances, and I appreciate your steadiness there.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank you.
    Mr. Cannon. We are at a defining moment in our history. 
What we do here will set the standard for what is acceptable 
for this and future Presidents. I believe profoundly that the 
behavior of this President is unacceptable because I agree with 
John Jay, one of our Founding Fathers, who said, ``When oaths 
cease to be sacred, our dearest effort and most valuable rights 
become insecure.'' Let me just repeat that. ``When oaths cease 
to be sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights become 
insecure.''
    I believe that, whatever critics may allege, John F. 
Kennedy loved and wanted to preserve this most extraordinary 
constitutional system of ours, as he said. President Kennedy 
had something to say about presidential responsibility and 
oaths. Please allow me to share a comment by President Kennedy 
regarding oaths. And would you please direct your attention to 
the video monitors.
    (Videotape played.)
    [Information not available at time of printing.]
    Mr. Cannon. John Jay and President Kennedy were looking at 
the world from a similar perspective. I invite you to consider 
the context from which they were speaking.
    Our dearest rights, to which Jay referred, are set forth in 
the Declaration of Independence. They are the inalienable 
rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, commonly 
referred to as the right to property, with which we are in 
endowed by our Creator. In other words, these rights are of 
divine origin but they are subject to mortal abuse. The purpose 
of government to Jay and to Kennedy is to make those rights 
secure against abuse.
    What does the sacredness of oaths have to do with the 
security of our rights? President Kennedy thought that if a 
President were not to fulfill the obligations, the obligations 
of his oaths, that he would begin--that is, the President, any 
President, he suggested--that he would begin to unwind this 
most extraordinary constitutional system of government. He was 
not and we are not talking about separation of powers. We are 
not talking about the other constitutional concepts like the 
delegated powers and reservation of powers to the States. 
Kennedy and Jay are referencing something more fundamental. 
They are talking about the glue that holds our system together.
    Now, our system can take a lot of abuse. It is resilient. 
It can handle strong, spirited debate. It can even handle 
violent conflicts like the Civil War. But attempts to make a 
sacred oath flexible are like introducing solvent into a system 
that is glued together; the whole system comes apart.
    President Kennedy knew this. He was questioned, can you 
tell us about the outlook for your civil rights program and, 
sir, why are you pushing it so vigorously? Kennedy responded, I 
know that this program has not gotten a lot of support here in 
Florida. He's talking to an antagonistic audience. He's angry 
at them because he is doing something that those people don't 
want him to do. This is a robust debate over civil rights.
    And Kennedy continues, ``I think you gentlemen should 
recognize the responsibility of the President of the United 
States. His responsibility is different from what your 
responsibility may be. In this country, I carry out and execute 
the laws of the United States. I also have the obligation of 
implementing the orders of the courts of the United States. And 
I can assure you that whoever is President of the United 
States, he will do the same, because if he did not, he would 
begin to unwind this most extraordinary constitutional system 
of ours. So I believe strongly in fulfilling my oath in that 
regard.'' And that regard means, if he didn't fulfill his oath, 
the system would begin to unwind. It is inexorable.
    We have heard much comparing this matter with Watergate. 
Nixon is said to have abused citizens to the IRS, the CIA and 
the FBI. We do not have before us allegations that this 
President has done the same. Though popular press reports many 
abuses, we cannot and should not pass judgments on those 
accusations in these deliberations. That judgment may be for 
history.
    But we do want the President and those around him, and 
future Presidents and those around them, to know that we will 
not allow weakness of character, willfulness, or any other 
trait of a President to undermine the sacredness of oaths. 
Because Kennedy and Jay are right. So are some of the 
commentators, even Democratic partisans and presidential 
supporters.
    Before the President committed the acts of perjury that we 
now confront, Alan Dershowitz, George Stephanopoulous and 
others warned the President that he would be impeached if he 
lied to the grand jury. It did not occur to them that it could 
be otherwise because I believe--because I believe they love 
this system of government, like Jay and Kennedy and like me, 
members of this committee, Members of Congress and millions of 
Americans, as well as millions worldwide to whom America is the 
beacon of hope and the example of freedom to which they aspire. 
There are some who call themselves Americans and who understand 
these principles, who cover them over with facile arguments, 
because they want to preserve their power.
    I'm not going to deal here with the facts of the case. They 
are compelling enough that even Democratic members of this 
committee and witnesses called by the President have to 
acknowledge that the President lied under oath. If anyone has a 
serious question, I refer to you Mr. Schippers' excellent 
report.
    The fact is, the unwinding of this extraordinary 
constitutional system is inexorable if the President presents 
an example of perjury. To Kennedy, it was self-evident. And the 
tape--his words bears repeating. Would you please look at the 
monitors.
    [Videotape played.]
    [Information not available at time of printing.]
    Mr. Cannon. Thank you for your indulgence. I submit that in 
the spirit of our Founding Fathers and John F. Kennedy, that 
our first duty is to provide for the security of the 
fundamental rights of Americans. To properly perform that duty, 
we must vote to impeach the President.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The House Judiciary Committee today contemplates articles 
of impeachment against an incumbent President of the United 
States. Our committee undertakes its task in an era where the 
deceitful manipulation of public opinion no longer is viewed as 
evil but as art. ``Propaganda'' once evoked images of dictators 
enforcing mind control over the masses. Now we readily bathe 
ourselves in ``spin,'' and we confer the degree of doctor upon 
those who administer the dosage.
    In this very sobering hour, the time has come to strip away 
the spin and propaganda and face the unvarnished truth of what 
this committee is called upon to review. First, this 
impeachment inquiry is not and never was license to rummage 
through the personal lifestyle of the President of the United 
States. It is a gross distortion to characterize his present 
dilemma as only about sex. As Governor Weld said earlier this 
week, adultery is not an impeachable offense. And the country 
needs to know that nobody on this committee seeks to make it 
so.
    If that is true, then why are these unsavory elements of 
the President's private life now at issue? It is because the 
President was a defendant in a sexual harassment civil rights 
lawsuit. When Paula Jones' lawsuit reached Federal court, after 
much consideration, the trial judge ordered the President to 
answer under oath questions relating to other subordinate 
female employees with whom he might have solicited or engaged 
in sexual involvement. This line of questioning was not 
invented to torment the President. These questions are routine 
and must be answered every day by defendants in harassment 
cases throughout the country.
    Why is this so? It is because the courts want to see if 
there is any pattern of conduct that might show a similar 
history either of harassment, abuse, or of granting or denying 
job promotions.
    It was in this context that the President first was asked 
questions about Monica Lewinsky, and it had nothing to do with 
Judge Starr, Speaker Gingrich, or any Member of the Congress of 
the United States.
    If lying now becomes acceptable in harassment cases because 
candor is embarrassing, or because the defendant is just too 
powerful to be required to tell the truth, we will destroy the 
sexual harassment protections currently enjoyed by millions of 
women in the work force. One cannot fairly claim to support the 
societal benefits of these harassment laws on the one hand, and 
then deny the application of these laws to a defendant merely 
because he is a President who shares their party affiliation.
    Next, the Constitution solemnly required President Clinton, 
as a condition of his becoming President, to swear an oath to 
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and to take care 
that our Nation's laws be faithfully executed. That oath of 
obligation required the President to defend our laws that 
protect women in the workplace, just as it also required him to 
protect our legal system from perjury, obstruction of justice, 
and abuse of power.
    Fidelity to the presidential oath is not dependent on any 
President's personal threshold of comfort or embarrassment. 
Neither must it be a slave to the latest polling data.
    Even more disturbing is the current readiness of some to 
embrace out of political ease a thoroughly bastardized oath, so 
long as the offender expresses generalized contrition, while at 
the same time rejecting meaningful constitutional 
accountability.
    Consider how far afield these new standards move us as a 
nation since our first President obliged himself to the same 
oath that now binds Bill Clinton to the Constitution.
    On the day George Washington became our first President, he 
pledged to our new country that the foundation of his public 
policies would be grounded in principles of private morality. 
He said that by elevating an otherwise sterile government to 
the level of private moral obligations, our new country would 
win the affection of its citizens and command the respect of 
the world.
    Most significantly, in this first presidential address, 
Washington presented himself not as a ruler of men, but as a 
servant of the law. He established the tradition that, in 
America, powerful leaders are subservient to the rule of law 
and to the consent of the governed. Two hundred years later, in 
an era of increasing ethical relativism, it seems almost 
foreign to modern ears that the first speech ever delivered by 
a President of the United States was a speech about the 
relationship between private and public morality.
    George Washington was not perfect. He certainly was no 
saint. But soldiers knew his bravery on the battlefield; his 
national reputation for truthfulness was unquestioned. 
Washington, a very human being with very human flaws, still 
could set by personal example the standard of measurement for 
the office of the presidency.
    Today, from a distance of two centuries, Washington stands 
as a distant, almost mythical, figure. And yet President 
Clinton and every Member of the Congress of the United States 
have a living, personal connection to him.Like Washington, each 
of us took a sacred oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of 
law. There is no business of government more important than upholding 
the rule of law.
    A sound economy amounts to nothing beside it, because 
without the rule of law, all contracts are placed in doubt and 
all rights to property become conditional. National security is 
not more important than the rule of law, because without it, 
there can be no security and there is little worth defending. 
And the personal popularity of any President pales when weighed 
against this one fundamental concept that forever distinguishes 
us from every other nation: no person is above the rule of law.
    Mr. Chairman, the evidence clearly shows that the President 
engaged in a repeated and lengthy pattern of felonious conduct, 
conduct for which ordinary citizens can and have been routinely 
prosecuted and jailed. This simply cannot be wished or censured 
away. With his conduct aggravated by a motivation of personal 
and pecuniary leverage, rather than by national security or 
some other legitimate government function, the solemnity of my 
own oath of office obliges me to do what the President has 
failed to do: defend the rule of law despite any personal or 
political costs.
    With a heavy heart, but with an unwavering belief in the 
appropriateness of the decision, I will cast my vote for 
articles of impeachment against the President of the United 
States, William Jefferson Clinton.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 
Lindsey Graham.
    Mr. Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    One thing I think would be appropriate as we wind toward 
the end, and Mary and I are again, as we have always been, the 
last two to speak here, let me just say it has been an honor to 
serve on the committee. I have been on the committee relatively 
as a junior member. I think Mrs. Bono, myself, Jim, and Mr. 
Barrett have all come on in the relatively late stages of the 
last Congress, or this Congress, and it is something I will 
remember for the rest of my life. I can assure you that. I 
doubt if I will ever do anything as important for the Nation as 
having served on this committee.
    I have been an Air Force officer, serving overseas as a 
prosecutor. I have been an Air Force officer, serving stateside 
as an defense attorney defending men and women accused of 
crimes in the military. I am very honored for that experience. 
I have served in the Air National Guard, representing men's and 
women's legal interests during Desert Shield and Desert Storm 
with my unit.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment you on two things. 
Over 50 years ago, when my father was in the Far East serving 
America in New Guinea, fighting the Japanese, you were in that 
part of the world serving America, protecting the Constitution, 
protecting the rule of law, risking your life; and we all owe a 
debt of gratitude to you and your generation for having done 
so.
    I think we owe a unique debt of gratitude to you now for 
having guided this committee, somewhat under fire, at a time 
when we are going to evaluate who we are as a people, how far 
we have come in 200 years--have we made progress, have we gone 
backwards, what is the state of the American people, what is 
the state of the American political system?
    I will say this: The people who have fought and died should 
feel good. We are going to have a partisan vote, but that is 
okay. You have parties. You have political thought. You have 
political differences. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. A 
lot of people have fought and died so you could have those 
differences.
    Let me share some thoughts about my colleagues, and we will 
talk about the evidence and the truth. Mr. Frank has made a 
statement that I would like to associate myself with. This is 
about the Monica Lewinsky episode. This is not about 
Whitewater; that has not been put at the feet of the President. 
This is not about Filegate; that was not put at the feet of the 
President. This is not about Travelgate; that was never put at 
the feet of the President.
    That is important. Quite frankly, I thought some of these 
things would mature into cases that would come before this 
committee. They did not. And we should not mislead people that 
we are voting on anything other than what happened in the Paula 
Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. And we will all make a 
decision at the end of the day: Is that worth overturning a 
national election?
    Mr. Berman, I would like to associate myself with his 
comments. This is not all about sex, but it is colored by sex. 
It certainly is.
    Mr. Rogan has told you about the sexual harassment nature 
that got us into this whole situation, and I think he did so 
far better than I can comment because there are some important 
concepts. But in many ways this is all about people, this is 
all about emotion, this is really all about one man, Bill 
Clinton.
    There is really some cast of characters here. The Linda 
Tripps of the world, Ken Starr, whether you like him or not, 
there are some unique characters here--myself, whether you like 
me or not. But at the end of the day, we are here because of 
what Bill Clinton did or chose not to do.
    Mr. Barrett, I would like to associate myself with his 
spirit. He is a very nice man. He has got a child coming along, 
a new child to be brought into the world, and we all wish him 
well. He has tried to say to this committee, let's bring the 
country together. What a noble cause. Don't worry, Mr. Barrett, 
if we don't come together. This country is strong. We shall 
survive.
    Mr. Schumer, I admire him greatly because he believes the 
President lied to the grand jury but he says, in the context in 
which he lied, he does not believe it's a high crime or 
misdemeanor. I respect that reasoning. I disagree with it.
    No Democrat on this committee has ever suggested that the 
President's conduct was acceptable. Let the record reflect 
that. Whatever differences we have had, there has been nobody 
from this committee on the Democratic side that ever suggested 
that what the President did was appropriate or was okay. I 
think they deserve to have that said.
    If this is a vote of conscience, and I believe it is, it is 
going to come down to the Republican conscience versus the 
Democratic conscience; and I don't know how to characterize 
that. I don't know what that means. I would suggest--as one is 
not better than the other, I would suggest that there is a very 
unique nature about this case that we need to look at long 
after this case is over, and only time will tell who got it 
right.
    One thing has guided me more than anything else, and I have 
really had to struggle, do you want to impeach aPresident when 
it comes down to just the Lewinsky events. I live in a district that 
finds the conduct unacceptable and they, quite frankly, do not want 
Bill Clinton to be their President. They never have. As a district, we 
never voted for Bill Clinton. And the misleading and all the things 
that the Democratic members condemn as being unacceptable, people in my 
district find not only to be unacceptable but inconsistent with 
national leadership.
    I am proud of my district. I respect those in my district 
who disagree with the majority. But the majority in the Third 
District of South Carolina believes that the conduct is 
inconsistent with national leadership.
    I have tried to take a middle position. I like politics, 
but I love the law. The law has been something I chose to do to 
make a living. When you politicize the law, you are putting the 
country at risk. My father and Mr. Hyde made sure that we could 
come together and disagree, that the first person ever to go to 
college from their family, like Lindsey Graham, could one day 
wind up in Congress. If we lost that war that would have been 
impossible.
    So I have tried to take a tone here that the law has to win 
out over politics. And the easy thing for me to have done from 
day one is to come up here and rant and rave because that would 
have played well because people do not like the President.
    I have asked the President on numerous occasions to 
reconcile himself with the law. I never meant for him to have 
to humiliate himself. The standard that Governor Weld has said 
to reconcile himself with the law, quite frankly, is stronger 
than I have ever wanted. I do not want to take money out of his 
pocket. I do not want to humiliate him in front of his family 
or daughter. I merely want him to have the character and the 
courage to come forward and admit to criminal wrongdoing, that 
he violated his oath, that he engaged witnesses in an improper 
way.
    I was willing to make sure, if I could in any fashion, that 
the whole affair would end then, that 2 years from now he need 
not have to face prosecution. I think the chances of that are 
almost zero. That is all I ever wanted from our President.
    I am about to vote. I have yet to receive that. I don't 
know if I will ever get it. Bill Clinton's fate, ladies and 
gentlemen, is in Bill Clinton's hands. The biggest enemy of 
Bill Clinton, just like with all of us, is Bill Clinton. God 
knows, he has many enemies. God knows he's a polarizing figure. 
God only knows what is in his heart. I am having to judge Bill 
Clinton based on evidence. And I would like to speak a few 
minutes to what I believe is the unshakeable, undeniable truth, 
and much of it is about sex.
    This idea that the President of the United States, when he 
testified in Paula Jones's deposition, a lady who brought a 
case against him for sexual harassment, that he gave testimony 
that was legally accurate is a total falsehood. The idea that 
the definition of sex did not include oral sex, and they did 
not ask the right questions, and if they did, he would have 
told the truth, offends me. This idea of what sex meant came up 
after this blue dress, in my opinion.
    The reason I say that is that on January the 17th, when he 
was asked to testify about his relationship with Monica 
Lewinsky, he knew she had provided an affidavit denying any 
improper relationship of any kind whatsoever; he believed 
himself to be covered. He did not know of the tapes. Whether 
you like the tapes or not, he did not know of them and, without 
them, he would have lied with Monica Lewinsky to the prejudice 
of a citizen who is suing him for conduct. If true, that should 
be enough to impeach him. The world shall never know what 
happened in that room in Arkansas or that hotel room. Two 
people know and God knows.
    Why I believe the definition of ``sex,'' as being 
propounded by the President to this very day, is a lie is based 
on the conduct he exhibited after the deposition. On January 
17th, he would have had us believe they did not ask the right 
question and the definition excluded oral sex. I would suggest 
to you that is a fabricated tale, that on January 24th we have 
a talking point paper from the White House telling people how 
to respond about the allegations against the President, and one 
of those questions was, ``Do sexual relations include oral 
sex?'' The answer was yes.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman be given 2 additional minutes.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Graham. Thank you. I have talked in 30-second sound 
bites so long, I have never had this much time. Thank you very 
much. I can't believe 10 minutes went by so quick.
    What I believe is that his press accounts to Mr. Lehrer and 
to Roll Call indicate that in proper relationships there was no 
artificial definition, oral sex is not included. I believe that 
is a falsehood. I believe that is a fraud. I believe he knew 
Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit was false and that when the discussion 
with Mr. Bennett came up in the deposition, he was following 
intently what happened and that he was not surprised and that 
he did, in fact, lie to the grand jury on numerous occasions.
    Should he be impeached, very quickly, the hardest decision 
I think I will ever make. Knowing that the President lied to a 
grand jury about sex, I still believe that every President of 
the United States, regardless of the matter they are called to 
testify about before a grand jury, should testify truthfully, 
and if they don't, they should be subject to losing their job. 
I believe that about Bill Clinton. I believe that about the 
next President.
    If it had been a Republican, I would still believe that. I 
would hope that if a Republican President had done all this 
that some of us would have gone over and told him, you need to 
leave office. I understand the dilemma that all of us are in 
about that. His fate is in his own hands.
    Right quickly, Mr. Chairman, 30 years from now they are 
going to judge what we have done and how partisan it has been 
and whether or not this made any sense. I just want you to 
know, as you look back and look at these tapes and find out 
what we are doing, there is one Member of Congress, there are a 
lot of us here who believe the President has lied to us to this 
very day, that we can't reconcile ourselves with that, that it 
was in a lawsuit with an average, everyday citizen--legal 
rights at stake. And the most chilling of all things to me was 
the episode after he left the deposition. He told Mr. 
Blumenthal that Monica Lewinsky was basically coming on to him, 
he had to fight her off; he told Betty Currie, ``She wanted to 
have sex with me, and I couldn't do that.''
    The most chilling thing was, for a period of time, the 
President was setting stories in motion that were lies. Those 
stories found themselves in the press to attack a young lady 
who could potentially be a witness against him.
    To me, that is very much like Watergate. That shows 
character inconsistent with being President. And every Member 
of Congress should look at that episode and decide, is this 
truly about sex, is Bill Clinton doing the right thing by 
continuing to make us have to pursue this, have to prove to a 
legal certainty he lied.
    The President's fate is in his own hands.
    Mr. President, you have one more chance. Don't bite your 
lip. Reconcile yourself with the law.
    I yield back, well beyond my time.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The distinguished lady from California.
    Mrs. Bono. Mr. Chairman, I want first to thank the American 
people for giving me the opportunity to speak this morning on 
the most important issue I will ever face as a Member of 
Congress. Yet after sitting through the many days of hearings 
and hours of testimony, I can also understand why much of the 
country has become somewhat immune to this issue.
    Obviously, we all wish we could put this matter behind us. 
But I do not have the luxury of doing that. I have the 
constitutional duty to review the facts. And no matter how 
difficult or even unpopular my decision might be, in the end, I 
must vote my conscience based on the evidence and the law. And 
although the White House spin machine has tried to place the 
blame for these proceedings on Judge Starr or the committee 
majority, I can tell you that after reviewing the evidence and 
listening to the President's testimony, the reason we are here 
is because, unfortunately, the President of the United States 
lied to the American people and a Federal grand jury, and then 
he attempted to use the full power of the White House to cover 
it up. Then, instead of trying to present a credible defense 
that respected the intelligence of the American people, the 
White House and its allies used their spin machine to attack 
its opponents and destroy reputations.
    Not until the possibility of impeachment became real to the 
White House in the last few days did they bother to address the 
facts or the truth.
    In the real world of everyday Americans, people who break 
the law face consequences. That is what our Founders intended 
when they drafted a Constitution and established the rule of 
law as a framework for our society. And when a President 
attempts to weave his way through the rule of law to cover up a 
lie, he puts the Constitution itself on trial.
    Like so many others, I am disappointed that the office of 
the presidency has been reduced in stature by the legal 
hairsplitting and stonewalling that the President and his 
lawyers have engaged in for the past 7 months. According to his 
own defenders, the President engaged in sinful actions that 
were morally wrong.
    So many twisted definitions of a very simple fact: The 
President of the United States committed perjury before a 
Federal grand jury. He tried to convince the American people 
that the improper behavior that he engaged in with a young 
subordinate was really not sex, at least not according to the 
definition provided to him by the court.
    I am sure that every husband or wife knows in their heart 
that their spouse would consider what he did sex, and certainly 
even young children recognize that he lied about it. How can 
anyone look their children in the eye and tell them that they 
must tell the truth after they see the President of the United 
States lie to the entire Nation on television? He abused his 
power as Chief Executive to protect himself at the expense of 
his family, his friends, his Cabinet and, sadly, the American 
people.
    I do believe the public deserves a President who adheres to 
a higher principle, and I am not afraid to admit that. It is 
what our forefathers fought and died for. It is what our 
veterans risked their lives for. It is what we all pray for for 
our children.
    President Kennedy, who was President Clinton's boyhood 
hero, said in the days before his assassination that it is 
``the responsibility of the President to carry out and execute 
the laws of the country and that whoever is President will do 
the same because if he did not, he would begin to unwind this 
most extraordinary constitutional system. So I strongly believe 
in fulfilling my oath.''
    And that concerns me greatly. If we just look the other way 
and allow a President to abuse his authority and betray his 
oath by committing, at the very least, perjury, the public 
trust in our constitutional system will be forever diminished.
    Today, the President's lawyers asked us to put an end to 
this process for the good of the Nation. If the President had 
really wanted to save the Nation the turmoil of this past year, 
he should have been more truthful or forthcoming from the 
beginning or, as some have already suggested, he could have 
simply resigned.
    So I say to the President today, if you really believe that 
this process will cause our Nation irreparable harm, I ask you, 
for the good of the Nation, to resign and spare our country the 
lengthy and divisive impeachment process.
    The simple truth is that this issue would not even be 
before us if the President simply told the truth or settled 
with Paula Jones in the beginning, rather than telling his 
political operatives that they would just have to win instead. 
The pursuit of the truth cannot be avoided simply because it 
involves an uncomfortable issue like sex. And I have got news 
for you, whatever you do that is wrong is going to be 
embarrassing when people find out about it.
    To avoid dealing with the truth because it makes people 
uncomfortable would be particularly hurtful to any and all 
women who must deal with cases of harassment, and that is a 
real fear that I have. In fact, this case is largely about one 
woman being denied her day in court, about a White House that 
uses all of its resources to intimidate witnesses and obscure 
the facts.
    That is one reason why so many Americans have lost faith in 
our legal system. The lesson women learn from the Paula Jones 
case is not to challenge a powerful person, certainly not 
someone who has the best lawyers and resources of a nation at 
his disposal. Believe me, the example this sends is that any 
person who challenges a figure of authority is going to be 
subjected to all types of abuse. Let me tell you, that is a 
very scary message.
    Another concern that is very scary is the effect the 
President's behavior will have on our national security. Just a 
few months ago, I found myself, along with many other Americans 
and even the media, wondering if our strike against terrorism 
was life imitating art or a genuine response to a terrorist 
organization. Just the thought that a possibility existed that 
the President was engaging in a ``Wag the Dog'' scenario was 
chilling and profoundly disappointing. As a nation, we deserve 
better.
    You know, a lot of people ask me if I am concerned 
aboutvoting to impeach a popular President. They talk about his high 
approval ratings in the polls and say, most Americans oppose 
impeachment. But I cannot allow my decision to be based on the 
President's popularity, on the numbers in a poll. History will judge us 
on the facts. I want future generations to look at the evidence and say 
that what we did was based on the law and upon our constitutional duty.
    I know that the President is a very likeable man. I 
understand why people want this issue to just go away. But the 
issue we are facing is at the very core of our constitutional 
system; and while many people may like this President, I hope 
that they love their country more, because that is what I will 
base my vote on, my love for this country and in our 
Constitution. If we do not uphold its principles, the 
foundation of our system of government will be undermined 
forever.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your leadership and 
for your fairness throughout these entire hearings in this 
process, and I want to echo the sentiments of Congressman 
Graham that it has been truly an honor to serve with each and 
every member on this panel.
    And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. I certainly thank the gentlelady.
    I wish that was the ultimate opening statement but it was 
but the penultimate. I have my opening statement, which I have 
not delivered, and if you will indulge me, I will now make my 
opening statement.
    Perjury is not sex. Obstruction is not sex. Abuse of power 
is not about sex. It is important to understand that none of 
the proposed articles include allegations of sexual misconduct.
    The President is not accused of marital infidelity because 
such conduct is essentially private. But when circumstances 
require you to participate in a formal court proceeding and, 
under oath, mislead the parties and the court by lying, that is 
a public act and deserves public sanction. Perjury is a crime 
with a 5-year penalty.
    Now, what all this boils down to is, what do we think of 
the oath? Is it a ceremonial formality or does it mean 
something? We were told there were three pillars to the rule of 
law: an honest judiciary, an ethical bar, and an enforceable 
oath. And this is why the President's lying under oath is so 
serious. It is an assault on the rule of law. It cheapens the 
oath. It is a breach of promise to tell the truth. It subverts 
our system of government.
    Now, the Democrats have what really amounts to the ``so 
what'' defense, well articulated in yesterday's Wall Street 
Journal op-ed page where a pundit states, ``Mr. Clinton's 
behavior has been disgraceful, but it hasn't involved actions 
against the state.''
    Okay, a compendium of prominent Democrats who agree the 
President lied under oath is long and distinguished, and I have 
it here, but all of them insist the President's lies do not 
rise to the level of impeachment. I suggest impeachment is like 
beauty, apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I hold a 
different view, and it is not a vengeful one; it is not 
vindictive and it is not craven, it is just a concern for the 
Constitution and a high respect for the rule of law.
    Now, as to the charge that we have produced no witnesses 
whose credibility could be tested by cross-examination, well, 
we had Monica Lewinsky's testimony under oath, her immunity 
grant in jeopardy if she lied. We accepted her heavily 
corroborated testimony. I hate to bring up the stained dress 
again, but we didn't feel the need to bring her in for more 
testimony. But if the Democrats had the slightest qualm about 
her credibility, why didn't they invite her to testify, or take 
her deposition to have her credibility tested?
    Betty Currie, we had her testimony under oath. Vernon 
Jordan, we had his testimony under oath. If there were any 
questions, why, the Democrats could have called them as 
witnesses. But all we got from them was a covey of professors, 
no fact witnesses.
    We based our facts, the ones we were willing to accept, on 
60,000 pages of sworn testimony, deposition transcripts, grand 
jury testimony, all under oath and all available to the 
Democrats. If they doubted this testimony, they were free to 
take depositions or produce them as witnesses. They did not. So 
I wonder about the complaints that they didn't get a chance to 
test the credibility of the witnesses.
    Now, as a lawyer and a legislator for most of my very long 
life, I had have a particular reverence for our legal system. 
It protects the innocent. It punishes the guilty. It defends 
the powerless. It guards freedom. It summons the noblest 
instincts of the human spirit. The rule of law protects you and 
it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. 
knock on our door. It challenges abuse of authority.
    It is a shame Darkness at Noon is forgotten, or the Gulag 
Archipelago, but there is such a thing lurking out in the world 
called abuse of authority, and the rule of law is what protects 
you from it. And so, it is a matter of considerable concern to 
me when our legal system is assaulted by our Nation's chief law 
enforcement officer, the only person obliged to take care that 
the laws are faithfully executed.
    Now, we suffer from an abundance of details but it is clear 
we have, as the National Journal said, not an occasional, 
minor, garden variety perjury but multiple acts of perjury. We 
have calculated lawlessness which takes us for fools and chips 
away at our legal system. Lies about sex are one thing; lies 
under oath by the Nation's chief law enforcement officer are 
another.
    Why do we bother to argue the facts? So many of you, 
certainly not all, but so many of you have pleaded nolo 
contendere. So our debate is whether multiple violations of the 
solemn oath deserve censure or removal.
    Incidentally, where did you get your facts on censure? From 
the Starr report?
    What concerns me most deeply in sorting out the many 
arguments here is the significance of the oath. When the 
President performs the public act of asking God to witness his 
promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, that is not trivial. Whether it is a civil suit or 
before the grand jury, the significance of the oath cannot and 
must not be cheapened if our proud boast that we are a 
government of laws and not of men is to mean anything. I submit 
it means everything. It was purchased for us by the lives of 
countless patriots, some of whom are resting across the Potomac 
River in a cemetery, but all of whom put the Nation's good 
ahead of their own.
    A few words about fairness. I have been relentlessly 
accused of being unfair. I can only say I have tried, I have 
tried, and I have tried. We have labored under an artificial 
time constraint, but one that I adopted back before the 
election when the spirit of the age was, get this over with, 
get this behind us, the country doesn't want this to bedragged 
out over the next coming year.
    I bought into that. I agreed it was in the interest of the 
country, the President and the Congress to move this along as 
fast as we could, and I believed we could finish it by the end 
of the year. That was naive, and there are so many things left 
undone because of time constraints. But now that the election 
is over and now that the Democrats--and by the way, we did not 
want to do anything just before the election for fear of being 
accused of trying to politicize our activities, so we held 
back. But now that the Democrats have picked up some seats, we 
hear the phrase ``lame duck Congress.''
    Well, we can't have it both ways. We are trying to finish 
this decently, honorably, fairly within time constraints 
because I don't want this to spill over into next year. I don't 
want this to be an endless process. I think it is in the 
interest of the country to finish it, and we have tried our 
level best. And I have tried to grant every request the 
Democrats have made. Maybe we haven't succeeded, but I have 
certainly tried.
    Now, we seek impeachment, not conviction nor censure. Those 
are decisions for the other body, the Senate. We merely decide 
if there is enough for a trial. The accusatory body should not 
be the adjudicatory body. Barbara Jordan pointed out, it was a 
wise decision not to have the House that charges be the one 
that tries. That doesn't mean we don't take our responsibility 
seriously, but it means we have a different role.
    Now, we are told an impeachment trial would be too divisive 
and too disruptive, that it would reverse two elections. We are 
not reversing any election. Bob Dole will not end up President 
of the United States if there is an impeachment. We are 
following a process wisely set down as a check and balance on 
executive overreaching by our Founding Fathers.
    This vote says something about us. It answers the question, 
just who are we and what do we stand for? Is the President one 
of us or is he a sovereign? We vote for our honor, which is the 
only thing we get to take with us to the grave.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Now, that concludes the opening statements, mercifully. 
Before we recess for 30 minutes, I want to explain the 
procedure which we will follow when we reconvene.
    Pending is a resolution exhibiting articles of impeachment 
and a motion to favorably report the resolution. Under previous 
order of the committee, the second reading of the resolution 
has been dispensed with.
    We will proceed with the amendment process article by 
article. Therefore, when we return from this recess, Article I 
will be open for amendment.
    After all amendments to Article I are completed, we will 
have a final vote on Article I. If any article is adopted, the 
original motion shall be considered as adopted and any approved 
article of impeachment will automatically be favorably reported 
to the House. We will then consider the remaining articles and 
follow the same procedure.
    If there are no amendments to any articles, but members 
wish to be heard on that particular article, they will be 
recognized to strike the last word. So you will have an 
opportunity to speak.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. Frank. I believe I understand it, but I want to make it 
clear here what occurs first. There will, therefore, only be 
one vote on an article, and if an article on this first reading 
gets a majority vote, there will be no need to revote, there 
will not be a subsequent vote?
    Chairman Hyde. That is right.
    Mr. Frank. So we will, in effect, be treating these as if 
they were four separate things to be reported to the House?
    Chairman Hyde. Exactly.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the status of 
the responses from Mr. Starr. One of the amendments that I have 
to offer depends pretty much on his answer.
    Chairman Hyde. Well, I am advised we have phoned them and 
they are working on the answers. We will rephone them during 
the recess and see if we can move it along.
    Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert 
into the record a letter to me, and perhaps to others, from 
Alan Dershowitz, one of the panelists, expert panelists, who 
testified here relative to an exchange that took place between 
Mr. Barr, Mr. Dershowitz, and Mr. Higginbotham. I would also 
like to insert a copy of the article that Mr. Dershowitz 
referred to regarding Mr. Barr's speech before the Council of 
Conservative Citizens.
    Chairman Hyde. Is there any objection?
    Hearing none, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.026
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.027
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.028
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.029
    
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Hyde. All right, the gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. Unanimous consent request for a letter from 
William Alden McDaniel, Jr., Esq., to Congressman Bob Barr, 
copied to me with attachments.
    Chairman Hyde. Is there any objection?
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, could we just get Mr. Barr's 
receptionist to send us some of this stuff directly? It might 
save some committee time.
    Chairman Hyde. He wants to know if your receptionist would 
send this material directly to him.
    Mr. Barr. I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts--
--
    Chairman Hyde. I think it was a facetious request. I will 
treat it as such and ignore it.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.030
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.031
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.032
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.033
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.034
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.035
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.036
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.037
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.038
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.039
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.040
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.041
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.042
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.043
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.044
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.045
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.046
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.047
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.048
    
    Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to 
insert into the record a letter I have sent to all members of 
the committee in response to the materials being circulated by 
Mr. Dershowitz.
    Chairman Hyde. That shall be done, without objection.
    [The letter follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.049
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.050
    
    Chairman Hyde. The committee will stand in recess for 30 
minutes.
    [Whereupon, the committee recessed, to reconvene in 30 
minutes.]
    Chairman Hyde. The committee will come to order.
    The resolution now before us has been read and is open for 
amendments, and we are going to do it article by article. So as 
to Article I, are there any amendments to Article I?
    The gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, have you had a chance to hear from 
Mr. Starr?
    Chairman Hyde. Yes. We were told that on all of these, we 
will have the answers for you, to your questions. We hope to 
have them. May all your requests be as speedily answered. I am 
told there are no reservations. There are no amendments to 
Article I.
    The Clerk will call----
    Does someone wish to strike the last word?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlewoman from Houston, Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes to strike the last word.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    We have all had an opportunity to hear this morning from 
passionate Americans who have disagreed. In so doing, Mr. 
Chairman, we have confirmed what this Nation stands for. It is 
a democracy. It does abide by the rule of law. It is a 
constitutional government.
    Frankly, I think we do a disservice to this process by 
suggesting to the American people, any of us, that the process 
does not work. But it is for these reasons that I must counter 
and oppose Article I. See, I am wrapped in the Constitution. I 
was hoping we might follow it today.
    But in any event, I have participated in this process and 
noted earlier in my remarks that it has been a shortened 
process. And the Chairman has aptly said, many of us, and many 
Americans, said--have commented that they wanted to see this 
process move expeditiously. But in so doing, I would hope my 
remarks would not have been attributable to the idea that I did 
not want to get the facts, that I did not want an article of 
impeachment to be grounded in the facts, particularly as it 
relates to what every American now can recite but may not 
understand--perjury. And then later we will discuss obstruction 
of justice and abuse of power.
    Many scholars and experts on the issue of perjury have 
already said to us how undefined it is, how unclear perjury is. 
And I cannot find, in all of the chief counsel's presentation, 
where Mr. Schippers convinced us that the President believed he 
was making false statements.
    Of course, we know that there was a lot of mish-mash, a lot 
of who said what. My understanding of the word ``is'' is 
``is,'' but impeachment is precise. It is not appealable. It is 
ultimately the removal of a President from the United States of 
America, and frankly, Mr. Chairman, it is a serious and 
momentous occasion, one that I would not want to be part of 
today and of history to report, not because the vehicle is not 
one that cannot be used and we should ignore; it was put there 
by the framers, but for a very grave concern.
    Mr. Chairman, we are in a great, grave dilemma, believing 
in the Constitution, believing in the promise, and recognizing 
that it keeps this country together. But I cannot hold to the 
fact that allegations contain discrepancies, on the basis of a 
judgment on a witness whose credibility has not been--has not 
been, if you will, confirmed in this proceeding. For in the 
fear of prosecution, it has not been made in this setting.
    So as someone who recognizes that my very existence, the 
fact that I am now a whole person and not two-thirds of a 
person is wrapped in this Constitution, it makes me very much 
needing to be precise when I act on anything that I claim to be 
constitutionally grounded. And for it to be this article based 
on perjury to remove a President, it is not there.
    We have too many in this Nation, as I close, Mr. Chairman, 
who hold on for their existence--whether their religion is 
different, whether their sex is different, whether they have 
just come to this Nation as a new immigrant seeking freedom, 
they know that they can trust the Constitution to protect them, 
though oppressed.
    Frankly, the President, however, is a human being; and we 
must, as well, give him the protection of the Constitution. It 
is not here, Mr. Chairman. It is not in this article. This 
article does not warrant conviction. It does not warrant 
leaving this committee. It is, in fact, Mr. Chairman, an 
article that we should terminate. I thank the Chairman for his 
time.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, point of information.
    Chairman Hyde. Who seeks a point of information?
    Mr. Nadler. I do.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. My question is that this Article I that we are 
discussing now alleges the President committed perjury. It is 
basic that we should be told, before voting the specific words 
that are alleged to be perjurious, and I was--my point of 
information is, what are those words? What words specifically, 
for the 4--for the 4 subunits, 4 allegations in Article I, are 
alleged to be perjurious?
    Could we have that? Could we have those words, please, so 
that we could discuss them as to whether they are perjurious, 
and so that the Senate, should this article, God forbid, pass 
the House, that the Senate will know what the allegation is and 
the defense attorneys will know what they must defend against?
    In connection with the question and my point of 
information, I would ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
record an article from today's L.A. Times raising the same 
question.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.051
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.052
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.053
    
    Chairman Hyde. I can only refer you to Mr. Schippers' 
report yesterday discussing this, and I will try to get a copy 
of it and repeat it to you.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, Mr. 
Schippers' report, and I have listened carefully, makes many 
multiple allegations, many multiple--many inferences, and it is 
unclear to me from reading that, which of those statements are 
the subject of these specific 4 points.
    There are 4 specific points here. For each one of them, we 
should list in a committee document what the allegedly 
perjurious words are. Failing that, there is no due process, 
and I think no ability to note intelligently or to discuss 
intelligently this article.
    Chairman Hyde. The words were set out in detail in the 
presentation yesterday.
    Mr. Nadler. Then you would be able to tell me what they 
are.
    Chairman Hyde. I am looking for my copy. I didn't commit 
them to memory. I am not quite that acute. I am waiting for 
somebody.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I must----
    Chairman Hyde. We know your question. We are trying to find 
the answer. Somebody here on our staff has an answer.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
article of impeachment.
    Mr. Nadler. Wait a minute, point of order. Until we have--
--
    Chairman Hyde. I thought the gentleman was going to help on 
the point of order. He is not recognized to debate yet.
    Mr. Nadler. I don't think we can proceed until we know and 
have in front of us exactly the words that are alleged to be 
perjurious, so that we can debate them and measure them against 
the allegation.
    Chairman Hyde. I will read to you from the book that we 
have prepared, and perhaps it will supply your answer. During 
his deposition in the case of Jones versus Clinton, President 
Clinton testified before the grand jury that he does not 
believe his conduct with Ms. Lewinsky falls within the 
definition of sexual relations.
    He was given, in the case of Jones v. Clinton, grand jury 
testimony of President Clinton 8/17/98, page 11, House Document 
105-311, page 463. When he was specifically asked ``. . . 
whether oral sex performed on you is within that definition as 
you understand it, the definition in the Jones,'' the President 
responded, ``as I understand it, it was not. No.''
    Grand jury testimony of President Clinton, 8/17/98, page 
92, House Document 105-311, page 54: The President conceded 
that he considered the kissing or touching of breasts or 
genitalia of another person would be covered by the definition 
of sexual relations utilized at his deposition in the case of 
Jones v. Clinton. After making this concession, the President 
testified, ``You are free to infer that my testimony is I did 
not have sexual relations as I understood this term to be 
defined.''
    There is so much here that I really don't care to read, but 
it is available.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Yes.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, my question is, you have just 
read a paraphrasing of what the President allegedly said. Then 
you read a quote beginning, as I understand it, ``No.'' Then 
you read a paragraph about a concession, or what is 
characterized as a concession the President made, and then you 
read a quote, ``You are free to infer,'' and I forget the rest 
of the sentence.
    Are you including those paraphrases as part of the 
allegation? If yes----
    Chairman Hyde. Yes. The paraphrases are part of the 
allegation.
    Mr. Nadler. Then could we have the exact terminology, 
please? You cannot base a perjury indictment or a perjury 
article on a paraphrase. You have to know the exact words. It 
is black letter hornbook law. I would ask that before we 
consider any allegation of perjury, we have before us in 
writing the text which is the alleged subject of--we have here 
four things: the nature and details of his relationship with a 
subordinate employee, that is one allegation. What words are 
we----
    Mr. Goodlatte. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Nadler. What we have here is paraphrasing, ``what is 
that referring to,'' and so forth. We need the exact words. In 
other words, we can't argue intelligently.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Nadler, I will read something that is 
not as sexual as what I had on the other page.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 
the gentleman from New York has not stated a proper point of 
order. We are operating under the 5-minute rule. The gentleman 
should either be required to act under the 5-minute rule as 
part of his general debate of Article I, or his point of order 
should be ruled out of order.
    Mr. Nadler. It was a point of inquiry.
    Chairman Hyde. You are correct, it was a point of inquiry. 
What I will do for you, so we don't have to hold this up too 
much, I will have these next two pages, which are question and 
answer, question and answer, question and answer, Xeroxed.
    Mr. Nadler. Point of inquiry.
    Chairman Hyde. State your point.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, you say you will give me specific 
quotes? Or paraphrases?
    Chairman Hyde. Specific quotes.
    Mr. Nadler. My second point of inquiry is the allegations 
then in Article I are limited to the words which will be on 
that Xerox you going to give me?
    Chairman Hyde. No, they are not.
    Mr. Nadler. In which case you are not going to tell us what 
the words allegedly perjurious are, only some of them?
    Mr. Canady. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that we 
should follow the regular order.
    Chairman Hyde. I will give you as much as I can of the 
direct language. There may be some paraphrasing. I have a lot 
of direct quotes here. This information is available. These 
articles were drafted exactly as they were in the Nixon 
situation, and they are not in particulars; they are articles 
of impeachment.
    I am happy to provide the gentleman with what I have, which 
are direct quotes, so that you can know what we are talking 
about.
    Mr. Schumer. Could I make a unanimous consent request?
    Chairman Hyde. Surely.
    Mr. Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do think you 
have been fair throughout these proceedings. I know you 
mentioned in your statement you were stung by statements saying 
you have not been fair. I think you have been fair. I don't 
agree with where you are going, but I think you have been fair.
    My unanimous consent request is this: We are dealing with 
something that is more serious than anything we have dealt with 
on this committee in a very, very long time. Yesterday we had a 
lengthy report by Mr. Schippers that went on for several hours 
and listed a whole bunch of different allegations. Today we 
have before us the articles.
    I think if we actually debate the articles, it would be 
appropriate, fitting, proper, and necessary that perhaps the 
Clerk, perhaps Mr. Schippers, perhaps the sponsor of the 
article, or you, yourself, outline to us the specifics; which 
ones did you think rose to the level of being worthy--which 
alleged perjurious statements before the grand jury rose to the 
level of being included in the article, which ones did not.
    I am not trying to do this to deter you, I just have a 
unanimous consent request. I think it is worth discussing. I 
would like to finish it, if the gentleman would give me that 
courtesy. We are not dealing here with being bad. This is one 
of the most serious things this committee has undertaken.
    I, for one, while I have read the article, I don't know 
which specific statements it is alleged that the President made 
that are perjurious. I have read and listened to Mr. Schippers' 
statement yesterday.
    Mr. Cannon. The gentleman has stated a unanimous consent 
request?
    Mr. Schumer. My unanimous consent request, which I will 
make directly in the form of a request, is this: that before we 
begin debating these momentous articles, that either the Chair, 
the author, or Mr. Schippers or the Clerk outline for us what 
explicit statements are stated to be or believed to be, by the 
author and supporters of this article, as perjurious. That is 
my unanimous consent request.
    I don't see, frankly, how in good conscience we can vote on 
these articles and present them to the full body and present 
them to the American people without explicitly knowing that.
    Mr. Cannon. Reserving the right to object.
    Chairman Hyde. The Chair would like to respond to Mr. 
Schumer. That was the purpose of the presentation yesterday. 
The 2\1/2\ hours or 3 hours of Mr. Schippers' detailed 
presentation, with a copy of the text given to you, contains 
the information you seek. Now you want us to rehash it orally 
now as though you weren't here yesterday, as though you didn't 
hear Mr. Schippers, as though you haven't read his 
presentation.
    I think that is an imposition on the rest of the committee, 
and so your unanimous consent request is----
    Mr. Schumer. Mr. Chairman, before you deny it, I have read 
the presentation, I have listened to it, and I have thought 
about it, in fact, all of last night. And in that presentation 
there is a whole----
    Mr. Goodlatte. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogan. This is a breach of the committee's rules.
    Mr. Schumer. If the gentleman will not----
    Mr. Rogan. The gentleman has not been recognized.
    Mr. Schumer. This is important enough that I deserve to be 
heard.
    Mr. Goodlatte. We recognize the 5-minute rule----
    Mr. Schumer. I was making a unanimous consent request.
    Mr. Rogan. Ad nauseum.
    Chairman Hyde. There is objection to your request. I think 
it would be redundant and excessively time-consuming.
    Could we get rid of Mr. Nadler's point of order, or the 
point of inquiry? Your point is the same as Mr. Schumer's; you 
want to know specifics.
    Mr. Nadler. No, I disagreed with Mr. Schumer in one 
respect. My point of order is this: First of all, no one is 
asking for an oral presentation to waste anybody's time or for 
any other purpose. What I am saying is Mr. Schippers made many, 
many statements. The President and his defense attorneys are 
entitled to know, it is black letter law that anyone accused of 
perjury is entitled to know; before we vote, we are entitled to 
know which specific words, which specific sentences, of the 
many that Mr. Schippers cited, are the points being alleged as 
perjury. They should not be subject to being added to later.
    Mr. Cannon. He has not stated a proper point of order, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Nadler. It is improper to have an article that does not 
relate specifics.
    Chairman Hyde. I have heard the gentleman, and I am going 
to overrule whatever it is you are asking for.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, under the 5-minute rule?
    Chairman Hyde. Yes.
    Mr. Frank. I think it has just been made very clear how 
flawed this article is. I reread the presentation of Mr. 
Schippers. It is impossible to tell from that presentation what 
specific fact allegations are being challenged as perjury. I do 
not think it is a result of incompetent draftsmanship. I think 
it is a decision.
    First, let's be clear. I say this is very important, 
because grand jury perjury goes to the heart of the case. It is 
clearly the one article that has the best chance to win. Grand 
jury perjury does not run into problems of materiality, et 
cetera.
    The problem the Majority has with grand jury perjury is 
that in Mr. Starr's report the three specifics are, in combination, 
trivial and impossible to prove. Mr. Starr lists, unlike Mr. Schippers, 
three specific allegations. We can't tell from reading this whether Mr. 
Schippers is going beyond Mr. Starr, whether he thinks Mr. Starr became 
too easy on Mr. Clinton. We can't tell from reading either the article 
or the presentation what the specifics are on the single most important 
charge of grand jury perjury.
    I think part of the problem is, as the Chairman illustrated 
with his obvious reluctant reading of more detail about anatomy 
than any of us wanted to have discussed in public, part of the 
problem is that the central charge that Mr. Starr makes alluded 
to vaguely in lines 17, 18, and 19 here, the nature and details 
of his relationship with a subordinate government employee, 
that has to do with Mr. Clinton's denial that he touched Ms. 
Lewinsky in certain places for the purposes of causing 
gratification.
    The President acknowledged before the grand jury that there 
had been sexual contact. Mr. Starr charges, and Mr. Schippers 
repeats to some extent in his presentation and vaguely alludes 
to in the article--and this is the sense of the perjury 
charge--the President violated that traditional definition of 
sexual relations he said he abided by because he touched her.
    And there is a debate, and this is quoted by Mr. Schippers, 
quoted by Mr. Starr, did the President touch her here, or did 
he not touch her here? That is the heart of it. I think what we 
see is an understandable reluctance on the part of the Majority 
to ask the American people to do one of the most momentous 
things a democracy can do: impeach a twice-elected President of 
the United States, throw him out of office.
    Because impeachment is not simply a way of expressing your 
wish that he had not won. Impeachment is--if we vote in this 
committee to impeach, understand that, we are doing the maximum 
we can do as elected representatives to throw this man out of 
office. You cannot gainsay that. This is the beginning of a 
process which is intended to throw him out of office. You are 
voting on a resolution which says you believe he should be 
thrown out of office.
    There is an understandable reluctance to say we want him 
thrown out of office because he did go to the grand jury and he 
did say that they had had sexual contact, but he didn't give us 
enough detail; he didn't tell us what he touched. Therefore, it 
was perjury.
    The other one we have, and I assume this is also involved 
here, he said it started in February, when it started in 
November. Mr. Schippers said he said they had phone sex 
sometimes, but it was 55 times. Well, I don't think it is 
perjury if you do not describe the amount of phone sex in 
adjectives sufficient to satisfy Mr. Schippers.
    So the vagueness that my colleagues have pointed out--and 
it was very clear how Majority was unable to respond to these 
simple requests--which statements do you think is perjurious? 
It was not simply incompetence. They are much better drafters 
than that. It was a conscious decision, on the one article that 
they think has the most serious chance of driving impeachment 
home, to vacillate and confuse and not to be specific, because 
they do not believe that the specifics would justify 
impeachment.
    Where the President touched her after he acknowledged 
having sex, whether it started in November or February, those 
are not issues for which people think you undo two Democratic 
elections and throw an elected official out of office.
    So what we have here, in the single strongest article as 
they have described it, is a deliberate vagueness, obfuscation, 
because they simply do not have substantial specific evidence 
that they themselves believe would justify impeachment.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Sensenbrenner, is recognized for 5 minutes. Would you yield to 
me for----
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I yield to the Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Thank you. In partial answer to Mr. 
Schumer's prior--and Mr. Nadler's questions--I have some quotes 
from Mr. Schumer, October 5, 1998. ``To me it is clear that the 
President lied when he testified before the grand jury.''
    October 8, 1998, Mr. Schumer. ``To me, Mr. Speaker, it is 
clear the President lied when he testified before the grand 
jury.''
    Then I have Mr. Wexler from September 15th: ``It is clear 
from the report that Clinton didn't tell the truth.''
    October 5th, Mr. Wexler: ``The President had an affair. He 
lied about it.''
    So if you want the specifics, whatever it was you relied 
on, I would be willing to cite it.
    Mr. Schumer. Point of personal privilege.
    Chairman Hyde. Also I understand that lurking about is a 
resolution of censure, and if I am not misinformed, it says, 
``The President made false statements concerning his 
reprehensible conduct with a subordinate.''
    So you must have a sufficiency of specifics to reach those 
conclusions that you have reached. I guess in law you call that 
an admission against inference.
    Mr. Frank. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Schumer. Point of personal privilege.
    Chairman Hyde. Simply by way of information. Mr. Schumer 
has a point of order----
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, it is my time.
    Mr. Schumer. Will the gentleman recognize me, not on his 
time, but will the Chair----
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. May I ask unanimous consent that my time 
may be tolled for however long Mr. Schumer wants to----
    Mr. Schumer. No objection.
    Mr. Buyer. No.
    Chairman Hyde. Go ahead, Mr. Schumer.
    Mr. Schumer. The point is very simple. Yes, I stated the 
President lied. I believe he did. First----
    Chairman Hyde. When? When did he lie?
    Mr. Schumer. That is, I am not putting forward, Mr. 
Chairman, with all due respect, articles of impeachment. And 
furthermore, even if you believe as many do in this country and 
on this side of the panel, because we have all, or most of us 
have stated it, we don't believe it rises to the level of 
impeachment.
    To make a considered judgment whether that is true or not, 
Mr. Chairman, the Members of this House, once we refer 
something to them, should know the specifics.
    Second, the standards----
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. May I reclaim my time to give you some 
of the specifics, sir?
    Mr. Schumer. It is not your time. The Chairman has yielded 
to me.
    Chairman Hyde. We can move along in an orderly fashion. Let 
Mr. Schumer finish. I have a feeling he is nearing nearing the end.
    Mr. Schumer. Your feeling in this case, Mr. Chairman, is 
correct and justified.
    Chairman Hyde. That is known as the power of suggestion.
    Mr. Schumer. Correct, and very persuasive in this instance 
it is.
    Mr. Frank. Or the suggestion of power.
    Chairman Hyde. That is true.
    Mr. Schumer. Number one, we are not dealing with fun and 
games here. If you are putting together articles of 
impeachment, specifically you should state which instances you 
believe not only were lies or mistruths, but which were 
perjurious. And there is a different standard, and the 
gentleman knows, all perjury is lies; not all lies in the 
common parlance are perjurious.
    Second, even if you should assume that they are the same 
here, we are rising to a level where we are asking to impeach a 
President, and I find it utterly amazing that instead of giving 
an answer, ``These are the three cases where he lied before the 
grand jury that rise to the level of perjury, and, more 
importantly, rise to the level of impeachment,'' we cannot get 
the other side to specifically state them.
    I find that--and instead, you are relying on a statement 
that I made, which I believe and have believed all along, and 
that is not a substitute.
    Again, we are not dealing in verbal jousting here. We are 
not dealing, if I might finish, and I am about to finish----
    Chairman Hyde. Please, Mr. Schumer, please finish.
    Mr. Schumer. In winning a point. We are dealing with 
impeaching a President. If you can't state the specifics, and 
you want to move forward, something is wrong with the process.
    Chairman Hyde. I hope by the end of the debate, you will 
have heard a lot of specifics. I am now back to Mr. 
Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Do my 5 minutes start fresh now, Mr. 
Chairman?
    Chairman Hyde. As we speak.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I thank the Chair.
    I would draw attention to the four specific instances of 
false and perjurious testimony that are contained in Article I. 
I know I won't be able to list all of them in 5 minutes, but 
they fall in four basic areas:
    1. the nature and details of his relationship with a 
subordinate government employee;.
    2. prior perjurious, false, and misleading testimony he 
gave in the Federal civil rights action brought against him;.
    3. prior misleading statements he allowed his attorney to 
make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and.
    4. his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of 
witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil 
rights action.
    Now, I know I won't be able to get through the instances 
that we know of in all four of these categories, and I would 
request my colleagues seated to my right to pick up when the 
red light goes on for me. But I also would like to point out 
that this is a very clever ruse on the part of the people 
seated to my left to attempt to limit evidence that can be 
adduced in the Senate, if it gets that far, to just these 
instances that I give. I am going to say that----
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. It is my time, please.
    Mr. Delahunt. I have a unanimous consent request.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I will object to whatever it is, because 
I would like to make my point without interruption, if I could.
    Chairman Hyde. You may. Please proceed.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I would just like to point out that the 
instances that my colleagues and I will be giving should not be 
construed at any future point in the proceeding as limiting 
evidence that might be adduced either on the House floor or 
over in the Senate.
    But first, relative to point number one in the articles of 
impeachment, the nature and details of his relationship with a 
subordinate government employee, page 11 of the grand jury 
testimony, the President testified whether his conduct with Ms. 
Lewinsky fell within the definition of sexual relations.
    He was given the case of Jones v. Clinton. He said he 
didn't believe that. At page 92, when he was asked ``. . . 
whether oral sex performed on you was within the definition, as 
you understood it,'' the President replied, ``As I understood 
it, it was not. No.'' The President conceded that the kissing 
or touching of the breasts or genitalia of another person would 
be covered by the definition of sexual relationships utilized 
in his deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton. That is at 
page 95. That testimony is false and misleading in light of the 
detailed and corroborated and consistent testimony of Monica 
Lewinsky.
    Secondly, the article of impeachment says, ``His prior 
perjurious false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal 
civil rights action brought against him,'' which is Jones v. 
Clinton. At pages 457 and 458 of the grand jury testimony, he 
testified that he believed he had answered the questions 
truthfully, ``That is correct'', in the Paula Jones deposition. 
I think there is ample evidence, including the videotape we saw 
yesterday, that that wasn't true.
    The third point is that there were--the President made 
prior false and misleading statements that he allowed his 
attorney to make to a Federal judge in a civil rights action.
    Now, the President's deposition, or excuse me, his grand 
jury testimony at pages 57 to 61 specifically relates to the 
affidavit that Monica Lewinsky signed, caused to have filed in 
the Jones versus Clinton case, where the President said, ``If 
it means there are none, that was a completely true 
statement.''
    We saw that on the TV yesterday, and that related to the 
false affidavit in the--of Monica Lewinsky in the civil rights 
action that the President's own attorney, Robert Bennett, said 
that the court should disregard in a letter, after more facts 
came out.
    Fourth, his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of 
witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in a Federal 
civil rights action. Take a look at the grand jury testimony, 
page 43. My time is up. I think that is enough.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman, a unanimous consent.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for a unanimous 
consent request.
    Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a unanimous 
consent request that Mr. Sensenbrenner be given what time he 
needs to outline the specifics.
    Mr. Chabot. I object.
    Chairman Hyde. Objection is heard, but we will get him some 
more time along the line.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, is it unreasonable to ask, when 
we are about to impeach a sitting President, that at least in 
these articles, starting with Article I, that we articulate 
which specific statements are perjurious in the text of the 
resolution?
    Now this, referring to pages out of Mr. Schippers' 
presentation and other matters that we heard here, is exactly 
the problem. This charge of perjury fails because it is vague 
and does not meet the minimal standards of due process. All the 
article says before us is that the President lied about the 
nature and the details of his relationship.
    What does this mean? And so what I would just like to do is 
point out to you that in these four instances, clause (1), 
relating to the nature and the details of the relationship, the 
President admitted that he had an improper relationship with 
Monica Lewinsky before the grand jury. The phrase ``nature and 
details of the relationship'' shows that the Republicans want 
to impeach the President over what has been referred to as who 
touched who and where.
    Now, in the second paragraph we are talking about relating 
to and affirming deposition testimony in the Paula Jones case. 
One cannot impeach the President for reaffirming his Paula 
Jones testimony. The judge, the Jones attorneys, and the 
President all agreed that when he was asked about whether he 
had a sexual relationship in deposition, the definition used 
there was contorted and confusing. We cannot now bring this to 
the height of an impeachable position in this article this 
afternoon.
    There is also a definite lack of materiality that would 
throw such an allegation out of any court in the country.
    The third clause regarding his grand jury testimony 
regarding the filing of an affidavit: The President never told 
Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit, but only that an 
affidavit may satisfy a legal requirement once she was 
subpoenaed. That has been reported repetitively here. That is 
not illegal nor improper, and that is the uncontradicted 
testimony of both the President and Ms. Lewinsky.
    The President believed fully that the Lewinsky affidavit 
was accurate. Lewinsky characterized in her taped conversation 
with Ms. Tripp the same definition of sexual relations used by 
the President and consistent with Webster's Dictionary.
    Now, clause (4) regarding the President's testimony at the 
grand jury to corrupt testimony of Lewinsky in the Jones suit: 
Monica Lewinsky said that no one asked her to lie. No one 
promised her a job. We must have heard that nearly 35 times in 
this committee. This may also be a veiled reference to efforts 
to find Ms. Lewinsky a job, but the testimony before the 
committee clearly shows that these efforts started prior to the 
Jones litigation, and the President never offered her a job.
    Mr. Frank. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Conyers. I yield briefly to Barney Frank.
    Mr. Frank. One point the Chairman made, the censure 
resolution refers to false statements made not under oath in 
press conferences. The suggestion that the censure resolution 
is in any way consonant with perjury is just not true. The 
censure resolution that the Chairman quoted, the Democratic 
censure resolution, does not at all talk about false statements 
made under oath, and certainly not before the grand jury.
    Mr. Conyers. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, can't we, in 
reasonableness on an article of impeachment for perjury, ask 
that you articulate which specific statements are perjurious? 
That is all that has been asked here by four members of this 
side of the aisle. Can we do that?
    Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, throughout this proceeding, we have been 
admonished by those on the other side of the aisle to look to 
the Rodino proceedings for guidance as we proceed. I think we 
have done a very good job of that throughout this process.
    I have before me the articles of impeachment against 
President Richard Nixon, particularly Article I, which was 
approved by this committee by a vote of 27 to 11 on July 27, 
1974. Now, the only member of this committee who remains from 
the Watergate committee is the gentleman from Michigan. He 
voted for this article of impeachment.
    The article specifies nine sections with regard to acts by 
President Nixon that the committee felt to be impeachable. The 
first one is ``Making or causing to be made false or misleading 
statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and 
employees of the United States.'' It does not specify what 
those statements are, what they----
    Mr. Delahunt. Will you yield?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No, I will not yield--what date those 
statements were made, in what context they were made. It simply 
specifies that false and misleading statements were made.
    The second paragraph deals with ``Withholding relevant and 
material evidence or information from lawfully authorized 
investigative officers and employees of the United States,'' 
and again, that is the entire text of that section.
    The eighth section says, ``Making false or misleading 
public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of 
the United States,'' and it does not specify what those are 
either. I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts' point 
that the censure resolution only refers to the public 
statements with regard to President Clinton.
    I would only add that that points out exactly how weak the 
censure resolution is, if it doesn't even make reference to the 
false statements the President has so clearly made before the 
grand jury----
    Mr. Gekas. Will the gentleman yield for a point?
    Mr. Goodlatte [continuing]. In a civil deposition. I will 
in just a moment.
    The final point I would point out is that the report that 
was filed with these articles of impeachment by the Rodino 
committee with regard to President Nixon, and the supporting 
documentation that was filed, does itemize in considerable 
detail exactly what false and misleading statements were made. 
So I think we are entirely appropriate.
    In fact, we have been far more generous than the Rodino 
committee was in terms of making available information in terms 
of the statements made by Mr. Schippers yesterday, and by Mr. 
Sensenbrenner a few minutes ago.
    I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Gekas. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The point 
has been made that the articles of impeachment then, in 
Watergate, and now are based on the record that has been compiled over 
the course of time. The articles are allegations, final allegations as 
part of the article of impeachment, that are founded on the massive 
evidence and records that are part of the record, and the report and 
the comments of the members of the committee, and all the evidence that 
was presented by counsel are all the foundation.
    The article simply relies on us, who have heard this 
evidence, who have developed our own opinions on it, to finally 
record our votes on whether or not the record substantiates the 
wording of the article of impeachment, then and now.
    Mr. Goodlatte. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
    Mr. Watt.  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think the gentleman 
has made the exact point we are trying to make over here, that 
once you insert the word ``perjurious,'' which is a legal term, 
you are required to specify what phrases, words, were 
perjurious.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has no 
precedent for that in terms of the context----
    Mr. Watt. Yes, there is----
    Mr. Goodlatte. Reclaiming my time, with regard to 
impeachment articles against previous Presidents, including 
false and misleading statements, there is no distinction being 
made here in terms of submitting to the Senate the charge the 
President has made false, misleading, and perjurious 
statements. We simply have a record that we are going to submit 
in the Senate, and it is in that record, just like it is in the 
record with regard to President Nixon.
    I believe my time has expired.
    Mr. Watt. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Schumer. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman--I guess you haven't 
trespassed on time, yet. The other was a point of order.
    Mr. Schumer. Correct.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized. The gentleman 
is recognized for a short 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schumer. Thank you. I will take a very short 5 minutes, 
but a pointed 5 minutes.
    I would say this, Mr. Chairman. I am just utterly amazed at 
where we are. We are seeking to remove a President of the 
United States. By general concession, this first article is the 
strongest case that the Majority has, that the authors of the 
resolution have, because it deals with perjury before the grand 
jury.
    We cannot get from anyone thus far a list of what specific 
perjurious statements have been made.
    Chairman Hyde. Will you yield?
    Mr. Schumer. If the Chairman will make my short 5 minutes a 
long 5 minutes, I will.
    Chairman Hyde. I will. I just want to say that the 
information has been handed to Mr. Nadler, a transcript of 
these remarks of Mr. Schippers yesterday, which contain 
extensively the information you are seeking.
    Mr. Schumer. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, are we then 
saying that the entire portion of Mr. Schippers' testimony 
yesterday, or presentation yesterday, all of that could be 
attached to the articles of impeachment as representing every 
one of those, is what the author of the resolution believes to 
be perjurious, point A, and B, nothing more?
    Chairman Hyde. I think----
    Mr. Schumer. I would yield to the gentleman. If the 
gentleman believes that, then our question is satisfied. At 
least there is a list of particulars.
    I would remind the gentleman, particularly my good friend 
from Virginia, that Watergate--there was no perjury charge 
there; that it is a fact of common law that when you are 
indicted for perjury, the actual perjury words be included in 
the indictment.
    And if you are asking for precedent, which the gentleman 
from Virginia was, I only look to Mr. Starr's indictment of Web 
Hubble, which had specific items of perjury.
    Chairman Hyde. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Schumer. I yield.
    Chairman Hyde. This is not an indictment. This is not a 
criminal proceeding. You keep casting it as such. It isn't. 
This is impeachment, as we are reminded ceaselessly by 
everybody else.
    Mr. Schumer. Reclaiming my time, I would make a couple of 
points. Yes, the gentleman is exactly correct; this is not a 
specifically legal proceeding. But the entire basis of what the 
author and the Majority have called for here is the fact that 
the President broke the law, that Americans can never trust the 
President again, that he allowed perjurious testimony to go 
forward.
    I think, at the very least--in other words, you are making 
a case based on the law. That has been the entire case that I 
have heard the Majority make. Now, all of a sudden, we are 
getting into the sort of never-never land of page 7 of the 
articles; when the President makes a misleading statement or a 
false statement, whether it is perjurious or not, that might be 
grounds for impeachment. I find this a sad day when that is the 
case.
    So what I would ask, again I would renew my request, 
because I think it is important to know if it is serious enough 
that we take that into account; that in one way or another--and 
I am only speaking for myself, I would be willing to take a 
short recess so the Majority could prepare it--that we get 
specific words that are alleged to be perjurious.
    As I read Mr. Schippers' presentation, and I imagine it is 
some 15 or 16 pages, based on Article I, based on the grand 
jury testimony, there are all sorts of charges and allegations. 
Some are done in paragraph form, some are done with specific 
quotes. There is not one sort of set pattern.
    I think what is required of us here today--because indeed 
we are seeking to impeach a President, and many of us argue 
that that is a step that even goes beyond the criminal law, 
because not every, at least in my judgment and in the judgments 
of many scholars, not every violation of criminal law rises to 
the level of impeachment, but at least in the criminal law, 
that we have the specific words listed.
    I would ask, in all due respect, and I am about to 
conclude, my respect for the Chairman, that we be given that 
specific list so that we, the full House--and, if it should 
come to it, the Senate--will know exactly what we are talking 
about.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, although you are absolutely correct that this 
is not a criminal proceeding in the strict sense of the word, I think 
there are some parallels that can be drawn and some lessons that can be 
gleaned from looking to and referencing procedures in the Federal 
criminal code. The nature of what we are doing here is similar to the 
drafting up of an indictment; not precisely, but similar to. Yet, the 
criminal rules themselves provide for what is called a ``bill of 
particulars.''
    Were an indictment--which is what the other side is 
alleging we are basically doing here--deemed to include every 
single element of every single allegation that will support the 
criminal charges alleged against the defendant, then there 
would be no need in the criminal rules for a ``bill of 
particulars.''
    The criminal rules, particularly rule 7, do indeed provide 
general guidance on what is, and what must be contained within 
an indictment, which is a charge that puts the defendant on 
notice as to the nature of the charges against him or her.
    Subsection (f) of that same rule provides for what I 
referred to--a bill of particulars. A bill of particulars is 
something that defense attorneys almost always seek. They seek 
that because they are seeking additional detail with which to 
prepare their defense. The appropriate time to file a bill of 
particulars is after the indictment, in order to test the 
sufficiency of the indictment itself.
    Were a bill of particulars, which is what the other side is 
cleverly asking for at this preliminary stage--to be required, 
then every single indictment ever issued by a Federal grand 
jury would be voluminous and would, in fact, limit the 
prosecutors in advance of preparing their trial, responding to 
motions, or preparing evidence, to only those specifics alleged 
completely as to every single element of proof.
    The fact that our Federal rules of criminal procedure 
provide for, in this instance, a two-step procedure is 
instructive here. You allege the general parameters with 
sufficient clarity and detail, only to put the defendant on 
notice so he or she can begin preparing their defense in the 
indictment.
    What comes after the indictment, which in this case is 
analogous to what we would be doing after this leaves the 
House, if it does leave the House, would be a whole range of 
procedures, during which time the sufficiency of that charging 
instrument is tested, and during which time the evidence itself 
is brought forward, debated in this case in the Senate, in a 
criminal proceeding in the courtroom.
    Now, what the other side is doing is, of course, very 
clever, but very disingenuous. What they are seeking, as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin noted a few moments ago, they are 
seeking not to do what they appear to be doing, and that is to 
provide sufficient data, sufficient information, for the 
President to know what he is charged with. He knows darned well 
what he is charged with. There will be, as part of the record 
that goes to the Senate, tens of thousands of pages of 
evidence, hours of testimony here, hours of debate here. That 
will all be the record that will go there.
    What they are seeking to do is to limit in advance what the 
Senate can do. They are trying to tie the hands of the Senate. 
That is improper. That was not done in any prior impeachment 
proceedings. It is not done in criminal proceedings. They are 
simply trying to maneuver their way, anticipating that this 
does go to the Senate, to limit arbitrarily the data and the 
evidence, and therefore the charges, on which the President can 
be tried.
    We have in this indictment, in this document that we have 
here--we have alleged with sufficient particularity to put the 
President on notice and a reasonable person on notice with the 
nature of the charges against him so he can defend against 
them.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take a 
few minutes. First, I have said that I believe that the 
President lied before the grand jury, made false statements to 
the grand jury. I think the Majority has overreached by 
reaching the conclusion--a conclusion that we don't have a 
judge to instruct us on the elements--of perjury.
    But the worst thing is to try and have it both ways, to 
reach the legal conclusion in the article of impeachment that 
the president committed perjury, and then not to comply with 
the traditional requirements--which Mr. Barr and the majority 
totally ignored--that in an indictment for perjury that you 
list the false statements and why the prosecution believes they 
are false.
    If the majority chooses not to do that, I think the fair 
thing to do is to go through the process of providing notice to 
the Senate, and to Members of the House on the floor of the 
specifics. I think that is the fair way to approach this.
    Now, I want to acknowledge right off the bat that I don't 
believe this conduct constitutes or rises to the level of a 
high crime and misdemeanor. This is not why I am going to vote 
against this article of impeachment. But I think that is the 
right way to do it. We passed this law, as I mentioned, this 
independent counsel law. Starr gets appointed. The 
investigation presents 60,000 pages, as the Chairman mentioned 
earlier this morning, of information. I think the Chairman is 
right. If we wanted to contest that 60,000 pages of sworn 
testimony, and that is what it is, we could have cross-examined 
those people by calling them ourselves, but here is where I do 
think we cross the line by not providing the specifics while 
you try to get us to make the legal judgments I don't think 
this body, this political body, should be making a 
determination that perjury has been committed. I think you 
should take some time and either change the allegation of 
perjury or make the notice.
    I yield to my colleague.
    Mr. Frank. As a matter of fact, Kenneth Starr does meet the 
specificity requirement, not in the criminal indictment but in 
the referral. If you look at pages 148 and 149 of the referral, 
Kenneth Starr did very crisply with three counts of grand jury 
perjury, and it was specific.
    The problem the Majority has is that they are too trivial. 
The Majority does not like what Kenneth Starr came up with, so 
what we have here is an obfuscation. Kenneth Starr says, he 
said 1996, February; she said November, 1995. Kenneth Starr 
said he said he believed himself when he testified in August. 
He said he believed himself when he testified in January. And 
Kenneth Starr said he touched her,and he didn't say he touched 
her, and she said he touched her.
    The problem is, Kenneth Starr does do what the Majority 
doesn't do. Kenneth Starr gives three specifics of grand jury 
misstatement. I will give the Majority credit; they know a 
losing case when they see one. They look at Kenneth Starr's 
three cases and they say, wow, we can't defend those.
    I yield back to the gentleman.
    Mr. Berman. Kenneth Starr alleged three specific false 
statements.
    Mr. Frank. He didn't call it perjury. That is true. That is 
true. I guess the Majority has finally made it clear, they will 
not tolerate Kenneth Starr's softness on the President. They 
are going to toughen it up. But the fact is that they do it in 
a very, very inaccurate and inadequate way.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what we are 
dealing with today is a debate on a smokescreen. I really 
believe, as some of my colleagues have said a moment ago, that 
what we have before us is 60,000 pages of documents, and we had 
a very excellent summary of the specific details of where the 
President committed perjury before the grand jury from Mr. 
Schippers yesterday.
    But I am going to discuss--rather than getting into the 
prolonged technical discussion about whether we should be more 
specific or not, I am going to get into some of the specifics 
of why I believe that Article I should indeed be an impeachment 
of the President of the United States.
    Mr. McCollum. The President clearly, to me, committed 
perjury before the grand jury when he testified with regard to 
whether or not he engaged in sexual relations with Monica 
Lewinsky, with respect to the definition given to him by the 
judge in the court.
    If you remember, that it was a very specific definition and 
it included in it touching of breast and genitalia. And on page 
547 of the big document we have got published here, this is 
Part 1 from the office of Kenneth Starr, is part of the 
testimony--the entire transcript is here of the President's 
deposition before the grand jury, and on page 547 he has been 
asked about the particulars of that statement and that 
definition, and he has been asked a question that says, ``If 
the person being deposed touched the blank of another person 
would that be--and with the intent to arouse sexual desire, 
arouse or gratify as defined in definition one, would that be, 
under your understanding then and now--

    Answer. Yes, sir.
    Question [continuing]. Sexual relations?
    Answer. Yes, sir.
    Question. Yes, it would?
    Answer. Yes, it would. If you had a direct contact with any 
of these places in the body, if you had direct contact with the 
intent to arouse or gratify, that would fall within the 
definition.''

    That's the President's answer.
    ``So''--then the question goes on,

    So you didn't do any of those things----
    Answer. You----
    Question [continuing]. With Monica Lewinsky?
    Answer. You are free to infer that my testimony is that I 
did not have sexual relations as I understood this term to be 
defined.
    Question. Including touching her breasts, kissing her 
breasts or touching her genitalia?
    Answer. That's correct.

    That is specifically, if anybody wants to know, where the 
President committed perjury.
    Now, why do I conclude he did, in this particular set of 
circumstances, if we want to be specific? It is because Monica 
Lewinsky testified that on numerous occasions he did touch 
those particular parts of her body and that he, in fact--that 
her testimony about that was corroborated and is corroborated 
by a number of specific witnesses whose testimony we have in 
the record that Mr. Schippers referred to yesterday; 
contemporaneous discussions that she had with him about this 
over a period of time.
    Now, I can cite you to the testimony of Catherine Allday 
Davis, Neysa Erbland, Natalie Rose Ungvari, Andrew Bleiler, and 
Kathleen Estep--who, by the way, was a counselor for her, a 
psychiatrist I suppose, or a counselor of some sort. At any 
rate, this was contemporaneous. It is believable. It is 
consistent with her testimony she gave herself before the grand 
jury.
    She is believable. The President is not. Anybody who reads 
this can't help but come to those conclusions. And that's 
taking the President's own admissions into account.
    Now, with regard to other features of this, the President 
also testified in the grand jury, in this document, on page 
571, with regard to the affidavit that was in question, ``and I 
hoped she would be able to get out of testifying on an 
affidavit? Absolutely. Did I want her to execute a false 
affidavit? No, I did not.''
    He lied in that case. He committed perjury in that case 
because, of course, he wanted her, with all the evidence before 
us, to execute a false affidavit. We have been over that, about 
the circumstances of their original meeting, about all the 
details that you could imagine about those circumstances. He 
clearly anticipated that she would, consistent with the cover 
stories they prepared before, before she went to give her 
testimony in the Jones case, file a false affidavit. Mr. 
Schippers was over that time and again yesterday, and that is 
another question that goes tothe fourth basis in this, and we 
could go on and enumerate a lot of it.
    The fourth basis of our particulars in Article IV, that we 
are here today, deals with the question of his corrupt efforts 
to influence the testimony of witnesses to impede the discovery 
of evidence in that civil rights action. And we could go on and 
on and on with the list, and I am sure we will today.
    But I am convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, not just 
clearing and convincing----
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. McCollum [continuing]. That Article I is more than 
justified as an article of impeachment, that the President 
committed perjury.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentlelady from----
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
    word.
    Chairman Hyde. Ms. Waters, I have just been reminded by Mr. 
Nadler that he was next, and I am sorry.
    Ms. Waters. All right. No problem.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. Five minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield to you to answer 
a question. As the author of this proposed article of 
impeachment, do you intend that this--these alleged perjuries 
to be Mr. Starr's three perjuries--three allegations on pages 
148 and 149 of the report, or do you intend to go beyond that 
and have some other perjuries beyond these three he mentions?
    Mr. McCollum. If the gentleman would yield? I would believe 
that there are----
    Mr. Nadler. I didn't ask you. I asked the sponsor, the 
author of the resolution.
    Mr. McCollum. You are asking Mr. Hyde this question, not 
me?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes, I am. He is the author.
    Chairman Hyde. I really don't know. I think the three----
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The three----
    Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Hyde. Oh, you don't want a full answer?
    Mr. Nadler. You said you didn't know. That's the answer.
    Chairman Hyde. Well, I said I will try to be more precise 
if you will give me some time.
    Mr. Nadler. I am sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead.
    Chairman Hyde. Okay. Go ahead. Finish your time.
    Mr. Nadler. No, no. I thought----
    Chairman Hyde. I finished what I wanted to say. I will try 
to get more information. My present opinion is, we will stay 
with what Starr has and what Mr. Schippers has.
    Mr. Nadler. Starr and Schippers.
    Chairman Hyde. Oh, yes, Starr and Schippers.
    Mr. Schumer. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes, quickly.
    Mr. Schumer. Starr has three allegations of perjury under 
the grand jury: the date they met Lewinsky, whether there was a 
touching----
    Mr. Rothman. A lying.
    Mr. Schumer. A lying, a false statement. Excuse me. I am 
sorry; that's well corrected.
    And third, whether oral sex was committed.
    Schippers lists a whole bunch of other things which--are we 
referring in this article--I would yield to the chairman to 
answer--to those three in the Starr report or to others that 
are listed in the Schippers report, as well?
    Chairman Hyde. We are referring to everything in the Starr 
report.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Reclaiming----
    Mr. Schumer. Just the Starr report?
    Mr. Nadler. Just the Starr report?
    Chairman Hyde. The Starr report and the Schippers
    report.
    Mr. Schumer. Well----
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Reclaiming my time. Starr and 
Schippers. So you are going beyond Starr to other unspecified 
statements.
    Mr. Chairman, let me say the following. Let me say the 
following: We keep hearing from the other side of the aisle in 
this committee that the whole reason--the whole reason for this 
proceeding is that we must defend the rule of law.
    Well, the rule of law demands and establishes due process, 
and a fundamental of due process is that a defendant is 
entitled to notice of the charges against him. Perjury, the 
central allegation here, demands specifics. The law says the 
specifics must be listed in the indictment.
    I would be satisfied with a contemporaneous report, a 
contemporaneous list now, not in the language, but a 
contemporaneous list now, precisely as Mr. Sensenbrenner says, 
so that the Senate is limited, so that the House is limited to 
the charges we make, so that the defendant has notice of what 
he must defend against. That is the essence of due process.
    Now, we are told by the gentleman from Virginia that the 
Nixon allegation in the article, which wasn't the central 
article as this one is, didn't list the specific language, but 
the fact is, the report did. What we are saying today is that 
you can have no due process, you can have no fair notice of the 
charges if the charges are subject to expansion later, if the 
charges are anything that can be derived from the 100-page 
Schippers' report, full of loose allegations, unspecified. And 
the fact of the matter is, this whole subject is revealed for 
the farce it is if the majority cannot answer the question and 
say what are the specifics.
    I didn't demand that the specific language be in the 
article; I asked what any defendant is entitled to--even the 
President of the United States--that we have notice before we 
vote on these, so that we can debate them intelligently; so 
that--so the House Members know what they are voting on; and 
should they go to the Senate, the President knows what he is 
dealing with.
    And the law requires--unlike what Mr. Barr said, when you 
deal with perjury, the law requires the specifics in the 
indictment; and I am saying----
    Chairman Hyde. Will the gentleman yield even though his 
time is up?
    Mr. Nadler. I will yield.
    Chairman Hyde. If my good friend would listen to when we 
talk over here--I know that is a major effort, but if you 
would--you will hear the answers to your questions. Already, 
many of the answers have been provided and more are on the way.
    Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my time for two sentences, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The problem is that all the discussion is not satisfactory, 
for one reason. What we need, what is required, is a specific 
list of the words, a limited list of the words not subject to 
expansion later, specific notice of the allegation. That is all 
we ask----
    Chairman Hyde. Well, if you will listen----
    Mr. Nadler [continuing]. So the House will know what it is 
debating.
    Chairman Hyde. If you will listen carefully, you will get 
your answer.
    The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. I thank the Chair.
    Let me just review where we are here for a moment. I 
believe it was yesterday and the day before we heard the 
President's counsel, the minority counsel, respond very 
specifically to the allegations of perjury that were alleged 
before the grand jury, which is the substance of Article I. The 
President's lawyer and the minority counsel did not have any 
problem in responding very specifically, because they know the 
specifics as to the allegations. They were set forth in the 
Starr report; they were set forth in the Schippers report.
    But I think that when you look at the drafting of this 
particular article, it is consistent with the previous articles 
of impeachment that have been drafted for perjury in previous 
cases before this House. You can set forth specifically in the 
articles the question and answer, but in this case, we gave due 
notice because of the different areas that are being alleged to 
be perjurious in the articles of impeachment.
    So there is adequate notice. And Mr. Barr from Georgia is 
correct that if it goes to the Senate and more specificity is 
desired, then under a bill of particulars, that can be 
provided. This article would be sufficient under any indictment 
that would be presented in a criminal case, but this is not a 
criminal case. This is an impeachment proceeding before the 
House of Representatives, and perhaps we will need to provide 
more specifics at a later date.
    But these articles give adequate notice, and when the 
statement ``perjurious'' is in there, that means that it is in 
the nature of perjury, it is in the nature of false statements. 
We are not going on technical legal definitions or technical 
criminal statutes. This is a proceeding protecting the public 
trust of the United States.
    My friend from New York has asked for specific questions 
and answers in the grand jury testimony, and so let's look at 
that for a moment. In the articles of impeachment, the first 
reference is that there were perjurious statements given 
concerning the nature and details of the President's 
relationship with a subordinate government employee. I am 
referring to the actual grand jury transcript that is not bound 
in the Starr report, but it is the actual transcript. On page 6 
the President refers to the statement that he gives to the 
grand jury. He says that his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky did 
not consist of sexual intercourse. ``They did not constitute 
sexual relations, as I understood that term to be defined at my 
January 17th, 1998, deposition.''
    I believe that is a false statement that is provided by the 
President of the United States in the grand jury testimony, 
that supports the nature and details of his relationship as 
alleged in Article I.
    Another allegation in the articles of impeachment is that 
he gave false testimony relating to his prior testimony in a 
Federal civil rights action. If you refer to pages 18 and 19 of 
the President's grand jury testimony, the question was asked, 
``Was it your responsibility to answer those questions 
truthfully, Mr. President?'' That referred to his previous 
testimony in the Jones case.
    It is a long answer, but in the course of that, he says, 
``But in this deposition, Mr. Bittman, I was doing my best to 
be truthful.''
    The President is saying that he was doing his best to be 
truthful in his prior deposition. I believe that is a false and 
perjurious statement.
    Mr. Schumer. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hutchinson. I go on to page 37, which is testimony 
about improperly influencing witnesses as alleged in the 
articles of impeachment. And at page 37, the questions are 
asked about his conversations with Betty Currie and why he was 
leading her through a series of statements. His testimony to 
the grand jury was that, ``I thought that what would happen is 
that it would break in the press, and I was trying to get the 
facts down.''
    It is my belief that that is false testimony, because I 
believe it is unreasonable, illogical and defies common sense; 
and I believe the purpose of his questioning and conversation 
with Betty Currie was to influence her testimony improperly.
    Those are Q&A, question and answer, in the grand jury 
testimony that support the articles of impeachment that are set 
forth here, specifics.
    Now, that doesn't mean it is limited to just these 
examples. That doesn't mean that this is all the Q&A there are 
certainly others that can be pointed to. But these are ones 
that I am relying upon as a member of this committee when I 
vote on this article of impeachment.
    Mr. Schumer. Would the gentleman yield for a brief 
question?
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Schumer. I ask unanimous consent to ask the gentleman a 
brief question.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection.
    Mr. Schumer. Several of the things alleged--mentioned by 
Mr. Hutchinson, which might well be in a court of law 
perjurious--I won't judge that--are neither in Schippers nor 
Starr. And so now that----
    Mr. Hutchinson. That is not a true statement.
    Mr. Schumer. So the chairman has said it is Schippers and 
Starr--first, it was just Starr.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Reclaiming my time, because I believe I am 
yielding to you.
    Mr. Schumer. We have to know what we are voting on here, 
not what each person says.
    Chairman Hyde. Reclaiming his time.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. Schippers certainly covered the exact 
same issues his testimony before this committee. And it is 
specifically set forth in the Starr referral. There is more 
than adequate notice on that, and I have given you several 
specific questions and answers. You do not have to accept it, 
you do not have to agree with it, but there is adequate notice.
    Mr. Frank. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hutchinson. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say--thank 
Mr. Starr finally for answering the question. The question was 
what authority Mr. Apperson had to swear in the grand jury 
witness. Mr. Starr points out that the official transcript has 
Elizabeth Eastman, a notary public for the District of 
Columbia, providing the oath and saying that although Rule 6(e) 
authorizes the foreperson of the grand jury to administer 
oaths, it does not restrict the authority to someone else, but 
doesn't specifically say whether or not Mrs. Eastman had the 
authority.
    Mr. Chairman, this is not a small point, because Rule 6(e) 
gives the foreperson or deputy foreperson authority to swear in 
the witnesses. The framers of the Bill of Rights included in 
the Fifth Amendment a guarantee of grand juries in Federal 
court in order to protect ordinary citizens against the power 
of Federal prosecuting authorities, and even the Supreme Court 
in U.S. v. Williams states that the whole theory and foundation 
is that it belongs to no branch of constitutional government, 
serving as a kind of buffer between government and the people, 
and, ``It swears in its own witnesses.''
    Mr. Chairman, there is a case, Pryor v. United States, a 
1977 case, where the question was whether or not a perjury 
charge could lie when the defendant said that the court 
reporter swore the person in and the foreman of the grand jury 
said that he had actually sworn him in, and I am going to read 
part of that case.
    ``The defendant claims that the government failed to prove 
that he was duly administered an oath by the foreman at the 
commencement of his testimony. He relies upon the certificate 
of the court reporter, a preprinted form, describing the 
proceedings as a deposition. He argues that this certificate 
conclusively establishes that the court reporter, rather than 
the foreman, administered the oath to him and that the notary 
public, not being authorized to administer the oath to grand 
jury witnesses, the case must fail. The certificate might be 
sufficient, if not contradicted, to overcome the presumption.''
    The Court goes on to say that the chairman--the foreman of 
the grand jury actually testified that he in fact had given the 
oath.
    ``It is for the jury to weigh the relative credibility of 
the foreman and the form. There was ample evidence from which 
they could and did concede--conclude that the oath had been 
properly administered by the foreman.''
    Mr. Chairman, that would be totally irrelevant if we accept 
Mr. Starr's statement that it didn't matter who gave the form.
    Now, all of this intrigue is interesting, Mr. Chairman, 
because Mr. Starr now tells us that there is an official 
transcript. The one he sent us just said, ``William Jefferson 
Clinton, being duly sworn,'' whereas, with Monica Lewinsky, he 
said the grand jury--in her grand jury testimony it said, 
``Monica Lewinsky, being duly sworn by the foreperson of the 
grand jury.''
    I don't know why we got a different form. This is an 
important issue before us, and if we are going to--I would like 
to know from Mr. Starr why this was kind of obfuscated with Mr. 
Clinton and why we were not told this other information, 
because he had told us in his testimony that there is no 
question--well, he said that a jury would convict and all of 
the elements of perjury were there.
    Mr. Chairman, I don't know why we got a different 
transcript in our form than he is referring to now, but this is 
an issue, and I think goes to the credibility of the witness.
    I will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, if you 
had a comment.
    Mr. Frank. No.
    Mr. Scott. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Coble, the gentleman from North Carolina.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman 
from the Roanoke Valley of Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Chairman, first, in response to the gentleman from 
Virginia, I would direct his attention to Title V of the United 
States Code, section 2903, oath, ``authority to administer, 
subsection (b)(2), an individual authorized by local law to 
administer oaths in the state, district, territory or 
possession of the United States where the oath is 
administered,'' and then, of course, you turn to the District 
of Columbia law, which authorizes the notary public to 
administer the oath. I think that answers that question.
    Mr. Scott. In a grand jury proceeding?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Let me go on to the other point I want to 
make here first, and that is with regard to this issue of 
perjury. I think the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman 
from Arkansas have been absolutely correct in terms of the 
nature of this proceeding being different from a criminal 
proceeding, but in a criminal proceeding there are two types of 
perjury:
    One, where you have two different statements made by an 
individual and the issue is, which one is the correct 
statement, you do list those with specificity. If you are 
viewing this as that type of case, the report that will be 
submitted with this will list those things or incorporate other 
things such as Mr. Schippers' report or the counsel's report, 
and that specific information will be available to the 
President, whose counsel obviously knows what we are referring 
to because he addressed it all when he was here.
    But, secondly, the other type of perjury, and the type that 
I think we are really talking about here, where someone is 
simply accused of making a false statement, does in fact not 
require the specificity that the other side is calling for.
    Let me read you a case appropriately from the U.S. District 
Court in Arkansas, in prosecution for making false material 
declarations in proceeding on the accused's motion to vacate or 
set aside a sentence imposed for a kidnapping offense.
    ``The accused's allegedly false testimony at such 
proceeding, that he had not wished to take the stand at the 
kidnapping trial but defense counsel had advised him to take 
the stand and had coerced him into doing so, was material and 
it was not error to instruct as to its materiality.''
    And then in the absence of any claim of--let's see. Here is 
another case in which the defendant was not entitled to a bill 
of particulars specifying those portions of the grand jury 
testimony which provided the basis for charging false 
declarations before a grand jury, U.S. v. Questa, a Florida 
case, 1979.
    Mr. Frank. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Goodlatte. I will in a moment.
    Finally, let me get back to what I think the gentleman from 
Wisconsin and the gentleman from Florida correctly pointed out, 
which is really the purpose here today, and that is to try to 
get away from what is truly the issue here, and that is whether 
or not we are going to submit to the Senate articles of 
impeachment. To try to claim that somehow we have to put all of 
the details regarding those things in the articles, I think is 
clearly wrong.
    Going back to the Watergate proceedings, the gentleman from 
Michigan, Mr. Conyers, addressed this very point. He said, ``I 
would like to observe, if I might, that we have spent a great 
deal of time talking, and I think we may have reached some 
agreement upon the validity of the Sarbanes substitute. That is 
to say, we realize we are going to bring to the floor of the 
Congress this matter so that to attempt to detail the policy or 
plan that has been suggested as the basis for Article I in the 
substitute would be a little bit ludicrous.'' He went on to 
say----
    Mr. Conyers. Will the gentleman yield?
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Goodlatte. In response to the specific point about 
detailing the false or misleading statements that are a part of 
that article, he said that was a false or misleading statement. 
He had just detailed one of those.
    ``We have documented it any number of times in the course 
of the months that we have been here, and so for us to have to 
write this in is an unnecessary act because there is not just 
one or two; there are several. Any number of them, any of 
which, since I--as I read this pleading, it is in the 
alternative, would be sufficient. The means used to implement 
the policy of the President have included one or more of the 
following,'' and he makes emphasis of a number of these 
specific courses.
    Now, with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I think that after we 
analyze any number of these reasons that demonstrate a course 
of conduct, those of us who are ready to support the notion of 
impeachment as embodied in this very plainly worded language 
should be able to support it before this evening is over, and I 
would hope that we would be moved to that point so that we 
could at least accept this very first article before the end of 
this evening.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentlelady yield for 10 seconds?
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    Mr. Conyers. I just want the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Goodlatte, to know that in the Nixon case in 1974, we had the 
FBI, IRS, CIA records. They were quite specific and were not in 
controversy.
    Here, we have statements that flow all over the place, in 
and out of grand jury trials and actual events.
    And I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
    Ms. Lofgren. Reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Schumer. Would the gentlelady yield for just 5 more?
    Ms. Lofgren. If I may just quickly reclaim my time, because 
it is directly on the point Mr. Conyers has just made, I do 
believe that what is before us today falls short of the 
precedents that the House has set in impeachment particulars in 
the past; and I wanted to just quote briefly from a letter I 
think every member of the committee received from our 
colleague, Congressman Hastings, that was entered into the 
record yesterday, I believe, by Ms. Waters.
    In his letter to us, he points out that in the 1973 
proceedings, the Chair and the ranking minority member, with 
the concurrence of the committee, directed John Dorr, the 
special counsel for the majority, and Albert Jenner, the 
special counsel for the minority, to produce a comprehensive 
statement of information in the inquiry into the conduct of the 
then-President Nixon. The statement of information that the 
staff produced for the inquiry consisted of numbers of 
paragraphs, each of which was followed by photocopies of the 
particular portions of the evidence that the staff concluded 
supported the assertions made in that paragraph.
    President Nixon was invited to and did submit a further 
statement of information in the same format, and as a result, 
there was a balanced, organized, neutral statement that all 
members could review and understand what it was they were 
voting on.
    Mr. Hastings points out that other members have not had the 
same access to the material that the members of this committee 
have, and that the record is such that other Members of the 
House may not be able to determine for themselves whether there 
is clear and convincing evidence to support any or all of the 
allegations in these articles, and that in order to impose the 
burden of an impeachment trial upon the Senate, the President, 
the Supreme Court and the American people, each Member of the 
House, not just the members of this committee, need to satisfy 
themselves that there is sufficient evidence, that it is 
sufficiently specific and that it meets the clear and 
convincing burden.
    I would note also that in the only other presidential 
impeachment, the impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson, the 
articles listed the general allegations and then were very 
specific as to the actual words that President Johnson was 
accused of saying and how they violated, in the view of the 
radicals' proceeding at that point, their view of high crimes 
and misdemeanors. And I would like to ask unanimous consent 
that the articles of impeachment for Andrew Johnson be made a 
part of this hearing record.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.054
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.055
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.056
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.057
    
    Ms. Lofgren. I would strongly suggest that what we have 
before us now falls far short of what our precedents would lead 
us to do, and also will not give adequate notice to our 
colleagues.
    What we are talking about, I think, is a trial in the 
Senate that will require extensive, probative testimony as to 
details of sexual activity; and I think that if that is, in 
fact, what we are asking our colleagues to vote upon and to ask 
the Senate to delve into, they have a right to know that that 
is what they are being asked to send to the Senate.
    And now I would happily yield to Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. I thank the gentlewoman. This notion--it is an 
abdication of responsibility. You are voting for a resolution 
that says these things conclusively; and to say that we don't 
have to specify what the perjury was and we will tell the 
Senate later, if they ask, boggles my mind.
    I have tried to go through the Schippers report. I looked 
at the Starr report. It was both specific on perjury and weak, 
and I believe the majority knew that, so they decided to buff 
up the Starr report.
    But I have been through the Schippers report. I cannot tell 
where points three and four are supposed to be. One and two 
have to do with what he touched and when he touched it, but 
points three and four are very vague. It is unclear to me in 
the Schippers report, and I would hope before we werethrough--I 
mean, I will never be a Senator, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to run 
for the Senate, but just for a brief minute, make me a Senator.
    Show me what you are going to show the Senate. Treat me 
like a Senator. It is enough I am sitting next to Schumer, but 
maybe I can--maybe you would show me what you are going to show 
the Senate and where in the Schippers report are these 
allegations on three and four, because they are not in the 
Starr report; and I do think we ought to get a sense of them 
before we get to the Senate.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Gekas, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Gekas. I thank the Chair.
    Chairman Hyde. Will the gentleman yield to me just for a 
second?
    Mr. Gekas. I certainly will.
    Chairman Hyde. I would like to ask Mr. Scott a question.
    Mr. Scott, you seem to be making an issue of the validity 
of the oath that was given to the President by the court 
reporter or the notary public. An insufficient oath is a 
defense to perjury. Is the President making that defense that 
the oath was insufficient?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what defense the 
President is making. Of course, he didn't know what the charges 
were when his counsel was here to present, but if you are going 
to charge perjury, rather than--if you just charge false 
statement, even false statement under oath, it wouldn't even 
have to be the right oath, but if you are going to charge 
perjury, you have to prove it, all of the elements.
    Chairman Hyde. I just wondered if that was a defense that 
he was urging.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman--I can say, Mr. Chairman--I don't 
think so. I don't think so.
    Chairman Hyde. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Gekas.
    Mr. Scott. But what I am making----
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Gekas.
    Mr. Gekas. Mr. Chairman, it is worth repeating that all of 
us have contributed in one way or another to creating the 
record which is before us; incorporating into the record the 
Starr report was a giant step in that direction. Later, all the 
testimony we had with respect to what an impeachable offense 
is, all the experts, the historians and then even in the later 
stages, when minority counsel and majority counsel presented 
their presentations, that, too, became a part of the record and 
outlined in detail all the bases upon which these articles of 
impeachment are based.
    In short, the article summarizes the allegation that is to 
go to the Senate and provides with it voluminous portions of 
records that sustain the main allegation in the article. And 
that is not so farfetched or so far removed from what happened 
in Watergate, because the so-called Dorr report is the Starr 
report in our case. That is, that it does compend together all 
of the allegations and puts them in one feasible package so 
that the members can consider them.
    Moreover, when this procedure finally ends, Mr. Hyde, as 
chairman of this committee, following the procedures, will be 
drawing a final report to submit to the House and presumably 
that will also go to the Senate if the House should impeach; 
and that Hyde report will again repeat the bases of the record 
that we have created to which we have lent our ears and our 
pens and our voices.
    Mr. Schumer. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gekas. And that Hyde report, the chairman's report, 
will be the final indication that the record which supports the 
allegations that are contained in the articles of impeachment 
are, indeed, well founded. And that, to me, is a simple fact.
    We are now delaying the process. This is dilatory on the 
part of those who want to maintain that the record does not 
sustain the allegations.
    Mr. Schumer. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gekas. Yes.
    Mr. Schumer. He has a little more time.
    I thank the gentleman for his courtesy in yielding.
    I understand the point that you are making, the gentleman 
from Virginia, about what was done in Watergate and the--but 
the point stands. When you are dealing with perjury, it is the 
very words that constitute the crime in a criminal court, and 
here it should constitute the act for impeachment.
    When you don't list the words that are allegedly 
perjurious, it is like alleging obstruction or subornation of a 
witness without mentioning the witness.
    Mr. Gekas. Reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Schumer. So there is a difference with perjury and with 
all the other charges.
    Mr. Gekas. Reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Schumer. The facts matter. I yield back.
    Mr. Gekas. Rendering false statements under oath is also a 
crime, but you do not insist that that be stated in specificity 
because that was the Watergate mode, which we have taken great 
pains, in order to accommodate your side of the aisle to try to 
emulate, so that we can bring these matters to a conclusion.
    Mr. Frank. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gekas. We have done so in a proper manner and the final 
vote that we will be casting will be with a complete record. 
That record aimed at and succeeded at substantiating the 
allegations in the articles of impeachment.
    Mr. Frank. Will the gentlemen yield?
    Mr. Gekas. I yield.
    Mr. Frank. I thank the gentleman. The point is that I have 
the same argument with this perjury or false statement because 
I am making a substantive argument. There is nothing dilatory. 
I really believe that you think that politically lying in front 
of the grand jury is the strongest argument to make, but it is 
the weakest factual one.
    Mr. Gekas. Reclaiming my time, Barney.
    Mr. Frank. Oh, George, that's not fair.
    Mr. Gekas. Reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Frank. Nine seconds.
    Mr. Gekas. It is my time.
    Mr. Frank. Nine seconds you give me, George.
    Mr. Gekas. I will ask for 30 more seconds, and if you yield 
back the yielding that I yield to you, I will yield.
    Mr. Frank. I do.
    Mr. Gekas. Will you yield?
    Mr. Frank. I do.
    Now let me just finish, if I can, to say that I really 
believe the crux of this is that the three specific acts of 
grand jury perjury Kenneth Starr puts forward, you are 
embarrassed to take to the floor, you are embarrassed to try 
and unseat a twice-elected President on this degree of trivia 
and you have therefore used obfuscatory language to suggest a 
set of offenses that don't have specific support.
    Mr. Gekas. I repeat that we have a full record, and 
furthermore, even if the gentleman from Massachusetts says that 
false statements under oath are also unspecified here, then we 
have failed to follow the Watergate mode the way he wants, 
because it does the same, exact thing.
    I yield back the balance of my nontime.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman has no time to yield back.
    Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I move to 
strike the last word.
    I had planned on giving quite a different statement. 
However, it is obvious, based on the conversation and the 
discussion and debate that we have been engaged in over the 
past--I don't know--hour, that we can't move forward until we 
resolve something that's very basic to this impeachment--these 
articles of impeachment that your side is attempting to put 
forward.
    Certainly, Mr. Chairman, you could allow each of us to use 
up our 5 minutes, and after we have all exhausted that, move 
on, but I don't think you want to do that and even though I 
chide you and even make you a little bit uncomfortable 
sometimes, I do believe that you tend to operate the Chair in a 
fashion where you would want to resolve an issue as basic as 
this one about whether or not we are going to move forward with 
an article of impeachment without specificity.
    Let me just tell you whether you are a Democrat or a 
Republican, I don't think you want history to record that you 
voted on something and you don't know what you are voting on. I 
don't think you want 20 years from now, or 30 years from now, 
someone to pick up this article of impeachment that in a very 
general way talks about perjury and the historians cannot 
identify the words that were taken down that were perjurious. I 
just don't think you want that.
    And so, Mr. Chairman, instead of offering my statement, I 
am going to point you, number one, to the fact that the 
Schippers list that you are talking about attaching does not 
meet the test of specificity, and it certainly is not 
consistent with what is in the Starr report. As a matter of 
fact, I am a little bit offended by the Schippers list that 
talks about the number of phone conversations that the 
President had with Monica Lewinsky as opposed to the number 
that the President identified.
    But he goes even further. He talks about patterns of 
distortion, outright lies, half truths, and if you recall, he 
referred to the half truths as ``the blackest lie of all that 
just doesn't meet the test.'' I don't know what this means. And 
I would submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps you should 
consider recessing so that you can give specificity to the 
article of impeachment.
    The members of this committee are not asking that you not 
do anything so they can continue this. They have been very 
gracious in saying, we will give you time to go and put the 
specificity in.
    Now, don't be guilty of the charge that you don't want to 
do it because you want an open-ended referral that will allow 
the Senate or anybody else to choose, pick, add, do whatever 
they want to do. If you are serious about your desire to 
impeach this President because you sincerely believe that he 
has perjured himself in ways that meet the constitutional test, 
high crimes and misdemeanors, list them. Be straightforward 
enough to say what they are. Be specific about them, so that in 
fact they can be argued, they can be debated. Otherwise, we are 
all over the place trying to debate which lie you are 
supposedly talking about, which half truth, which is the 
blackest lie, which is what.
    I don't think you want that.
    I certainly don't want to be recorded in history that way, 
but you will be worse off than me because I am voting no on all 
of this. But you are going to vote aye on something, and when 
your grandchildren that you keep referring to every day, when 
your grandchildren ask you, what did you vote on, what was the 
lie, what are you going to tell them--I don't know, it was kind 
of general; there were a lot of things, we attached a report? 
No, it didn't comport with what Ken Starr said, but we had this 
idea, and then when it gets over someplace else and they have 
to talk about, what did they really mean, they are not going to 
know.
    So, with that, as my time winds down, Mr. Chair, who today 
I think you are the fairest chairman I have ever met, I am 
going to ask you to recess this committee and deal with the 
specificity and allow us to come back and debate that.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentlelady. And insofar as it is 
within my power, the gentlelady may recess anytime she wants.
    The gentleman----
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Waters. You did that on my time so I am sure, in your 
fairness, you are going to allow me a little bit more time, 
despite the fact that I am going to be very short.
    This is a little bit more serious than you have dealt with, 
and I expect these proceedings to be handled in a way that you, 
too, will want to be recorded in history in a serious way.
    Chairman Hyde. Well, I thank the gentlelady, and I will 
direct her to the report, which will be filed. We can't impose 
a criminal standard on an impeachment process, but we can 
provide the gentlelady with much more specificity, and will.
    Mr. Watt. Would the chairman repeat that one more time?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Canady.
    Mr. Canady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    At the risk of repeating things that have already been 
said, although that seems to be most of what is happening here 
on the other side of the aisle at least, I am hearing the same 
things over and over again; and I think it would be interesting 
if we could go back and see the full debate in the Nixon 
matter.
    I think the same arguments, ironically, were being made by 
the Republicans there in challenging the articles of 
impeachment against President Nixon; at least the Republicans 
who were opposed to impeaching President Nixon. They were 
trying to derail the process any way they could, and they 
screamed specificity, and they tried to throw up everything 
they could think of to detract from the misconduct of Richard 
Milhous Nixon.
    I think the same thing is going on here today, 
unfortunately.
    Let me say that I believe that the rule you are statingfor 
a criminal proceeding is not even accurate, but it is clear that we 
aren't governed by the same rules that would be applicable in a 
criminal proceeding. If you don't believe that, let me cite you to 
Alexander Hamilton in Number 65 of The Federalist. There, Hamilton 
wrote--in speaking of the nature of impeachment proceedings, he said, 
``This can never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the 
delineation of the offense by the prosecutors or in the construction of 
it by the judges, as in common cases, serve to limit the discretion of 
courts in favor of personal security.''
    Now, you may not agree with Hamilton, and you are entitled 
not to agree with Hamilton, but I think your whole argument is 
based on your dispute with Alexander Hamilton, and it is based 
on your dispute with the real nature of an impeachment 
proceeding.
    Now, having said that, I want to just point out--and again 
at the risk of some repetition--some of the things that I 
believe are in the President's grand jury testimony that are 
not truthful.
    Now, I am sure all of you have read this. It has been 
printed up by the United States Government. It is House 
Document 105-311, Part 1; the grand jury testimony of the 
President appears here, and I would just cite you to various 
pages.
    Page 502 of the President's testimony, where he said--where 
the question is asked, ``Did you speak with your secretary, Ms. 
Currie, and ask her to pick up a box of gifts that were some 
compilation of gifts that Ms. Lewinsky would have?
    Answer: ``No, sir, I didn't do that.''
    Now, I realize you may disagree with my conclusion about 
this, and you are entitled to do that. I believe the President 
lied when he said that, and I believe there is evidence to 
indicate that he lied.
    Mr. Watt. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Canady. I am sorry. I won't yield. I want to go through 
this, and the gentleman from North Carolina will have his time 
and probably a little extra.
    If you will turn over to another page, page 532 of this 
report and of the President's testimony before the grand jury, 
lines 4 and 5, the President said, ``My goal in this 
deposition''--there referring to his deposition in January in 
the Paula Jones case--``my goal in this deposition was to be 
truthful.''
    I think that was a bald-faced lie. I think his goal in that 
deposition was to lie and to hide the truth. His own attorney 
admits that he went into that deposition with the purpose of 
misleading and got as close to the line as he thought he could 
without crossing it. Well, I think he crossed the line in the 
deposition, and I think he crossed the line here before the 
grand jury when he said his purpose was to be truthful.
    Page 547, line 23, and I am not going to read all the 
question there because this has to do with the relationship 
between the President and Ms. Lewinsky, and I know--I see the 
gentlelady smiling. Well, the President has degraded his office 
by his conduct, but we don't have to degrade this committee by 
what we do here.
    Mr. Watt. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Canady. I will not.
    But when the President there on page 547 in a question 
concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky said, ``That's 
correct''----
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Canady [continuing]. I believe he was lying.
    Mr. Scott. I would ask that the gentleman be given an 
additional 2 minutes so he can finish.
    Chairman Hyde. Is there objection?
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Canady. Page 571, lines 20 and 21, the President says, 
``Did I want her to execute a false affidavit?'' That being 
Monica Lewinsky. ``No, I did not.''
    I believe that was an untruthful statement.
    On page 593, going to page 594, the bottom of the page, it 
says, ``If I understand''--this is the question of the 
President. ``If I understand your current line of testimony, 
you are saying that your only interest in speaking with Ms. 
Currie in the days after your deposition was to refresh your 
own recollection?
    ``Answer: Yes.''
    I believe the President was lying when he said that.
    Now, I understand that there are differences of opinion. I 
don't think that there is much room for a difference when you 
look at the whole weight of the evidence and all of this in 
context, but I can accept that there are differences of 
opinion. But there are specifics here. We have listed 
specifics. Other members of the committee have gone through the 
specifics.
    The issue here that's being raised by the other side about 
the specifics isn't because they think there aren't specifics. 
It is just an effort to derail this proceeding. It is an effort 
to cause confusion, which is in line with the way this whole 
thing has been handled from the very beginning, an effort to 
stop this proceeding from moving forward.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Canady. I am sorry. I won't yield. You are going to 
have your time to talk, and I have gone over my time. But the 
facts are here.
    I thank the Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    With all due respect to Mr. Canady, I can imagine that he 
could have last year's State of the Union address of the 
President and go through it page by page and say, ``I believe 
that was a lie. I believe that was a false statement. I believe 
he was wrong about that.'' But this isn't what this proceeding 
is all about.
    It is interesting to me, Mr. Chairman, because as I look at 
the----
    Mr. Canady. I beg to differ.
    Mr. Meehan. As I look at the Independent Counsel's 
referral, and since we are on the section having to do with 
perjury, I go and reread the section on perjury, or alleged 
lying under oath. I don't find perjury.
    Now, if Ken Starr spends $45 million and 5 years 
investigating President Clinton, I assume this has to be the 
best case. And when I open it up, I never see the word 
``perjury'' used.
    Page 145, ``lied under oath.'' Then I go to page 148, ``The 
testimony is not credible,'' paragraph 2, ``the President made 
a second false statement.'' ``The President lied to grand jury; 
President, to grand jury, is false''; ``the President had a 
motive to lie.'' Third, ``false statement.'' ``Motive for 
Presidentto make false statement.''
    You read the entire section and you never see the word 
``perjurious'' or ``perjury'' used. But yet in Article I, the 
Republicans are seeking to up the bar: Let's tell the country 
that the President committed perjury, and that's why we need to 
impeach him, when the Independent Counsel never referred to the 
President's grand jury statements as ``perjurious.'' And it is 
probably because when you accuse someone in this country, even 
the President of the United States, of perjury, most people 
recognize that there is at least an obligation to specifically 
refer to what language in grand jury testimony.
    Now, I know this isn't a criminal procedure, but when we 
train first-year assistant district attorneys--I came from a 
district attorney's office before I got elected; Mr. Delahunt 
did--the first thing that you teach somebody who gets out of 
law school is you don't accuse anyone of a crime unless you 
specifically can prove it.
    In the case of perjury, you are required, when you go 
before a grand jury, to give specific instances of where a 
potential defendant may have committed perjury.
    Now, I know this isn't a criminal procedure, but you would 
think that with the majority using ``perjurious'' and accusing 
the President of ``committing perjury,'' at a minimum--at a 
minimum, they would cite specifically where the President 
committed perjury. But there is a failure to do that.
    I would point out that it seems to me, in going through the 
Starr report, that what this all comes down to is, the 
President said that he didn't touch Monica Lewinsky in a 
certain way and that Monica Lewinsky said he did it a certain 
way, and that's what your strongest count is all about.
    Now, let me reiterate, if there is--in any way, shape or 
manner a perjury case here, the Independent Counsel, number 
one, would have said ``perjury''; number two, is free to indict 
the President of perjury. But I think most members of this 
committee know that once you get into the specifics, once you 
actually try to show that the President may have committed 
perjury and have to prove the elements, it becomes extremely 
difficult to do.
    So this particular article is not specific. It ought to be 
specific. If you choose to use the term ``perjury,'' you, at a 
minimum, ought to be able to tell this committee, the full 
House, and the American people what, specifically, you are 
accusing the President of, committing perjury, and where.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Meehan. I would yield to my colleague.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. And I thank the gentleman, who laid out a 
very articulate argument.
    The language in this article is that of the Republicans, 
and they use the language ``perjurious.'' First of all, they 
want to ignore the rule of law on one hand and not on the 
other. There is a two-witness rule in most instances on 
corroborating perjury. Who are they using? The friends? Linda 
Tripp? Do they have a direct knowledge of the acts between 
Monica and the President?
    Mr. Gekas [presiding]. The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So there are failings in this that really 
go to the heart of this document.
    Mr. Gekas. The time of the gentleman, Mr. Meehan, has 
expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Therefore, you cannot vote on such.
    I thank the chairman and I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
    Mr. Gekas. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Tennessee, Mr. Bryant, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bryant. I thank the Chair.
    It appears to me that we have debated about every possible 
issue of this. I would simply reiterate that this is not a 
criminal proceeding. We are not dealing with a crime here. We 
are dealing with an impeachment process which, again, is a 
unique process combining elements of both the legal and 
political world.
    I have been looking at this and, frankly, I look at Article 
I and it talks about the nature and details of his relationship 
with a subordinate government employee. That is number one.
    Well, who could that be? Monica Lewinsky. I mean, if you 
just sit here and read this, it is pretty clear what we are 
talking about.
    Number two, that he gave false, perjurious--prior 
perjurious, false and misleading testimony in the civil rights 
action that we referred to in Article II; and in that, we 
specifically say that in this civil rights action he lied in 
the interrogatories. We all know where those are.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bryant. No. I don't have but 5 minutes. If I do have 
some time, I am committed to Mr. Barr afterwards. I apologize 
for that.
    The second part of that is, in his deposition in the Jones 
case, what they are talking about there is that he lied about 
the relationship with a subordinate government employee, Monica 
Lewinsky. His knowledge of that, of Monica's involvement and 
participation in the Jones case, was subpoenaed, and his 
corrupt efforts to influence her testimony.
    I mean, this doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure any 
of this out. You simply read the charge.
    Number three, the prior false and misleading statements he 
allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in a civil 
rights action, that is the affidavit. Look at the affidavit. 
Look at that testimony around where he filed the affidavit, and 
the President sat there and watched him file a false affidavit 
and didn't say anything, and even acknowledged it--acknowledged 
the truth--the fact that he did not commit--have a sexual 
relationship, or ``an affair,'' I believe was the wording.
    And number four, his corrupt efforts to influence the 
testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence 
in the civil rights action. To corrupt the testimony--Betty 
Currie, Monica Lewinsky. What have we been talking about for 
the last month? Hiding evidence. What evidence? The evidence 
that somehow was in Monica Lewinsky's house one morning and 
ended up in President Clinton's personal secretary's house, 
under her bed, the next day.
    I mean, these aren't difficult issues. Only if you want to 
make good theater and good show and complain. But if you sit 
down and look at this, I think the article very clearly refers 
to what the charges would be.
    But let me say this: I was reading through this, and I have 
never seen this before, and I find this so interesting because 
I have dwelt on this issue of how can the President'slawyers, 
without laughing, come in here and tell us--which they did, without 
laughing--that he can give incomplete answers and tell the whole truth, 
and that he can give misleading answers and say nothing but the truth, 
you know, taking that right out of the oath?
    In the grand jury testimony, in the oath that the President 
took, when he gave his grand jury testimony, he was sworn in 
and was asked, ``Mr. President, do you understand your 
testimony here today is under oath?''
    And the President answered, I do.
    Listen to this, the second question: ``Do you understand 
that because you have sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth 
and nothing but the truth, that if you were to lie or 
intentionally mislead''--the word that they all talk about, 
that there is no problem with--``or to intentionally mislead 
the grand jury, you could be prosecuted for perjury and/or 
obstruction of justice?''
    And the answer--and this is the key--the President says, I 
believe that is correct.
    Now, he has just acknowledged that he believes it is 
correct that if he were to intentionally mislead the grand jury 
that he understood he could be prosecuted for perjury or 
obstruction of justice.
    Mr. Bryant. And if you think back, that seems to me to be 
very different from what his lawyers were saying; and in fact, 
they admitted--they admitted for the President that he misled 
the grand jury, for what it is worth.
    I yield my time to Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you.
    I would say to those on other side who profess great 
interest in specificity to look at the President's statement 
that he proffered, was allowed to proffer, to the grand jury. 
It is perjurious. It is misleading. It is wrong. It is a lie. 
And it was used 19 times. That could in a criminal law setting 
provide for 19 counts of perjury and 19 counts of impeding the 
work of a grand jury.
    Mr. Gekas. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has 
expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt, who moves to strike the last word.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief, 
although I think Mr. Scott wants me to yield to him.
    I have been reluctant to get heavily involved in this 
because I think the handwriting is pretty much on the wall, and 
I do not do this to be dilatory. I do it because I think if 
this committee is going to allege perjury, which it is in this 
article, that the President is entitled to a specification of 
that; and that is what the law says.
    And as we have gone around the room, including the comments 
made by Mr. Canady and the comments made by the Chairman, we 
have gotten a number of different versions of what the 
perjurious statements are.
    Mr. Schippers does not mention the ones that Mr. Canady 
mentioned. Mr. Canady has absolutely no basis in the record 
other than his kind of--I do not know where he is getting it 
from, but nothing in this record that suggests or confirms that 
the President told Betty Currie to go pick up those gifts. Now, 
if he wants to make that an element of the perjury, then that 
is fine. I do not have any problem with that.
    Is my time out, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hyde [presiding]. I was transfixed by your 
remarks, so forgive me. Your time has elapsed. Thank you for 
bringing that up.
    Mr. Watt. Well, I am trying to be as hard on myself as I am 
on you most of the time.
    Chairman Hyde. I am told that you never did get the right 
time. So you can start now if you want.
    Mr. Watt. Well, I will not start over for your benefit. But 
I do think that if you are going to charge the President of the 
United States with perjury, which this article does, he is 
entitled to know what that perjury is, and if it is what Mr. 
Canady says--sure, there are plenty of things in 1,600 pages 
that you could specify. The only point we are making is that 
you are duty-bound, you are obligated to make that 
specification and not to make him guess about it. If it is, as 
Mr. Canady says, that you do not believe the President when he 
said--when everybody says, Ms. Currie, Ms. Lewinsky and the 
President says, I did not tell Ms. Currie to go out there and 
pick up those gifts, if you are going to specify that as an 
element of perjury, then specify it.
    It is ridiculous. That is why we were laughing over here 
when he said it, because there is nothing in the record that 
supports it. But if you want to specify it, specify it, but do 
not just say, okay, we are going to use the three things that 
Mr. Starr said and limit them to that. They obviously are not 
enough to impeach. We are going to use what Mr. Schippers said, 
a nice novel he read to me yesterday, but very few things in 
there that really specify perjury, a nice novel, I almost went 
to sleep on it when he was reading it, but if you are going to 
use the word ``perjurious'' in this article, I think it is 
incumbent on you to specify what the perjury is.
    Now, if you want to strike the word ``perjurious'' out of 
the article, maybe you would not have to specify, and that is 
obviously what the folks in the Watergate--in the Nixon 
impeachment decided, because, as Mr. Goodlatte has carefully 
quoted to you, they never used the word ``perjury.'' That is 
obviously how Independent Counsel Starr finessed it. He never 
used the word ``perjury.'' But Mr. Schippers did, and he used 
it in some very strange words that I do not believe amount to 
perjury. They were a nice novel.
    But now we are in a legal proceeding, and we are getting 
down, as Mr. Jenkins said, we are pulling back the shucks of 
the corn and looking inside so that we can see it is now--it is 
time for you to tell this man what you are going to charge him 
with so that he has the opportunity to prepare his defense. It 
is obvious now it is going across the aisle to the Senate.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rogan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It has been noted on both sides of the aisle in this 
proceeding today that this is not a criminal proceeding. That 
is a correct assertion. But if it were a criminal proceeding, 
we would be bound by extraordinary rules of procedure 
toguarantee a defendant had his rights protected.
    Those same strict rules of criminal procedure do not apply 
here in Committee. But let us just assume for a moment, Mr. 
Chairman, we were in a courtroom and this were a preliminary 
hearing. A police officer upon taking an oath simply could 
submit a police report with unsworn statements, turn it over to 
the judge, and upon that hearsay a finding of probable cause 
could be found to bind somebody over for trial. The only thing 
that would have to be alleged in the charging documents, like 
an indictment or an information, would be that on a certain 
date and at a certain time, a named defendant committed the 
crime of (for example) perjury in violation of a specific code 
section.
    Now, under the very strict rules of criminal procedure that 
apply in courtrooms, that is constitutionally sufficient to 
bring a case to trial.
    In our Committee proceedings here today, we have raised the 
bar beyond what we need to do. We have not only had an 
extensive and thorough submission of documents and a three-
month review period for every member of this committee, we then 
took the extraordinary step of bringing in the prosecutor 
responsible for the preparation of those documents. He 
submitted to over 12 hours of cross-examination. Then we had a 
one-hour presentation from our majority counsel, who set forth 
the facts as the majority perceive them. And then, after the 
draft articles of impeachment were circulated, majority counsel 
sat for an additional 2\1/2\ hours to set forth for the 
committee and the American people the specifics of the 
accusations against the President.
    It is beyond my comprehension how some of my colleages now 
can allege that rather than raising the bar and in guaranteeing 
the President procedural due process rights beyond what the 
Constitution or our own House rules require, they somehow think 
that our procedures are ``unfair''.
    Mr. Chairman, now I want to talk about the word ``perjury'' 
as set forth in the proposed Articles of Impeachment. We did 
not have to use the word ``perjury.'' The charging documents 
against the President could simply have alleged that he ``lied 
under oath''.
    What is the difference? To charge someone with lying under 
oath essentially alleges that there was a false answer under a 
properly administered oath in a sanctioned proceeding. By using 
the word ``perjury,'' we have not reduced an element to prove 
against the President, we have added an element, because 
perjury requires the additional element that the lie be 
``material'' to the proceeding.
    How in the world can my colleagues on the other side 
suggest that by Republicans submitting the charge of 
``perjury'' rather than ``lying under oath'', we have been 
unfair to the President?
    Mr. Watt. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Rogan. I will not yield, respectfully, to my colleague. 
I have listened patiently for 2 hours of this debate waiting 
for my opportunity to comment, and I only have a few moments 
left.
    We did not lower the bar against the President. We raised 
the bar for our Committee to ensure a strict requirement of 
procedural fairness. And we are holding ourselves accountable 
to that obligation.
    This entire proceeding, from the day the Chairman first 
banged the gavel, has never been about the facts of the case in 
the eyes of the minority. It has been complaints about 
procedure.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman be granted 2 additional minutes.
    Chairman Hyde. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Rogan. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
would happily accept the 2 minutes if it is offered so I can 
finish my point.
    Mr. Watt. I am offering it at this point solely so that you 
could finish your point, but I would like for you to yield to 
me at some point if you would. But if you have not finished 
your point, take the whole 2 minutes.
    Mr. Rogan. I will happily take Mr. Watt's gracious 
suggestion. And if the clerk would advise me when 1 minute is 
up, I will split the difference with my colleague from North 
Carolina.
    The point I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, is that once 
again, we are treated to the spectacle of the debate solely 
over procedure and never about disputing the facts of the case. 
We are now here debating articles of impeachment. In Article I, 
the question before us is did the President commit perjury? 
Time and time again, Republican members of this committee have 
offered specific allegations that can be pointed to in the 
record to prove it. Time and again my friends on the other side 
are complaining about the process rather than addressing the 
issue.
    With that observation, I am happy to yield to my friend 
from North Carolina.
    Mr. Watt. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I want to 
tell the gentleman that I agree with him, we are not that far 
apart.
    Mr. Rogan. Had I known I would have yielded much earlier to 
the gentleman!
    Mr. Watt. The point I am making is that once you have 
included the word ``perjurious,'' then you cannot just put it 
out there, because that is a legal term, and it has some 
requirements that go with it, and if you put it out there, then 
you must meet those legal terms, and the legal terms are that 
you must tell who you are charging with perjury what the 
perjurious statements are that he made. You and I really are 
not saying substantially different things.
    Mr. Rogan. We are almost so close to one mindset, that I am 
tempted to keep moving down the table so we can sit closer 
together.
    Mr. Watt. I invite you down anytime, Mr. Rogan.
    Chairman Hyde. There will be none of that today.
    Mr. Watt. Will he vote this way when he comes this way?
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, I hear my friend Mr. Rogan talk about the analogy 
of the criminal law here, and I think it is important, and I 
direct these comments to Mr. Canady. You know, there is nobody 
on this side of the aisle that wants to delay, denigrate in any 
way these proceedings, because given the analogy of the 
criminal law, this is just too important.
    The right analogy in terms of the criminal law is that this 
is a capital case. This case involves the death penalty, 
politically speaking, for the executive branch of government. 
Should we go beyond procedural safeguards accorded in criminal 
occasions? I dare say yes, because, Mr. Canady, I believe that 
Alexander Hamilton and the Founding Fathers would want us to do 
exactly that.
    Let me try to be specific, and I am going to go to clause 
(4) of Article I. And it reads, ``Corrupt efforts to influence 
the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of 
evidence in that civil rights action.'' I have to guess what 
that language means, but I presume it is regarding the 
President's testimony at the grand jury to corrupt the 
testimony of Lewinsky in the Paula Jones suit.
    Well, let me put out some specific language by 
MonicaLewinsky that was prompted by a grand juror. And everyone that 
has practiced criminal law, and many of us have here, know that in the 
normal course of grand jury proceedings, it is the prosecutor that asks 
the questions. And this was a grand juror, which is highly unusual, 
asking this question.
    And you know what Monica Lewinsky stated? She stated that 
no one asked her to lie, and no one promised her a job. That is 
hard evidence, as I guess it relates to clause (4) of Article 
I. Now, maybe it is also a reference to finding Monica Lewinsky 
a job. But you know what? The testimony, the so-called 
testimony that was never cross-examined, that was never cross-
examined, is clear that the efforts to secure a position for 
Monica Lewinsky occurred far before the Paula Jones deposition. 
And the President himself, and we heard it from Mr. Ruff, could 
have easily secured a position for Ms. Lewinsky in the White 
House, and he did not.
    So let me just suggest from what I am guessing clause (4) 
should be totally disregarded when we come to our 
considerations.
    You know, I do not see that I have enough time, but I did 
want to talk about Mr. McCollum's reference to those 
corroborative witnesses that he claims would somehow support 
the testimony or the credibility of Monica Lewinsky. Well, let 
me tell you what she said to some of them.
    Chairman Hyde. Does the gentleman want additional time?
    Mr. Delahunt. Could I have an additional 2 minutes?
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection.
    Mr. Delahunt. She told her friend Kathleen Estep that the 
Secret Service took the President to a rendezvous at her 
apartment. She made a comment or she made a statement to other 
friends, an Ashley Raines and a Ms. Erbland, that she had 
relations with the President in the Oval Office when both were 
completely unclothed; a statement she made to the White House 
steward that the President invited her to go to Martha's 
Vineyard with him when the First Lady was out of the country; 
statements she made to New York job interviewers that she had 
lunched with the First Lady, who then offered to help find her 
a place to live in New York.
    You know, this comes down to a question of credibility. But 
I dare say the corroboration, with all due respect, that you 
allude to, it just isn't----
    Mr. McCollum. Would the gentleman yield?
    The fact is you are right, she can be impeached on certain 
things. But my point in raising them is that she repeated the 
same descriptions with regards to sexual relations and the 
particular parts of the anatomy that the President denied 
having contact with to every one of those witnesses, and she 
did it on numerous occasions, and she was consistent, if I 
might conclude with this, and it was consistent with what she 
swore to before the grand jury. I think that taken as a whole, 
one would have to conclude that she was not fabricating those 
things about those particular elements that are critical to 
this case.
    Mr. Delahunt. Well, I dare say, okay, to make a decision 
based upon that inference when a totally different inference is 
absolutely reasonable is not a way that we should make a 
judgment in this case. And, Mr. McCollum, you know the law. 
When there is an uncertainty or an ambiguity or an inference in 
a criminal case, in a criminal case, that inference should be 
drawn in favor of the defendant. And the defendant here is 
President Clinton. And this simply does not pass the test.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 
Graham.
    Mr. Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    One thing I think is important for us to remember is the 
context of when the grand jury testimony was provided by the 
President because there are two decisions to make. Is the 
article factually, in other words, does the evidence suggest 
that the allegations contained in the article, is the burden of 
proof met. The second is, even if that did occur, should the 
President be impeached or be sent to trial in the Senate? Does 
it amount to a high crime or misdemeanor?
    Remember, this is in August now, folks. Remember, the 
deposition was in January. What happened between January and 
August? The President, after saying he would not come to the 
jury five times, finally volunteered, had his lawyer there, his 
setting that was, I think, very fair to the President. What was 
going on in the country? You had every group--not every group, 
but you had a lot of people saying, Mr. President, do not go in 
the grand jury and lie.
    Now this is a political death penalty, so to speak, for a 
politician to be removed from office, but I think the President 
had a lot of notice from people from his own party, Senators 
from his own party, House Members from his own party, it would 
be a very bad thing if you told a lie in the grand jury.
    And Mr. Dershowitz--and he and I disagree on many things 
about life, I suppose, but I respect his intellect, and he said 
before us that grand jury perjury, in his opinion, would be a 
high crime or misdemeanor. I respect him giving us that 
information. Other smart people said they disagree with him, 
but I agree with him on that issue that grand jury perjury 
would subject any President to removal from office because it 
is a very serious offense.
    But with this President, he was begged by a lot of people, 
including Senator Hatch and others, do not go in that grand 
jury and lie again. Now, did he go in that grand jury and lie 
again? Forget about why or forget about what the topic was. He 
was put on plenty of notice the consequences to him as a 
person, to him politically.
    I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, there is an 
overwhelming occasion that the other side has knowledge of that 
he did, in fact, lie. Now, this idea that they were not 
familiar with what we are talking about, we have had great 
debate about whether or not certain events happened. I would 
suggest to you that Mr. Lowell made a very good presentation 
that you should believe the President about the term ``sexual 
relations,'' and it did not include oral sex. He knows what we 
are talking about because he made a defense to that charge that 
the President fabricated that definition.
    I disagree with Mr. Lowell because I believe the testimony 
shows accurately, the deposition testimony, the President made 
statements to reporters and other people that it did not have 
this narrow-minded definition of ``sex,'' that he said there 
was no improper relationship. He told that to Mr. Lehrer. He 
told that to Roll Call. And his talking point said oral sex 
would be included. I think this is a fabricated definition. 
Therefore, he lied in the grand jury.
    Very important case here, situation here. Betty Currie. He 
goes to Betty Currie January 18th, the day after the 
deposition, and he runs four statements by her, and he talks 
about this in his grand jury testimony. Mr. Lowell addressed 
this in his argument. Number one, you were always there when 
she, Monica Lewinsky, was there, right? We were never alone.You 
could see and hear everything.
    Mr. Lowell says that what the President was doing was he 
was reacting to the Drudge report and media reports that would 
be forthcoming, and he was trying to refresh his memory, and 
that that was not witness tampering, and that the whole 
scenario was innocent. Well, what did the President say about 
that scenario? He says, ``I do not recall engaging in that 
conversation.''
    I believe he is lying.
    Mr. Lowell did not address the other two statements that 
Betty Currie says the President made.
    Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Graham. Mr. Watt, yes, I will. You were kind enough to 
give me two minutes. I will certainly yield to you.
    Mr. Watt. The question I would ask is, do you not think 
that the President would be entitled to have a specification of 
the things that you are saying, though? I believe that you 
believe he lied, but when you allege perjury, which this 
article does, do you not believe that he would be entitled to 
know the specific things that you and Mr. Schippers and Mr. 
Starr and Mr. Canady--you know, if he is going to have to 
defend these things, do not just put it all out there in some 
global term. Tell him what things you are going to charge him 
with. That is the question I want you to answer.
    Mr. Graham. And the reason I know that the other side knows 
and the President----
    Mr. Watt. Well, I know.
    Mr. Graham. Yes, sir. I believe the reason that the lawyers 
know is because his defense team came in here and made a 
defense against the allegation that he lied in the grand jury, 
they made a defense against the allegation he fabricated a 
false affidavit, they made a defense against the allegation he 
was trying to tamper with Ms. Currie, they made a defense 
against whether or not he was alone. And let's revisit that 
defense, the term ``alone.''
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the 
gentleman be given 2 additional minutes.
    Mr. Graham. The term ``alone'' is unusually used here. When 
he said in his grand jury testimony, his deposition testimony, 
he was never alone with Ms. Lewinsky, he said, ``Well, you ask 
a vague question.'' Their defense was, you ask a vague question 
because you did not give a geographic location, but the thought 
being that you and me could be alone in the Rayburn Building, 
but since other people were in the Rayburn Building, we were 
never alone, which is kind of an artful way of getting around 
common-sense use of the term ``alone.''
    Now, you made this argument. If you assume his definition 
of sex included oral sex, he still has a problem because Ms. 
Lewinsky gives testimony of intimate details that would even 
make that perjurious, and one of the defenses is, well, you 
need more corroboration, and since they were alone, there is 
nobody else around. It is kind of an odd use of the term 
``alone.'' It is a get out of jail free card.
    So what I am saying, and I will end here, is that there is 
plenty of notice; that you know what we are talking about. You 
defended against these allegations, the lawyers have. I just 
disagree with their interpretation. And if you are allowed to 
use common sense and put two thoughts together and look at 
everything in its entirety, the President is guilty of perjury, 
and when he went into that grand jury, he was begged to tell 
the truth, his political career was on the line, he chose to 
ignore it, and he is still lying about many of these matters.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It seems to me that the issue before the committee is not 
what Mr. Schippers said to the committee or how Mr. Schippers 
defined ``perjury''; it is not what Mr. Lowell said to the 
committee or how Mr. Lowell defeated the claim of perjury; it 
is not what Mr. Ruff said to the committee and how he responded 
to the charges of perjury; it is not what Mr. Hutchinson or Mr. 
Graham say perjury is; it is certainly not what I say perjury 
is or is not. The issue is much simpler than that. It is what 
do the articles of impeachment say perjury is.
    We are not voting on Mr. Schippers' statement. We are not 
voting on Mr. Ruff's statement. We are not voting on my 
statement or any other statement of any member of the 
committee. We are voting on the articles of impeachment. And it 
seems with respect to articles of impeachment and with respect 
to claim of perjury against the President in the articles of 
impeachment, there is the ultimate irony.
    On the one hand, the Majority argues that we should 
impeach; no, we must, we are duty-bound to impeach the 
President because of the rule of law. But in the document that 
impeaches the President, the rule of law does not apply because 
this is not a legal or criminal proceeding, the ultimate irony. 
And the Majority, of course, very effectively, I admit, is fond 
of arguing that if what the President did was done by an 
ordinary American, they would be in jail or they would have 
lost their job.
    Well, if an ordinary American is charged with perjury, then 
the United States or the State charging it has to tell that 
ordinary American the specific things that he or she said that 
is, in fact, perjury. If the United States Government charges 
an ordinary American with tax fraud, if they say, you know, you 
did not account for your income this way, they just cannot say, 
you look too rich. They have to tell you which income you did 
not put on your tax form. And imagine if the United States 
Government or any State in this country charged you with 
murder, but they did not tell you who you killed. ``You, you 
stole cars, but we are not going to tell you which cars.''
    But maybe the most appropriate analogy is that in every 
court in this land, if you are accused of slander or libel, the 
person accusing you of it must tell you specifically what you 
said or what you wrote that was slander or libel. So here we 
are today, the ultimate irony. We are going to impeach the 
President of the United States to uphold the rule of law, 
because if we do not, the rule of law will be jeopardized 
forever. But the document that we are voting on that charges 
the President with impeachment, the rule of law does not apply.
    So what is the perjury? I guess the perjury is what Mr. 
Hutchinson says, what Mr. Graham says, what Mr. Barr says, what 
Mr. Schippers says, what anybody says. The document does not 
tell us. There is not one single specified item of perjury in 
the document, but we are going to impeach the President anyway.
    Thank you Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Frank. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Wexler. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
    Mr. Frank. I thank the gentleman. What he has said is 
absolutely right. But again, it is totally vague in the 
document, but the vagueness is purposeful. And you heard this 
from the gentleman from South Carolina. The reasons for 
impeaching the President on grand jury perjury are what he 
touched and when he touched it, and that is the problem they 
have. They do not want to take that to the floor of the House 
of Representatives and to the Senate, because it all comes down 
to, when you ask for specifics, that Ms. Lewinsky says that he 
touched her in several places and to corroborate it told 10 of 
her friends. There is no independent corroboration. It is that 
she told 10 of her friends that the President touched her in 
certain places, and that he did it in November and not in 
February.
    So that is their dilemma. They cannot be specific, because 
if they are specific, they are trivial. And if they want to be 
portentous, they have to be vague. That is the choice. So Mr. 
Starr chose to be specific and trivial. The document chooses to 
be portentous and foreboding and very vague, and that is the 
dilemma they have.
    If we ask for the particulars, we get it. Let's throw the 
President out of office. Let's cancel two elections. Because 
when he admitted to her performing sex on him, he did not tell 
us that he touched her in return, and for that we are going to 
undo two Presidential elections.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to get 
an additional 2 minutes, Mr. Wexler.
    Chairman Hyde. Is the gentlelady asking for unanimous 
consent for 2 additional minutes?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, to Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. I suppose I am supposed to yield.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I ask you to yield.
    Chairman Hyde. Well, if Mr. Wexler wants 2 additional 
minutes, and I hear no objection, we shall do so.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman very much.
    The language of this article is the Majority of the 
committee. And I think that America understands most what it is 
to have uncorroborated witnesses say something about what you 
did. And that is why we are asking the question for 
specificity, what did he do, because I am looking at Mr. 
Schippers' reference to grand jury lies, and he has got issues 
dealing with the fact that the President told them that he did 
not know about Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed in the Jones 
case, when he knew it through Mr. Jordan; that he reaffirmed 
what he said in the deposition, that the Monica Lewinsky 
affidavit was truthful when it said no sexual relations.
    There is a whole litany of so-called accusations. And so we 
do not know which of the ones that are stated in this, and the 
only thing we have is the suggestion that there were some 
witnesses who heard her say things of which they are 
corroborating. That is the same way if you are accused of 
perjury, and the people who are accusing you or who are the 
people who will be the witnesses.
    This gives us no basis, and I think that if we are relying 
upon language that is in the rule of law perjurious, then you 
are owed, if you will, the protection of the fifth amendment, 
which is notice; and you are also owed the common law 
protection of Bronson, the case that says that if the witness 
is unresponsive or evasive, that is not per se perjurious; or 
if you are relying on the fact that the President said, ``I do 
not recall,'' or, ``I cannot remember,'' that it is not per se 
perjurious. And I think that is where we fall on very weak 
ground, Mr. Chairman, in this instance.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
    You know, the argument that is being made by some of the 
folks on the other side of the aisle here is that this article 
of impeachment is not specific enough. And we have been 
debating this issue for about 2 hours now. Perhaps we need some 
guidance here. Perhaps we need to find a Member of the House of 
Representatives whom both sides respect, somebody who was 
actually around back in 1974 when the Watergate hearings were 
going on and Richard Nixon was being investigated, somebody 
both sides respect.
    Now, who could that maybe be? How about Charlie Rangel, 
somebody I think we all agree is an exemplary Member of 
Congress. Here is what Charlie Rangel had to say about 
specifics back in 1974 in the Nixon matter. ``If we got bogged 
down with specifics before the House of Representatives has 
worked its will, perhaps we would not give the general 
recommendation to the House that it rightfully deserves. It is 
not our constitutional responsibility to impeach the President, 
but merely to report to the House. So it seems to me that we 
should not be talking about specifics but give the maximum 
amount of information to the House of Representatives so that 
they can deal with the problem constitutionally.''
    That is what Charlie Rangel said back in 1974. Now, we have 
heard numerous times from the President's defenders that the 
sexual details of this case are salacious and distasteful, et 
cetera. And I agree, they are distasteful. They are distasteful 
because of the conduct of the President of the United States. 
That is why they are so distasteful. And we have dealt with 
them in excruciating detail in Mr. Schippers' report, in the 
Starr report; and I do not think we need to go through all the 
salacious details here again today. I prefer that we not do 
that.
    You know, we have reviewed 60,000 pages of documents, 16 
boxes of evidence. We have listened to many, many witnesses 
testify, a significant number of them appearing on behalf of 
the President. We have heard from history professors, legal 
experts, even perjurers. We have watched grand jury testimony. 
We have watched deposition videotapes. We have read 
transcripts, hundreds, even thousands of pages. It all boils 
down to this: The President lied before a grand jury. He lied 
at a deposition when he was under oath. He waved his finger at 
the American people and lied to them. He lied to his staff. He 
lied to his Cabinet. He lied so many times in so many forums, 
it is really hard to keep track of it all.
    Again, the specific details of all the lies were dealt with 
in great specificity in the Starr report and in Mr. Schippers' 
presentation before this very committee. The articles of 
impeachment are, in fact, comprehensive and will provide the 
Senate an opportunity to conduct a fair and appropriate trial 
without tying their hands. While some would try to bring 
consideration of these articles to a grinding halt or drag us 
through the muck, I do not think we need to get into the 
salacious details over and over again.
    We have had months to review the evidence provided in sworn 
testimony by many witnesses, and we have listened to the 
President's people, we have listened to the President onhis 
videotape, we have licensed to the Independent Counsel's report. I 
believe the facts are clear and convincing. The President lied under 
oath. He committed perjury before a grand jury. The President gave 
false and misleading testimony before the grand jury regarding his 
contact with a subordinate Federal employee who was a witness in a 
civil rights suit against him.
    Particularly telling, I believe, was Mr. Schippers' 
testimony yesterday as it related to the President's claim that 
the President was not paying attention when he allowed his 
attorney Mr. Bennett to present an affidavit to the court that 
he knew was false. We all know, the evidence is clear, that he 
knew it was false. The President's videotape testimony in the 
sexual harassment case demonstrates that the President, in 
fact, was paying clear attention. He was looking directly at 
his attorney Mr. Bennett.
    Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman yield time for a question?
    Mr. Chabot. If I have got any time, I will, but I am almost 
out of time.
    Perjury cannot be taken lightly. It is a direct assault on 
our justice system. Ignoring this President's lies and deceit 
would set a terrible precedent for the future, for future 
Presidents, for future people who testify in courts throughout 
this country, and to our Nation's children.
    I hear over and over again, ``We have got to do it for the 
children.'' And unfortunately, I believe, for the children of 
this Nation, this President has to be impeached.
    And with the little time I have left, I yield to Mr. Barr, 
and I would ask for an additional 2 minutes so I could yield to 
the gentleman from North Carolina Mr. Watt, who has been very 
generous in yielding time to other Members here today.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, in the event that the words of 
their former colleague Mr. Rangel do not suffice for those who 
believe that we are doing something without historic precedent 
in moving forward with articles of impeachment, while they do 
not contain the full range of all the details, the other side 
would like to, in fact, place the President on sufficient 
notice for him to prepare a defense, which, as Mr. Graham has 
already pointed out, he has already done.
    I would point also to testimony in the Nixon case on the 
same day in which, as Mr. Chabot pointed out, Mr. Rangel spoke, 
and this is from the lead counsel for the then Majority, Mr. 
John Doar, ``Mr. Chairman, in my judgment it is not necessary 
to be totally specific, and I think this article of impeachment 
meets the test of specificity, there will be a report submitted 
to the Congress with respect to this article if the committee 
chooses to vote this article, and behind that report will be 
the summary of information as well as all of the material that 
was presented to this committee.''
    I close quote and let that stand as a very sound historical 
and legal precedent for the precise language and the 
sufficiency thereof of this article of impeachment.
    I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
    Mr. Chabot. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
    Mr. Watt. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    There was just one aspect of what you said that really 
troubled me, and I want to make sure I understand what you are 
saying. You made a reference to not tying the Senate's hands 
when this goes to the Senate. Is the gentleman saying that once 
this gets to the Senate, the Senate can add additional 
perjurious statements, they can just do whatever they want to 
once we get over there?
    Mr. Chabot. Reclaiming my time, there are so many 
perjurious statements in the 60,000 pages and previous evidence 
that we have already had before this committee, I do not think 
they are going to have to look for additional statements of 
perjury.
    Mr. Watt. The question I am asking is, are you saying that 
they could go outside of the perjurious statements that you 
have specified and just decide what they decide?
    Mr. Chabot. Reclaiming my time, you just referred to them 
as perjurious statements. Are you conceding that they are 
perjurious statements?
    Mr. Watt. Beg your pardon?
    Mr. Chabot. You just referred to them as ``the perjurious 
statements.'' Are you conceding that they are perjurious 
statements?
    Mr. Watt. No. I am conceding that you have alleged that 
they are perjurious statements, and I have heard a lot of 
allegations on your side about what is perjurious, and I 
acknowledge that. The question I am asking is, if you have not 
specified them or if you do specify them, would the Senate have 
the right to go beyond what you have specified?
    Mr. Chabot. Reclaiming my time, it is our responsibility as 
a House and right now as this committee to study the evidence 
very carefully and, if we feel that there are sufficient 
grounds, for articles of impeachment to be sent to the full 
House. And I have reached that conclusion at this time. I think 
there is sufficient evidence, because I think the President has 
committed perjury, obstruction of justice, and probably abused 
his powers of office as well. I reach that conclusion.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We are discussing articles of impeachment against a sitting 
United States President for the third time in American history. 
I would like to use my 5 minutes to discuss some other things.
    I believe our job is to decide whether treason, bribery, or 
other high crimes or misdemeanors have been committed. I think 
that is what we are supposed to be doing here. Let's start with 
the premise that the accuser bears the burden of proof. Is that 
foreign to anybody, any American? No. In America the accuser 
bears the burden of proof.
    Okay, well, what is the burden of proof? Is it proof beyond 
a reasonable doubt? No. Most constitutional and historical 
scholars say it is a clear and convincing standard of proof 
that the accuser bears.
    Okay, well what do we have before this committee? We have 
got a bunch of lawyers, we have got Judge Starr and Mr. 
Schippers on the one hand, referring to some portions of 
statements made in a deposition by a grand jury, none of which 
were cross-examined, and they infer and conclude from those 
portions of those statements that high crimes and misdemeanors 
have occurred.
    We have got a whole bunch of other lawyers on the other 
side, Mr. Kendall, Ruff and Lowell, who examined the same 
statements, same portions of statements, which were never 
cross-examined by anybody, and say, no, the correct inferences 
and conclusions are that no high crimes and`misdemeanors were 
committed, that the President did follow the bizarre and narrow 
definition of ``sexual relations,'' and that there is a legitimate 
question, at least in the President's mind, whether the definition 
involved whether he was touching her to gratify her or himself. That is 
what we have got, lawyers arguing inferences and conclusions.
    Where is the fact witness who we can hear, see, or cross-
examine to determine which inference is correct? Well, we have 
got 60,000 pages. Well, all we got are lawyers trying to 
interpret those 60,000 pages, not one fact witness presented 
before this committee. Some say it was up to the President, the 
accused, to prove his innocence. Where did they get that notion 
from? Not from America. Whether you say it is not a criminal 
case or it is a criminal case, the burden is on the 
prosecution, on the accuser, to bear the burden of proof by 
clear and convincing evidence.
    So when you have equally intelligent lawyers refuting one 
another on inferences and conclusions from the same facts, what 
is this committee left with? Is it clear and convincing 
evidence such that we should remove a sitting President of the 
United States, such that they constitute by clear and 
convincing evidence that they are high crimes and misdemeanors?
    Then they throw this other very emotional but appropriate, 
but still emotional, argument about the rule of law. Well, 
there are criminal laws and civil laws. There are civil courts 
and criminal courts to resolve issues. If someone commits a 
civil offense, they can be fined and punished in civil court. 
If someone commits a criminal offense, they can be punished in 
a criminal court.
    The President is not above the law. We are talking about a 
third thing, a third punishment, not civil punishment or 
criminal punishment, because that upholds the rule of law in 
the civil and criminal courts. We are talking about whether 
treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred.
    Now, is the standard somehow expanded so that it is not 
just treason, bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors, but lack 
of good character such that while we do not have clear and 
convincing evidence since there was no fact witness, and 
intelligent folks have argued equally, what happens when the 
argument is equal and no fact witness is presented? Does the 
prosecution win, we declare the President guilty?
    I do not think so. We are talking about the impeachment of 
a President of the United States, let alone any American. And 
when you have no fact witnesses to help you decide the 
arguments that have neutralized one another from competent 
attorneys, I believe the score is zero/zero, and the accused is 
not convicted, and the clear and convincing evidence has not 
been proven, that they should be either sent to trial or the 
grand jury.
    If I may have one more additional minute, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hyde. Yes.
    Mr. Rothman. The Founders of our country in the Federalist 
Papers 65 said they were very concerned about one political 
party in the Congress using the power of impeachment to remove 
the President of an opposing party, and so they set the bar for 
impeachment of that President very high. They rejected the 
notion that perhaps one of the standards in addition to 
treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors should be 
failure of good behavior. They rejected that notion to the bar. 
They rejected the notion of narrow administration.
    And I believe that if we step back and look at what is now 
the articles of impeachment against a President for the third 
time in our 200-year history, do we find that a clear and 
convincing standard of proof has been met for a high crime or 
misdemeanor, or are we befuddled by the lawyers' talk which has 
neutralized one another and we ask, why did not the accuser 
call a single fact witness to support his charges.
    We do not have to speculate. Judge Starr did not. The 
Majority did not. Those who want to impeach the President did 
not. And we as the jury, if you will, are left zero to zero, 
and we must say the burden of proof to impeach a sitting United 
States President has not been met.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Rothman.  I will yield.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I ask unanimous consent the gentleman be 
given one additional minute.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. To the gentleman from New Jersey, first 
of all, we are not the jury. The jury is in the Senate, if it 
gets that far. And we should not be determining what the weight 
of the evidence should be. We should be determining if there is 
sufficient evidence to accuse the President through articles of 
impeachment.
    Secondly, you make the point about Federalist 65 and that 
has been very frequently quoted. Federalist 65 was written 
before the 12th amendment was ratified. Before the 12th 
amendment was ratified, the Vice President was always the 
Presidential candidate of the losing party. And after Aaron 
Burr undermined all of Thomas Jefferson's proposals, the 12th 
amendment was proposed and ratified so that the Vice President 
would be the----
    Mr. Rothman. Reclaiming my time, let me just say this. No 
one will deny that there is a burden of proof upon anyone that 
wishes to impeach a sitting United States President. The 
question is, what is the burden of proof? And I think it is 
fairly unanimous amongst the scholars that the burden of proof 
is clear and convincing evidence.
    So that is the standard. And then the question is, in the 
duel, in the battle, the neutralizing battle of lawyers who 
have argued equally well that you can draw inferences to 
support the President's conduct so that it would not be a lie 
or perjury and those who say you could draw inferences to make 
it a lie or perjury, that they neutralize one another, and the 
failure of the accusers, those supporting the President's 
impeachment, to call a single fact witness is powerful and 
determinative.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to make a couple of comments then yield some 
of my time to my colleague from Arkansas. First of all, I think 
I need to respond to a couple of things to what my friend from 
New Jersey just said.
    In fact, the President is probably the one person in 
America who is above the law for a period of time. While he is 
President, I think the weight of constitutional authority 
suggests that he cannot be prosecuted. This is the one place 
where it is more important to maintain our political hygiene, 
that is through impeachment, than it is to have the supremacy 
of the criminal law take place.
    Secondly, I would like to make a couple of comments on the 
distinction between perjury and perjurious. And I do not mean 
to speak down to people, particularly in my district,who 
understand the role of government and the different activities of the 
various branches and who know what is going on here in this proceeding.
    Everybody agrees this is not a criminal proceeding, period. 
That is not even an issue. We also are not dealing with a crime 
here. ``Perjury'' is a legal term of art that relates to the 
criminal law, and with it come certain particulars. What we 
have talked about here is perjurious, which means in the nature 
of perjury.
    I cannot understand my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle making a big deal out of the difference between perjury 
and perjurious, or trying to make perjurious perjury, because 
what the American people really care about here is the nature 
of the acts of our President. They know he is not going to go 
to jail. They know this is not a criminal. We do not need to 
lecture them about this not being criminal. What they care 
about is did he do things that would undermine our 
constitutional system of government.
    With that, let me yield the balance of my time to my 
colleague from Arkansas.
    Mr. Hutchinson. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    I just wanted to comment on a couple things. We continue to 
hear the claim that there is a lack of specificity. And, of 
course, I went through in my earlier statements questions and 
answers, in the grand jury testimony that are alleged 
perjurious statements to support the articles. But if you look 
back, and I think this is important, and Mr. Goodlatte 
referenced it, at the drafting the articles for the impeachment 
of Richard Nixon, and I went through the other historicals from 
Hastings to Nixon, Judge Nixon, Judge Claiborne, anytime that 
there is an article that is drafted relating to false 
statements, relating to perjurious statements, it is in the 
same form that this is presented in this case. And so we are 
following a historical pattern here, and I think that is 
important to note.
    It has been said that the President did not give false 
answers because they are literally true. And I just wanted to 
reference a case that came down within the last month. A three-
judge panel of the appellate court gave an opinion that the 
defendant can be found guilty of perjury when he knew what the 
question meant and gave knowingly untruthful and materially 
misleading answers in response. Though his defense was that he 
gave literally truthful answers, the Kentucky Federal District 
Court found that he knew what the questioner meant and intended 
to deceive them. The conviction was upheld by the sixth 
circuit, which found, in Judge Rosen's words, that ``a perjury 
inquiry which focuses only upon the precision of the question 
and ignores what the defendant knew about the subject matter of 
the question at the time it was asked misses the very point of 
perjury; that is, the defendant's intent to testify falsely and 
thereby mislead his interrogators.'' This gentleman suffered a 
criminal penalty for the perjury in question in that case.
    Now, briefly, the point needs to be made that this is not a 
technical criminal proceeding. And we are hearing these things 
like the two-witness rule. Sheila Jackson Lee, the gentlelady 
from Texas, made reference to, to this side being unable to 
comply with the two-witness rule. Again, it is not a criminal 
proceeding. But the two witnessess were in fact, applies to 18 
U.S.C. 1621. It does not apply to section 1623 which covers 
grand jury proceedings and ancillary proceedings. And also, in 
fact, the two-witness rule can be satisfied with one witness 
plus documentary evidence. All of that, even if you complied 
with the strict criminal procedures, is met in this case. But 
this is not a criminal proceeding. We go far beyond that 
because we are dealing with the public trust. And so I think it 
is important to put this in perspective.
    I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Cannon. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    The gentleman from Arkansas referenced the Judge Nixon case 
and the format. I have the articles before me, which Article I 
is false statements to a grand jury, and they cite the 
statement. Article I was, in substance, that Forest County 
District Attorney Paul Holmes never discussed the Drew 
Fairchild case with Judge Nixon. The second article actually 
quotes the language. The third article has seven or eight 
statements that said, Judge Nixon never discussed with Raleigh 
Fairchild anything about Raleigh's son's case. B. Raleigh 
Fairchild never brought up the son's case.
    Mr. Cannon. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Scott, let me yield 
again to Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. Scott, I thank you for bringing that 
out. And you are right that there are some references in Judge 
Nixon's impeachment proceedings to particular areas of 
testimony. You do not see in there an excerpt from the grand 
jury testimony, question, here is the question; answer, here is 
the answer. That is nowhere in those articles.
    What you see is a description of the testimony, and that is 
what you have in the articles before us today. So I think there 
is sufficient specificity provided for any defense that the 
President will make.
    There is no question what we are talking about in this 
case. There is no question. The American people know there is 
no question about the nature of the charges in this case and 
the question as to what was true or what was not true.
    Mr. Cannon. May I just say that I think we are living with 
an eternal light here. Why couldn't I get this much time when I 
was speaking this morning, Mr. Chairman? I think that other 
people have time. Let me yield to Mr. Bryant, and then I would 
be happy to yield to Ms. Lofgren, depending on how long the 
light lasts.
    Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have sat and listened to the debate and the debate and 
the debate and the debate. I think it is very clear that 
everything that can be said about this issue, which I believe 
is a nonissue, has been said. We have had brought out just in 
the last few minutes from my colleague from Arkansas the 
record--what precedent exists for impeachment--of prior 
charging, which is consistent with the way these charges are 
written, specifically using the Rodino model as a model. We 
have heard from my colleague from Georgia the words of the 
Majority counsel, who explained why it was appropriate to 
charge in that fashion.
    And it just seems to me that we have a lot of ground to 
cover today. We are doing important work here, but this issue 
has been debated, and it seems clear to me that we are on the 
right side here. Who can quarrel with the precedent and the 
majority counsel for the Rodino hearings as well as the Rodino 
charges?
    So I might just ask if we can move on or carry this to a 
vote or whatever it takes to move on to the next issue.
    Chairman Hyde. Well, we have one more gentleman on the 
Democratic side who has not been heard from.
    Mr. Barrett. I think I am the one you have been waiting 
for.
    Chairman Hyde. We have been waiting for you all afternoon. 
Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Impeachment is a little bit like a polka dot zebra, it is a 
little bit of this and a little bit of that. And we have heard 
numerous Members on the other side say that President Clinton 
has committed a crime or has committed many crimes. We are told 
that we are sitting in a situation like a grand jury; we are to 
make a determination whether there is probable cause to charge 
the President of the United States with impeachable acts. But 
we are also told that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 
do not apply to our proceedings, and my colleagues who say that 
are absolutely correct. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 
do not apply to the workings of Congress.
    But I do not think you can stop there. I think you have to 
ask another question and say, what is the principle underlying 
the particular Federal rule; whether it is a rule of evidence, 
whether it is a rule of pleadings, what is the principle behind 
that rule? For example, in the case of the release of grand 
jury testimony that we objected to so vociferously, we argued 
that that was unfair to the defendant because that defendant 
did not have an opportunity for his or her counsel to ask 
questions. That was a rule that was established a long time 
ago. We argued that it was unfair. This committee decided that 
that principle of fairness did not apply to our proceedings.
    It did not matter. It did not matter whether it was a 
principle of fairness that applied to defendants all over this 
country. It did not apply to the President of the United 
States, the person who, all of us agree, should not be above 
the law, but the person who apparently some people believe can 
be below the law.
    Now, often as the last person to speak, you get a little 
time on your hands, so I was able to get the indictment in the 
latest Webb Hubbell case.
    This is the one that was filed just a month ago. It is the 
third indictment filed by the Independent Counsel against Mr. 
Hubbell. I won't go into that. But I think it is instructive 
for us, because there is a count of perjury in here, and there 
are several counts of making false statements. It is pretty 
much consistent with what we have been hearing today.
    I heard a number of my colleagues on the other side talk 
about the Nixon case. In the Nixon case, the Judge Nixon case, 
there were references--Mr. Scott said there were references to 
the false statements. In here, in the indictment against Mr. 
Hubbell, where there are allegations that he made false 
statements, the document actually states what the false 
statements were, and then states, ``In truth and in fact, the 
defendant then well knew each of those statements was false.''
    But it also has a count of perjury. There it actually 
quotes the question. It has the question, and it has the 
answer. Why does it do that? It does that because the words are 
the crime. A defendant can't be on notice of what the crime is 
unless he knows what the words are. The words are the body, the 
identity of the person who has been murdered.
    To say that the defendant, in this case the President of 
the United States, does not have the right to know what words 
are claimed to be perjurious I think simply flies in the face 
of fairness, fundamental fairness. He should be on notice as to 
what he is being charged with.
    The claim I hear from some of my colleagues, holy moly, 
there are so many of them we can't list them all. To me that is 
not a reason to forego notice to a defendant. If there are so 
many statements that constitute perjury, that is all the more 
reason to put the President on notice as to why this body is 
coming after him.
    If you look at this, it is not difficult. It is not 
difficult at all. I don't know if there are any law clerks in 
the office of our opposing party here, but certainly a law 
student could go through and say what the question is and what 
the answer is, so there has to be another reason why it is not 
in here.
    I think the reason, as Mr. Frank has said so many times, is 
because this is a nasty-sounding claim, perjury before a grand 
jury. But I also agree with Mr. Graham, that the real nub of 
this is the President of the United States refused to state 
which body parts he touched, and that could very well have been 
a lie. In fact, I think that the President knew whether or not 
he touched her and he knew where he touched her, but he refused 
to say what it was.
    The problem, of course, is if we present that to the 
American people, they are going to question whether that is an 
impeachable offense. So by leaving it in this form, without 
notice to the President, we make it sound much worse. And 
perhaps it is. I'm not saying that it is not bad. But I think 
that is the reason it is not here. I think that is the reason 
it should be here.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Normally, we would proceed to a vote. However, Mr. Rogan 
has a last-minute amendment that he would like to offer.
    The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Amendment of Mr. Rogan to H. Res.____
    Mr. Rogan. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
considered as read.

                 Amendment of Mr. Rogan to H. Res. ____

    Page 2, line 17, insert after ``concerning'' the following: 
``one or more of the following''.

    Mr. Frank. It hasn't been distributed.
    Chairman Hyde. We had better----
    Mr. Rogan. I am happy to have the amendment read.
    Chairman Hyde. Please read it. It is so terribly short.
    The Clerk. Amendment of Mr. Rogan to H. Res. blank, page 2, 
line 17, insert ``concerning the following''--after 
``concerning,'' ``one or more of the following.''
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
    Mr. Rogan. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    With respect to Article I of the articles of 
impeachment,for the benefit of those who haven't yet received the 
amendment, it would essentially take the charging paragraph and change 
it to read as follows: ``On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson 
Clinton''----
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, we cannot hear at this end.
    Chairman Hyde. If the gentleman would speak closer to the 
microphone, and with a tad more volume.
    Mr. Rogan. That is probably the first and last time, Mr. 
Chairman, that will ever be requested of me during my 
legislative career.
    It would change the paragraph to essentially add the same 
conforming language that is already found in Articles 3 and 4, 
and which I understand the gentleman from South Carolina will 
be offering by article II. It is a technical amendment only. I 
ask the Members for an aye vote. I yield back.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, I think this makes a bad situation 
worse. As I understand it, what we are talking about now is it 
will accuse the President of one or more of the following, 
which means, if I read this correctly, we now have four general 
categories. The President stands accused of committing perjury 
with regard to I, II, III or IV, or more. You have taken an 
article of impeachment and made it a multiple choice test.
    Shouldn't you have, Mr. Chairman, ``or Article V?'' To keep 
with the dignity of this, shouldn't it be, ``V, all of the 
above?'' Here is what it will say: ``The President provided 
perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to the grand jury 
concerning one or more of the following.'' So maybe it was I or 
maybe it was II, and maybe it was III, maybe it was III and IV, 
maybe it was I, III, and IV. I am baffled by this. You have had 
quite a few months here. Is there no consensus among you on 
which of these?
    Once again, I think I see what we have. By the way, it 
seemed to me that my friend from Arkansas gave an inaccurate 
response to the excellent point of the gentleman from Virginia 
about the particularities of the Judge Nixon case. As the 
gentleman from Virginia said, in the Judge Nixon case it said 
he made a false statement by denying he had talked to the D.A. 
to get him to drop the case about his partner's son--a very 
different thing, by the way, than which body part you are 
touching.
    In the Judge Nixon case it was perjury, in which a Federal 
judge denied trying to fix a case of a drug dealer who was his 
partner's son by going to a State judge. But it didn't say--
actually, if the Judge Nixon case followed your motto, it would 
have said, false statement concerning the nature and details 
concerning the nature of his conversation with another judge. 
It would have left out the gravamen of the charge.
    But what you are really trying to do now is--is this a 
shell game? That is the question. Under which pea is the 
impeachment? Is it under number I, or is it number II, or maybe 
it is under III and II, or IV and I, or II and III? How are you 
going to defend it?
    I have to say, the notion--and I hope this doesn't go 
anywhere, and I hope we don't bog the country down, but I am 
almost intrigued, here. I want to see Chief Justice Rehnquist 
sitting there while the Senate is trying to guess under which 
pea you have concealed the impeachment.
    The point is that you ought to be making specific charges. 
What you now have is you are going to seriously argue that the 
President should be charged with one or more of the following, 
and not two?
    Now I understand a kind of reluctance on the part of the 
Majority to live up to their responsibility, because I think 
when you vote for a resolution that says, oh, the President has 
done terrible things and ought to be thrown out of office, that 
is what you are voting for. And to say that you are voting for 
that, but you don't really mean it, we are just the piano 
players, we are just sending it upstairs, and then the Senate 
will decide whether it is true or not true--that absolute 
avoidance of responsibility is compounded when now you won't 
even say which of the ones you care about, which are the ones 
you mean.
    Are we simply going to say, hey, we found four things? We 
looked through the Starr report. We didn't really like those 
too much. They were too trivial. We went through the Schippers 
report. That is pretty wide-ranging. That has a lot. We are 
going to pick four, describe them vaguely, and we will tell you 
I, II, or III and IV, or II or III are there, and you, the 
Senate, figure it out.
    And, by the way, haven't we done a wonderful job? Haven't 
we been responsible Members of Congress? We have gone through 
here, and we have thrown that mix on the table.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Frank. I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Conyers. We have spent 2 hours begging for more 
specificity and now, as a result of that plea, we now get an 
amendment that adds to more generality and makes it more 
difficult to become more accurate.
    Mr. Frank. More ambiguity, and that reinforces the 
substantive point. We are not interested in specificity for its 
own sake. We are talking here about how the issue is framed.
    It is the most important issue possible. Do we undo the 
election? Do we throw the duly-elected President out of office? 
We are asking that this issue be framed. If you are saying that 
the President of the United States should be thrown out of 
office because, having acknowledged that he had a sexual 
relationship, he misstated the date by 3 months and when it 
started on and he did not give details about what he touched, 
then say so.
    But do not take refuge in confusion, obscurity and, now, 
ambiguous obscurity. You list four general categories without 
any specificity, and then you don't even say which ones you 
stand behind. This is an abdication of responsibility that is 
absolutely breathtaking on a matter of such centrality to our 
democracy.
    Mr. Schumer. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I think we are seeing a 
continuation of legal hairsplitting, albeit quite a bit more 
humorous than that which we heard from either the President's 
counsel or Mr. Lowell yesterday. This merely takes care of a 
drafting error in the articles of impeachment that were put 
before us.
    What it says is that you only have to prove one kind of 
false statement when it goes to trial. The question, I think, 
is, is one false statement enough to warrant the impeachment 
and removal from office of the President? I answer that 
question yes, because one false statement is one lie.
    I think what the other side is trying to do with all of 
their humor, and have everybody laugh about what the Chief 
Justice of the United States would have to rule on, is to set 
up to make an argument that you have got to talk about--prove 
all four kinds of false statements.
    That is not the intent of the article of impeachment, and 
Articles III and IV I think have one or more of the following 
statements in. Mr. Graham will have one relative to Article II. 
I think really what we are trying to do is to laugh over 
something that is a drafting error. This amendment simply 
corrects it.
    Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I yield to Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. I thank the gentleman. If I might inquire of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, is it not standard prosecutorial 
procedure to use this precise language in the drafting of 
indictments?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Absolutely.
    Mr. Rogan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Rogan. I thank the gentleman.
    Actually, before my colleagues on the left get terribly 
exorcised about this, I will tell them that this language is 
being inserted at their request. It was always the request of 
the Democrats that we follow the Rodino model for impeachment. 
As to my proposed Amendment, this was not language that I 
invented. This is the language that the Democrats used in 
Article I and Article II of the impeachment articles against 
President Richard Nixon.
    When the Democrats drafted articles of impeachment against 
President Nixon, they defined very broad categories of 
impeachable offenses. It was in ``either/or'' fashion i.e., 
perjury or obstruction of justice. We have narrowed it much 
more specifically against President Clinton than they did 
against President Nixon.
    To my friend from Massachusetts, I say I did not get the 
idea from Monty Hall or ``Let's Make a Deal.'' I got the idea 
from those venerable Democrats who preceded us in the annals of 
impeachment precedent that you requested we follow.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Michigan?
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I am almost inclined to want to 
come to a vote right away. But to take this language and now 
make it a shell game is an offense to the experience of 
impeachment in the United States history. This does not follow 
the Rodino model.
    I would merely like you to recall that there was bipartisan 
agreement in 1974 in the Watergate case, because there wasn't 
controversy about the CIA involvement, the FBI, the IRS and the 
war against Nixon's political opponents and the hush money and 
the subversion of government. So that does not apply here.
    To take the prosecutorial tactics of any and all and expand 
it to anything they can catch and now put this into an article 
of impeachment on perjury destroys any rational approach to 
this subject.
    Mr. Frank. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Conyers. Of course.
    Mr. Frank. As to the argument this is a standard criminal 
prosecution, I think I heard a lot of people on the other side 
differentiating impeachment from a criminal prosecution 
recently. It underwent a very quick transmogrification.
    In fact, it is not a criminal proceeding. It is a political 
proceeding in the broadest sense of the word. Remember, the 
Founding Fathers decided to send this to Congress. They didn't 
decide to send impeachments to the Supreme Court. It is to be 
decided on the facts and with political considerations, with 
the sense of democracy in the broad involved.
    When you are dealing in that situation, to throw in a 
laundry list which you may not believe poisons the atmosphere. 
To make accusations you are not prepared to stand behind, which 
you do when it is ``one or more,'' poisons the atmosphere.
    As far as a criminal trial, remember, in a criminal trial 
the defendant may be convicted on one, two, three, four, five, 
or six of the counts, and the sentence will vary, according to 
how many counts. But here there is only one sentence, 
impeachment or nonimpeachment, so that model is irrelevant.
    Yes, it is relevant how many of the counts, and you might 
want to charge a bunch of counts in a criminal case, and the 
number of counts convicted affects the disposition. Here, this 
is either political capital punishment or an acquittal. So 
doing it in this way simply is an attempt--and it is very 
clear--it is an attempt to try and build some substance around 
a travesty.
    Remember, from the beginning Members have said, we can't 
impeach him before we have got his sexes--we can't impeach him. 
So we had a hunt, we had a hunt through the campaign finance, 
the Whitewater, the FBI. Even not sex, it had to be not 
consensual sex, sexual harassment: Kathleen Willey. There has 
to be something beyond lying about a private, consensual 
affair.
    Since they couldn't find it in reality, they tried to cover 
it up in the drafting. This is phase two of the expansion.
    Mr. Conyers. I thank the gentleman.
    So what we have here is an article that states there are 
60,000 pages of materials. We had four counts. We have now 
added ``one or more of the following.'' So now Mr. Canady 
volunteered some more. So we may have anywhere between four and 
104.
    Somewhere in these 60,000 pages we are asking the Members 
of the House of Representatives, under what will almost surely 
be limited debate, to determine where, if or under any 
circumstances there could be anything that could reach the 
standard of perjury. This is the most incredible article, and 
it proves that the more we talk about it, the more we go in the 
wrong direction.
    Mr. Schumer. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
    I think my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
used appropriate humorous language. But I am still amazed at 
what is going on here. The more I sit here, the more amazed I 
am.
    Instead of the seriousness with which this should be 
approached, now we are saying we have spent 3 months of 
hearings, we have all this evidence, and we are not sure of 
which ones it should be. We are going to send to the House and 
possibly to the Senate a range, and they can choose.
    That is not what we are supposed to be doing here. We are 
supposed to be weighing very serious charges.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time----
    Mr. Schumer. Mr. Chairman, instead of striking the last 
word, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to finish my point.
    Chairman Hyde. Would you settle for 1?
    Mr. Schumer. I would say 2, or I will strike the last word 
and do 5.
    Chairman Hyde. You have got me. Two.
    Mr. Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    What I would say is this: You don't send a full menu and 
then decide. Maybe the majority is having some doubts, or some 
members of the majority, about one or two of the aspects here. 
Maybe the arguments we made that points three and four really 
have very little basis, none in the Starr and even in the 
Schippers, not much basis, so you are hedging your bets.
    You don't do that when it comes to impeachment. You make a 
decision whether that high bar of impeachment is reached, and 
you send your considered judgment first to the full House and 
to the Senate.
    One other point I would like to make. The majority keeps 
invoking the Watergate hearings when they want to but not when 
they don't. But let me tell you this. The number one reason 
that Peter Rodino was regarded as a leader and that the 
hearings were regarded as fair and had a national consensus 
behind them is that they were bipartisan, that they had a 
significant number of the minority party who went along.
    What distinguishes this is, in my judgment, the lack of 
real facts; the playing of games; the idea that, well, it is 
maybe this one day and maybe that in another day; is the reason 
you haven't brought a single member from the minority party 
along in this committee and the reason that you are unlikely to 
bring hardly any along in the House. And that is the glaring 
distinction between the Rodino hearings and these hearings.
    And until it changes and until you say, yes, this is 
serious and, yes, the President and the Nation is entitled to a 
bill of particulars on perjury and until you say that it is not 
fair to say ``one or more,'' then it will continue to be 
regarded as a partisan activity that will not have the support 
of Americans and will go down in history as something that 
America is not proud of.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I do think this is an extraordinarily serious matter. I 
don't think anybody thinks it is less than that. I don't think 
it should be trivialized.
    The Article I that we are discussing today appropriately 
should be one or more. There are four parts to it, any one of 
which is a major charge against the President of the United 
States, any one of which could stand alone; not one little line 
somewhere, that he said something that might be perjurious in 
one word or something, but broad and very specific in the 
nature that they are presented, ``the nature and details of his 
relationship with a subordinate government employee.''
    The second one is prior perjurious, false, and misleading 
testimony he gave in the Federal civil rights action brought 
against him; third, prior false and misleading statements he 
allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil 
rights action; and, fourth, his corrupt efforts to influence 
the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of 
evidence in the civil rights action: specifically, the hiding 
of the gifts, the affidavit, and the Betty Currie testimony.
    Having said all of that, if you look back at Richard 
Nixon's impeachment articles, and I do think it is fair to do 
that--this book has them in it, and it is the third page of the 
book--the first thing in it, the first article discusses 
whether or not the President had failed to faithfully execute 
his office, prevented, obstructed, and impeded the 
administration of justice--pretty darned broad language.
    The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan 
included one or more of the following: number one, making or 
causing to be made false and misleading statements to lawfully 
authorized investigative officers and employees of the United 
States; two, withholding relevant and material evidence or 
information with lawfully authorized investigative officers and 
employees of the United States; three, approving, condoning, 
acquiescing, and counseling witnesses, et cetera. It goes on 
and on. There are nine of them, not four but nine.
    The second article also charged the President with 
repeatedly engaging in conduct violating the constitutional 
rights of citizens, very broad language. This conduct has 
included one or more of the following, and there are five of 
them under that, and so on goes the list. So we are not doing 
anything extraordinary.
    What I am afraid the other side is trying to do is 
precisely what they are accusing us of. The other side is 
trying to trivialize this matter. This is not a trivial matter.
    What we are dealing with here today is far from simply a 
matter about the President possibly touching certain parts of 
the other woman, as he called her. What we are dealing with 
today is the fact that the President of the United States 
engaged in a scheme, an elaborate scheme, to lie and to get 
other people to lie and to hide evidence and get other people 
to hide evidence in order to thwart the opportunity of Paula 
Jones to bring her civil rights sexual harassment suit in court 
and have it properly adjudicated.
    Whether you agree with her tactic or not, the court allowed 
it, that she, as part of her case, could try to bolster the 
credibility of her allegations by showing that the President 
had engaged and was still engaging in a pattern of illicit 
relations with women in his employment. Whatever the merits of 
that, that is what she was trying to do. The President was 
determined to defeat that.
    Those were the rights this woman had at that point in time 
when he conducted his first lies in his deposition, were 
involving the proof of those other instances with regard to the 
President, whom she was suing at the time. We are undermining a 
fundamental right if we don't get at the truth. The President 
was undermining.
    That is what we are here all about today. That is, can we 
have peoples' rights, whether it is a little boy on a bicycle 
who is hit by a car and is injured, have his right in court; or 
the little lady who has been bilked out of her savings, to have 
a chance to recover? All of that depends upon truth being told 
by witnesses who are sworn, and they are not supposed to commit 
perjury.
    Then the President compounds this all by going before the 
grand jury months later after he has done all of this and lies 
again under oath in front of the grand jury on an even greater 
matter. This is far from trivial.
    Mr. Buyer. Can we have regular order?
    Mr. McCollum. I am on my 5 minutes.
    Mr. Buyer. I want to be able to hear you, Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. If you will recall, back at the beginning of 
this process, the President had a set of cover stories with 
Monica Lewinsky. That is how all this got started, tocover up 
this relationship. They knew they would lie. They agreed they would 
tell these cover stories if anybody ever asked them.
    Then along comes the opportunity for the President to see 
this suit actually materializing with Monica on the witness 
list, and she and he had this discussion when he tells her she 
is on the list. She says, what do I do if I am subpoenaed? He 
said, why don't you file an affidavit so you don't have to 
testify?
    She assumes--she tells this and tells the grand jury under 
oath that she is going to tell a lie in the affidavit, and she 
assumes he would assume that, because they discussed cover 
stories in the very same conversation where he asks her about--
to file or suggests she file the affidavit.
    So knowing that she is going to do this, anticipating that 
she is going to do it, never explicitly asking her to lie but 
knowing she is going to, he then proceeds to go give his own 
testimony in that deposition in which we saw excerpts yesterday 
of where he clearly counted on being able to tell those same 
lies and the same story.
    Then he calls up Betty Currie right afterwards, because he 
used her name a whole bunch of times, thinking she is going to 
go testify in that case, possibly, because he says, you had 
better check with Betty Currie on this. And he encourages her 
to corroborate his lies that he has told.
    He has done all this and much more that we know about, but 
I don't want to tell the whole story again. The point is, this 
is not trivial. This is not trivial at all. He goes to the 
grand jury and repeats those lies, and lies again and again, 
and we presented this I think very carefully in Article I in 
ways that anybody could understand, four parts.
    It ought to be framed the way this amendment does. It ought 
to say ``one or more.'' Each one of them can stand alone. Each 
one is powerful, and every Member, just as in Watergate, should 
have the opportunity to conclude the President committed 
perjury before the grand jury if he or she concludes that any 
one of the four is indeed perjurious and indeed a false and 
misleading statement.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Is there further discussion?
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. Of course. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I am going to surprise some people. I don't 
think this amendment matters one way or the other. I think it 
is, frankly, wasteful and will have no impact one way or the 
other, because this article of impeachment is just that, an 
article of impeachment.
    Whether or not you say ``one or more of the following,'' 
this is not--these are not elements of a crime, all four of 
which have to be proven in order to get a Senator or House 
Member to vote for it. A House Member or Senator will vote for 
it if they think it is sufficiently established, and in their 
own mind they will determine whether to sufficiently establish 
the article so as to get their vote, you have to prove one or 
two or three or four of those.
    So I don't think the amendment, frankly, matters. But it 
does give all of us time to speak on this article again, for 
which I thank the gentleman.
    Chairman Hyde. We planned it that way.
    Mr. Nadler. Good. Let me avail myself of that opportunity.
    We heard--the gentleman from Florida just went through all 
this litany again of all the President's alleged opposition. He 
didn't specifically list them, but he said he lied, he lied, he 
lied, as did Mr. Schippers yesterday, Mr. Ruff 2 days ago. Mr. 
Lowell yesterday I think very persuasively knocked holes in 
these alleged perjuries.
    I don't think--I think that these articles of impeachment, 
every one of them should not be approved today for several 
reasons: One, because they are far from proven. The evidence 
just doesn't support it. Number two, because even if they were 
provable, they are far from impeachable offenses.
    None of these are abuses of presidential power that 
undermine the structure or functioning of government or 
undermine personal liberty. Perjury in a private sexual affair 
is a low crime, a serious crime, but a low crime, not a crime 
against the State, and ought to be prosecuted. If it were 
provable--although we heard a bunch of Republican--mostly 
Republican prosecutors the other day tell us that no reasonable 
prosecutor--and I presume they didn't include Mr. Starr in that 
category--would think of bringing a prosecution on the evidence 
we have here, and you would never get a conviction.
    But, nonetheless, that is the appropriate forum for this 
kind of alleged crime. These are not high crimes and 
misdemeanors under the meaning of the Constitution. But if, 
despite that--if, despite the weight of tradition, of precedent 
and of scholarly opinion that these are not high crimes and 
misdemeanors, this committee chooses to put forward articles of 
impeachment, at least they ought to follow due process of law.
    Due process of law demands specificity in a perjury count. 
It doesn't demand that the specific words be listed in the 
article itself, but it does demand that, contemporaneous with 
the article, there be a piece of paper that says, these are the 
alleged perjurious words. This is the notice. We are not going 
to add or surprise you with more allegations or different 
allegations later. We don't make you guess which of the many 
different references Mr. Schippers referred to, some by 
paraphrase, some by specifics, that we are talking about. This 
is what you must defend against. This is what we are voting on.
    Members of the committee and Members of the House next week 
are entitled to know the specific allegations.
    When the Nixon case was voted a generation ago, the 
specific words were not in the article, nor need they be now, 
but they were in the report of the committee.
    So all we are asking--I asked for this at the beginning 
this morning at about 11 o'clock. We have been talking about it 
ever since. It shouldn't take the staff between 11 and 4, we 
will be here another few hours yet, I'm sure, to go in the back 
room, write down the specific allegations, come out, pass it 
out and say, this is what we are talking about. That is all we 
are asking.
    Is it that the staff is incapable of this or that you want 
to play a guessing game? I am not sure. But it is wrong.
    We are told that this entire question--that the President 
must be impeached to uphold the rule of law--the rule of law 
demands due process, due process demands notices of the charges 
against someone and that, especially in opposition, demands the 
specifics.
    I fail to understand why we don't have the specifics or why 
we are not supplied with the specifics in writing so we know 
what they are, and they are set, and they are locked, and can't 
be changed, because it is unfair to change them later.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman. I 
assure you I will not use anywhere near the five minutes.
    I am confident, Mr. Chairman, that the report that will 
accompany these articles will be as specific as was the report 
that accompanied the articles regarding the Watergate matter. 
My friend from Ohio, quoted Charlie Rangel, our Democrat friend 
from New York, in the Watergate matter when Mr. Rangel 
indicated that there was no need to go into great specificity 
or great detail.
    I am going to revert 25 years, Mr. Chairman. I can imagine 
that what Mr. Rangel was doing was probably responding to a 
Republican charge, just as we have been responding to Democrat 
charges this afternoon. That is the nature of being in the 
Minority. It is a lot easier to throw grenades than it is to 
catch them. When you are in the Minority you throw them. I know 
because I have been there before. This is not a case of first 
impression.
    But I want to say this, Mr. Chairman. One of our buddies 
from over yonder--and I recall most all of them as my buddies--
but somebody, unless I misunderstood it, implied that my good 
friend from California, Mr. Rogan's amendment would have in 
some way enlarged or broadened Article I and permitted 
additional charges to be added.
    That is clearly not true. It says very precisely, ``one or 
more of the following,'' so that would restrict it to the four. 
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
    Mr. Chabot. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know 
several of my Democratic colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle were not in the room when I read Mr. Rangel's quotation 
from the 1974 Watergate investigation during that particular 
hearing. I would just like to read it very quickly again. Here 
is what Charlie Rangel said on this very specific argument on 
specifics:
    If we got bogged down with specifics before the House of 
Representatives has worked its will, perhaps we would not give 
the general recommendations to the House that it rightfully 
deserves. It is not our constitutional responsibility to 
impeach the President, but merely to report to the House. So it 
seems to me that we should not be talking about specifics, but 
give the maximum amount of information to the House of 
Representatives so they can deal with the problem 
constitutionally.''
    I yield back.
    Chairman Hyde. Who else seeks recognition?
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, the way to legitimately do this ``one or 
more'' or pick and choose is to have separate articles, so when 
you vote you can agree with a whole specific article. This 
amendment allows members to look and see if there is anything 
in the article they agree with, and then they can vote yes, in 
spite of the fact that most serious offenses are not proven.
    In fact, you might as well add ``other heinous crimes.'' 
You don't have to prove an allegation, you just have to make 
it. By adding unproven, vague allegations that don't have to be 
proved, you can pass a serious-sounding article by finding just 
that one of the flimsiest parts of it is true.
    This last minute add-on is not new to this committee. Just 
in the last couple of weeks the scope of this committee inquiry 
has added on the Willey matter, the campaign finance matter. A 
couple of days ago the gentleman from South Carolina added on a 
charge. The gentleman from Arkansas added on another charge. 
Even after all of the testimony was in, the Majority counsel 
added on unnamed, unspecified charges after the opportunity had 
long gone for anybody to respond.
    As the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from New 
York have reminded us, the reason we are asking for specificity 
is when we ever get the specifics, then we can determine 
whether they are even impeachable offenses.
    Where is the subversion of government? We know a half a 
million dollar income tax fraud is an impeachable offense, but 
we can't get to that question because we can't get to a 
coherent statement of what the charges are. This amendment 
doesn't help.
    I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. I just want to make a couple of 
comments as to specificity. I agree with my colleague, Mr. 
Nadler, that the ``one or more'' is not the problem so much as 
the lack of specificity in the underlying article itself.
    Looking at our precedents, and first going to the Johnson 
case, there is specification first with the details and a word-
by-word allegation of what the President was supposed to have 
said, and then specification second, and specification third.
    Much has been said about the Watergate matter. While it is 
true that all of the evidence was not recited in the various 
articles, especially in Article II, there was much specificity 
in the article, and it is worth reiterating and reminding the 
committee that accompanying the articles was a statement of 
information that was very specific as to the absolute detail 
that was being alleged about what that the President had done, 
numbered by paragraphs, with copies of the evidence.
    Looking at judicial impeachments, although I don't think 
they are precedent in terms of the standard for high crimes and 
misdemeanors, looking at the Hastings case, all of the articles 
that alleged false statements quote the statements that are 
being referred to.
    I think it is important that we know what we are doing, not 
only for due process and notice to the President, but for 
notice to our colleagues, who, I think as early as next week, 
will be asked to vote upon one or more articles.
    I am beginning to think that my colleague from 
Massachusetts is correct. We are writing the articles in this 
way because we do not want to admit what the issue really is. 
Looking at the Starr report referenced by the Chairman this 
morning as incorporated in these articles, on page 148 is the 
following statement by Mr. Starr: ``The President's grand jury 
testimony contradicts Ms. Lewinsky's grand jury testimony on 
the question of whether the President touched Ms. Lewinsky's 
breasts or genitalia during their sexual activity.''
    I cannot believe that the Founding Fathers meant for the 
fate of the Nation and the will of the people to fall or rise 
based on whether or not Ms. Lewinsky's or the President's 
version of breasts and genitalia touching was accurate. I 
cannot imagine that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and 
the Senate is going to sit and listen to the two individuals 
testify as to this matter, and I cannot believe that this is 
what we are going to be sending to our colleagues, but 
obviously it is. We ought to admit it,instead of trying to hide 
it behind the imprecise articles before us.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlewoman from Houston, Ms. Jackson 
Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    As I listen to this debate, it is quite striking to me 
because I remember, that a couple of weeks ago when we started 
I brought up the issue of the fifth amendment being part of the 
proceedings of this process to ensure that we did abide by or 
be guided by, if you will, the rule of law to the extent that 
we recognize notice and due process.
    I think what the American people understand is a basic 
fairness. I don't think the amendment even comes near to the 
question of fairness, because all it does is provide for a 
listing, an either/or, an A, B, C, D, or E. It does not provide 
the specificity that is important to notice.
    Let me explain to the American people about this whole 
question, with great respect to my colleagues in 1974. What 
this means when we vote out articles of impeachment, and let's 
just send it to the House, what is actually happening is that 
Members who are scattered all over the Nation, some overseas, 
some finishing up various medical procedures, as the newspapers 
have indicated, will be expected to come back here on next 
Thursday and vote on these articles.
    Now, with great respect for my colleagues, I don't know if 
they will have read 60,000 pages or even 1,600 pages. So it is 
our responsibility in this room, if we pass out articles of 
impeachment, to be satisfied that they are grounded 
constitutionally and they are specific enough that our 
colleagues will vote not only their conscience, but with 
information.
    Might I say something to my colleague, Mr. Hutchinson, 
because he reminded me on the issue of the two corroborating 
witnesses issue, I want to clarify that. I used it in 
particular because it is a Department of Justice standard to 
use two witnesses as they proceed in trial. It is certainly a 
guide. But also in the grand jury we are told that though the 
two-witness rule may not be applied, it is nonetheless clear 
from the case law that perjury prosecutions require a high 
degree of proof.
    We can ultimately use the two-witness rule or the two-
witness corroboration rule because even though there are two 
bodies, a House and Senate, and the Senate will try this case, 
we have a responsibility not to send frivolous articles of 
impeachment, ones that we know will ultimately fail. We have a 
responsibility as the `prosecutors,' in quotes, to not send 
forward those articles that will not prevail, that have no 
basis whatsoever.
    So I think the idea of the two-witness rule is an important 
one. It is a standard by which we should be guided.
    Then my good friend from Arkansas also quoted a Fourth 
Circuit case about this whole issue of unresponsiveness and 
evasiveness. But the Bronson case is a Supreme Court case, a 
higher authority. So that means that we are relying upon so-
called lies that may necessarily have been, really, ``I can't 
recollect,'' ``I can't recall,'' or the fact that the 
questioner did not ask the question.
    So I still think that this article of impeachment that we 
have before us fails because its underpinnings are not 
specific. There is no notice, no abiding of due process. We 
have an obligation in this committee, holding onto the 
constitutional premise that everyone deserves fairness and 
justice, that the President even deserves to be notified of the 
allegations and charges; and most of all, most of all to my 
colleagues who are relying upon us as the first arbiter, if you 
will, of the facts, coming back on Thursday to vote on 
articles, in essence that we will say to them: You can go to 
the Ford Building in about five minutes and look at those 
60,000 pages, and a variety of other pages; or you might even 
want to call your own witnesses so you can determine whether or 
not these articles are premised factually.
    That is the fallacy in what we have before us. They used 
the term ``perjurious.'' They did not have to use it. Might I 
say, I am reading here, ``Federal civil rights action.'' Can I 
just clarify for the record, I assume it is the Paula Jones 
case that was dismissed. So I am a little offended by ``a civil 
rights action.'' It was dismissed, and on appeal--there was no 
appeal, or there was no decision. There was a settlement, of 
which--as I understand, a settlement does not admit or deny any 
allegations.
    I am proud of harassment laws, Mr. Chairman, because they 
mean something to those of us who are women and those of us who 
are men in the workplace. But the case was dismissed. So this 
is a nonprecise article, Mr. Chairman. This amendment does not 
help it.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief, but I 
tried to get my colleague's attention from North Carolina, Mr. 
Coble's attention when he had time, to get him to yield, and I 
don't think he knew that I was trying to get him to yield to 
me.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Watt, I didn't hear you. If I had heard you, 
I would have done that.
    Mr. Watt. I know you would have yielded to me, if you had.
    But I wanted to respond to a point that he made, which was 
that he was sure that the staff would add the necessary 
specificity at some point in this process. I have heard several 
people refer to Congressman Rangel's statement back in the 
Watergate impeachment process as a precedent for that.
    Let me tell you my concern with that, what Mr. Coble has 
suggested. I believe that would put us in the position of 
delegating our responsibility on this committee to the staff. 
Now, I think you can do that if the staffs are working together 
on the content of something, and if the committee has a 
bipartisan agreement that what has happened constitutes an 
impeachable offense. In this particular case in 1998, as 
contrasted to 1974, I simply haven't seen any indication of 
bipartisanship at the member level, nor have I seen any 
indication of consultation in drafting or preparing information 
to submit to anybody at the staff level.
    So when you have a bipartisan agreement going on about what 
is going to happen, as there was in 1974, it is very easy to 
say, okay, we are all in agreement about what the offense is, 
and the staffs are working together. They have drafted this 
together and brought it to us, and it is very easy to then pass 
that on to the staff.
    But when you start out with the light of bipartisanship at 
the member level, and the light--I referred to it in the 
presentations between Mr. Lowell and Mr. Schippers, in the 
first presentations, as they were light years apart, 
andyesterday they were light years apart. There is no bipartisanship 
here on the committee.
    So to leave that obligation or delegate it to the staffs 
simply is a delegation to the Republican staff to do this, and 
I think that then becomes a delegation of responsibility that 
we as Members of this committee can't--if we are fulfilling our 
constitutional responsibility, we simply can't do that. That is 
the point I wanted to make to Mr. Coble.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would move the 
previous question.
    Chairman Hyde. The previous question has been moved.
    Mr. Conyers. Could I inquire of the gentleman, we only have 
one more speaker.
    Chairman Hyde. Would the gentleman withhold?
    Mr. Bryant. I will gladly withhold.
    Chairman Hyde. Thank you.
    The gentlewoman from California, who I assume is the last 
speaker.
    Ms. Waters. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Waters. When I asked earlier for a recess, it was 
precisely to see if there was some opportunity to work in a 
bipartisan way to come up with some specificity, so that we 
could get this beyond us. Of course, that was not done, and the 
amendment that was offered by Mr. Rogan only complicated the 
matter because it went to the opposite end of the scale on our 
request for specificity.
    Let me just say to those who keep asking me, and many of 
the reporters and others out in the hallway, ``Can't there be 
some compromise, some compromises between the Democrats and the 
Republicans? Can you work in a bipartisan way on anything?'' 
Well, I think that we really can, but we have to understand, we 
have to want to do it. We have to have the will to do that. We 
are missing the opportunity--and we have three more articles to 
go through. We are going to have the same arguments about a 
lack of specificity. We have been over 4 hours on this article 
of impeachment, and it is going to continue to happen. We are 
not going to go away because we think it is very, very 
important.
    I think I know why there is not a desire to put 
specificity, to specify the charges inside these referrals. But 
let me just say this, with all due respect to all of the 
references to Mr. Charlie Rangel, I am absolutely surprised to 
know that Mr. Lindsey Graham, as he said, loves Charlie Rangel, 
and Mr. Rangel's words are being used to guide us today. Let me 
just tell you what Mr. Rangel says about this impeachment.
    Mr. Rangel says that we should not be impeaching the 
President of the United States, it is outrageous; that we do 
not have any legitimate charges, that we are in violation of 
our oath that we have taken to uphold the Constitution. So if 
you like what Mr. Rangel says, take him up on what he is saying 
to everybody, to me and to the President and to everybody else, 
that we need to put an end to this right away. If you need Mr. 
Rangel to come down and tell you, I will ask him to do that.
    Let me just say in reference to what Ms. Lofgren said, Zoe 
said that specificity would force you to place in words 
information about where the President touched Monica Lewinsky 
and where he did not touch her. You don't want to do that 
because you know how ridiculous that is, to have a charge of 
perjury about who touched who and where. I think that one of 
our members said it, it is ``he said/she said.'' You can't get 
perjury out of that.
    It is absolutely ridiculous that you would list how many 
times--how many times the President had sex conversations or 
phone conversations or whatever you call it about sex. In this 
referral Mr. Ken Starr talks about the President lied because 
he said it was occasional, and she gave a specific number of 
times. I'm sure you don't want to list that in articles of 
impeachment about the President of the United States of 
America.
    I'm sure that you don't want to list and be specific about 
the gifts and the hiding of the gifts, and trying to prove 
obstruction of justice. I really don't think you want to list 
for debate by the Senate and anybody else what Betty Currie did 
with a hat pin, a Teddy bear and a tee shirt. It is outrageous 
and you know it.
    We are not going to solve it here today because you don't 
have anywhere to go with this. The only real place to go is to 
back out of it and say we were wrong, we shouldn't have done it 
this way, and let's think about some other way to show the 
President that we are unhappy, displeased with the actions that 
he has taken.
    We are not going to get any specificity in any of these 
articles of impeachment because the allegations are so 
outrageous, so flimsy, so ridiculous that they dare not put it 
in writing. They dare not write it down because they know that 
the American people won't buy it. But after today the American 
people are going to know. When the word goes out of here that 
we voted to send articles of impeachment to the floor of the 
House, then all those who have been shopping since 
Thanksgiving, all of those who thought this was going to go 
away, all of those who thought somehow it was going to be 
resolved will know exactly what has taken place.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner [presiding]. The gentlewoman's time has 
expired.
    Mr. Gekas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Gekas. Mr. Chairman, I wish to delegate my time to 
yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Chairman, I have sat and listened carefully, to this 
debate, not just on this amendment, but over these last several 
days. When the Starr report was first delivered to the 
Congress, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, 
Mr. Gephardt, went before the press and said that, the true 
mark of a fair hearing in our committee on the Judiciary will 
be whether the Republicans adopt the Rodino model--he Democrat 
model that was used to impeach President Nixon--as our model in 
reviewing these matters relating to President Clinton.
    Our Chairman, from the very beginning, agreed to do that. 
We have done it procedurally. We have done it technically, and, 
to the best of our ability we have done it in spirit as well as 
in letter.
    The impeachment referral against President Nixon is said by 
my colleagues on the other side to have contained 
``specificity''. Is that true? The Nixon referral was contained 
in a 300-page book, which I am holding right here. Only three 
pages of that book contain the articles of impeachment;over 
two-hundred-and-ninety pages contain the appendix, which is the 
specificity.
    They didn't churn out hundred-page articles of impeachment. 
They treated the articles of impeachment for what they were 
supposed to be: an announcement of the charge. The record--the 
appendix--which is backed up what those charges were.
    We have followed that model in spirit and in practice right 
down to the actual drafting of our proposed articles against 
President Clinton, which are modeled after the Rodino 
proposals.
    The amendment that I offered is a technical drafting 
amendment, so that our articles comport with the language that 
the Democrat Congress used in drafting articles of impeachment 
against President Richard Nixon.
    Will the gentleman continue to yield?
    One final point.
    Much has been said since the beginning of this entire 
episode about the expected lack of Democrat votes for any 
article of impeachment on this committee. I have sat and 
listened day after day, and month after month, to my dear 
friends on the other side boasting over their expectation that 
no Democrat will cross over to vote on this Committee for 
articles of Impeachment against President Clinton, and compare 
this to the era where a number of Republicans voted to impeach 
President Nixon.
    Comity and affection has caused me to remain silent on this 
issue up until now, but their repeated haranguing on this 
phenomenon requires me to now say this: The reason Republicans 
in 1974 voted to impeach a President of their own party is 
because when they saw a pattern of deceit, lying, subverting 
the law, perjury, obstruction justice, and other acts that 
offended the presidential oath of office, they refused to 
defend that conduct. Their lack of defense was not just in 
verbal condemnation. The took the very difficult and very 
painful step of saying the President of their own party no 
longer had the right to serve more as President of the United 
States.
    I have never questioned the motives behind the vote of any 
of my colleagues on the other side, either on this committee or 
in our body. Yet, I have watched my colleagues on the 
Republican side have their motives questioned on an hourly 
basis in this committee and in the press by he minority. Again, 
I don't question the motives of any of my dear friends in the 
minority as to why it may be that they choose not to vote for 
articles of impeachment against President Clinton.
    But I must say to all of them that in light of this 
President's record of deceit, of perjury, and of obstruction of 
justice. I hardly think that boasting that none of your ranks 
will vote for an article of impeachment under these and 
circumstances is a matter of bragging rights.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield?
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Pennsylvania controls the 
time, what is left of it.
    Mr. Gekas. I yield what is left to the gentleman from 
Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. I thank the gentleman. I just want to point 
out to Mr. Rogan that in 1974 the charges went to the 
obstruction of the office of the President. These were charges 
that went to the substance of running the government, sir. They 
were not personal conduct, or he said/she said. These were 
matters that involved pitting the CIA against the FBI, against 
the IRS, against the Department of Justice; a completely 
different kind of case situation entirely.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hyde [presiding]. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Watt. Will the gentleman yield for 30 seconds?
    Mr. Delahunt. I yield 30 seconds to Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. I just wonder whether Mr. Rogan was in the room 
when the gentleman who sits right behind him, Mr. Goodlatte, 
read the charges in 1974. There was no perjury charge in '74, 
and this whole discussion has been about whether there is a 
perjury charge.
    If you are going to allege perjury, you have got to add 
specificity. I don't know why the gentleman is so upset about 
that. He read him the charge. There is no perjury charge there. 
I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I will yield back.
    Mr. Rogan. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Delahunt. I yield to my friend.
    Mr. Rogan. I appreciate that. Certainly if in my passion in 
presenting my argument I misstated one charge that may not have 
been levied against President Nixon, that certainly was not my 
intent. I have no intention of disparaging the memory of our 
late President. I think everyone understands the point I was 
trying to make. I was relying on my recollection respecting a 
perjury allegation.
    I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner [presiding]. Will the gentleman yield to 
me?
    Mr. Delahunt. I will yield to the Chair.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The statement that was just made by the 
gentleman from North Carolina is incorrect. I would like to 
read three lines from Article I of the Richard Nixon 
impeachment: ``The means used to implement this course of 
conduct or plan included one or more of the following: one, 
making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to 
lawfully authorized investigative officers or employees of the 
United States.''
    Mr. Watt. That is not perjury, Mr. Chairman. Good try. 
Close, but no cigar, as they say.
    Mr. Delahunt. Reclaiming my time, I want to be very clear. 
I, for one, have never been known for what I consider impugning 
the motives of anyone, particularly Mr. Rogan, for whom I have 
not just great respect but great affection.
    At the same time, we are making these comparisons between 
the Rodino model and what we are about today. But it has to be 
stated clearly, that there is a fundamental difference between 
what occurred during those hearings, those proceedings, and 
what we are about today.
    And I would harken back to the testimony by Judge Wiggins 
when he appeared here back on the first of December. And I 
posed a question to him and in response to the question as to 
whether he heard evidence from witnesses, his answer was, yes, 
we heard from John Dean. We heard from H.R. Haldeman. We heard 
from Mr. Erlichman. We haven't heard from a direct witness to 
the events.
    Now, it can be said, well, it was--you could have done it. 
If you felt the need, you could have done it. Well, I dare say 
it was the responsibility of the committee. And I think it's 
important that the American people understand that no member of 
this committee has ever heard from Monica Lewinsky, from Betty 
Currie, from Vernon Jordan, from Linda Tripp, from any of the 
principals and that's the difference. We haven't been able to 
assess credibility.
    And implicit in a statement by majority counsel, Mr. 
Schippers. He said himself, and I think I've got the quote down 
fairly accurately because I've repeated it often enough. At 
some stage of the proceedings, by necessity, we will have to 
assess the credibility of Ms. Lewinsky and others and we never 
did it. I don't care whose responsibility it was. But we as a 
committee that is about to report out articles of impeachment, 
I submit to the American people had that responsibility. I 
didn't hear.
    And the problem is that we have had so many 
inconsistencies, so many inferences that many on this side in 
good conscious can't believe that either Mr. Schippers nor Mr. 
Starr made. I mean, they should--they have--those inferences 
have been drawn against Mr. Clinton. And here we are when they 
could have been resolved in his favor.
    And that's the problem, Jim. That's the problem. The facts 
aren't there.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Tennessee seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Bryant. I move the previous question.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentlewoman 
from California rise?
    Ms. Waters. I would like to make an inquiry of you.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. State your inquiry.
    Ms. Waters. Given the vote that we are about to take and--
--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment by the 
gentlewoman from California.
    Ms. Waters. On the amendment, the President of the United 
States of America just made a speech to the American public. 
Some of the members saw it. Some members didn't. Would it be 
wise for the members of this committee to have the opportunity 
to see the message from the President relative to the vote we 
are about to take prior to taking this vote?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I know that the message of the President 
has been video taped in the Republican members' room. Those who 
have not seen it can go back there at their convenience to see 
it.
    Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the 
amendment. The question is on adoption of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from California, Mr. Rogan.
    Those in favor will say aye. Those opposed will say no.
    A roll call has been requested. The Clerk will call the 
roll. Those in favor will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. 
The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
    Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCollum votes aye.
    Mr. Gekas.
    Mr. Gekas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas votes aye.
    Mr. Coble.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
    Mr. Canady.
    Mr. Canady. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Canady votes aye.
    Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis votes aye.
    Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte votes aye.
    Mr. Buyer.
    Mr. Buyer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Buyer votes aye.
    Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant.  Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bryant votes aye.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr votes aye.
    Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins votes aye.
    Mr. Hutchinson.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Pease.
    Mr. Pease. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pease votes aye.
    Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes aye.
    Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rogan votes aye.
    Mr. Graham.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bono.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers votes no.
    Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank votes no.
    Mr. Schumer.
    Mr. Schumer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schumer votes no.
    Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman votes no.
    Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher.  No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher votes no.
    Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler votes no.
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott votes no.
    Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.
    Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters votes no.
    Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan votes no.
    Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt votes no.
    Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler votes no.
    Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rothman votes no.
    Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrett votes no.
    Mr. Hyde.
    Chairman Hyde. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde votes aye.
    Mr. Coble.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from North Carolina.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble is not recorded.
    Mr. Coble. I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble votes aye.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 
Graham.
    Mr. Graham. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham votes aye.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson votes aye.
    Chairman Hyde. Mrs. Bono.
    Mrs. Bono. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bono votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman, there are 21 ayes and 16 noes.
    Chairman Hyde. The amendment is agreed to.
    Without objection, the previous question is ordered on 
Article I. The question occurs on Article I. All those in favor 
will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. And we will certainly 
have a roll call. The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
    Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCollum votes aye.
    Mr. Gekas.
    Mr. Gekas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas votes aye.
    Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble votes aye.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
    Mr. Canady.
    Mr. Canady. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Canady votes aye.
    Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis votes aye.
    Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte votes aye.
    Mr. Buyer.
    Mr. Buyer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Buyer votes aye.
    Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant.  Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bryant votes aye.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr votes aye.
    Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins votes aye.
    Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson votes aye.
    Mr. Pease.
    Mr. Pease. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pease votes aye.
    Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes aye.
    Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rogan votes aye.
    Mr. Graham.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bono.
    Mrs. Bono. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bono votes aye.
    Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers votes no.
    Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank votes no.
    Mr. Schumer.
    Mr. Schumer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schumer votes no.
    Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman votes no.
    Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher.  No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher votes no.
    Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler votes no.
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott votes no.
    Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.
    Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters votes no.
    Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan votes no.
    Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt votes no.
    Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler votes no.
    Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rothman votes no.
    Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrett votes no.
    Mr. Hyde.
    Chairman Hyde. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde votes aye.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Graham. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham votes aye.
    Chairman Hyde. Have all voted who wish? The Clerk will 
report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 21 ayes and 16 noes.
    Chairman Hyde. Article I is agreed to. The committee will 
now consider Article II. Are there any amendments to Article 
II.
    Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. I guess Mr. Graham does not have an 
amendment to number II. Please state your----
    Mr. Frank. It has to do with the procedure I was provided 
by a member of staff. The procedure was going to be here--and 
it's a little reversal than norm but not a problem--that you 
would ask for amendments first and then there would be the 
opportunity to strike the last word. So that members would know 
the fact that we're getting to amendments doesn't preempt the 
right to strike the last word; is that correct?
    Chairman Hyde. We were just informed that Mr. Graham is not 
going to offer his amendment. Yes, we can discuss----
    Mr. Frank. We're open for----
    Chairman Hyde [continuing]. For discussion, if you wish.
    All right. The gentlelady from California.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members, 
today, Friday, December 11, 1998, the Judiciary Committee of 
the 105th Congress is embarking on the extraordinary procedure 
of taking a vote to report from this committee articles of 
impeachment of the President of the United States of America, 
William Jefferson Clinton. Let history record I, Maxine Waters, 
member of Congress, representing the 35th Congressional 
District of the United States of America, is of sound mind, 
excellent health, and a clear conscious. Let history further 
record that I direct my remarks to my children, Ed and Karen, 
my grandchildren, Cameron Titus, 10 years of age, my grandson, 
Mikael, 20 years of age, to my mother, Emily Moore, to my 12 
brothers and sisters, living and dead, to my husband Ambassador 
Sydney Williams, my dear friends and supporters, my 
constituents, really to all Americans and peoples of the world, 
I will not violate the Constitution of the United States. I 
will vote no on each and every vague and general article of 
impeachment that will be presented to this committee today.
    Let history record I have fought against the impeachment of 
the President of the United States in every way that I know 
how; that my Democratic colleagues have shown in every possible 
way that this President has not committed perjury, obstructed 
justice, or committed any actions or crimes that rise to the 
level of impeachment.
    Mr. Chairman and members, let history treat me kindly as 
our children and children's children analyze what we do here 
today. Let the historians speak favorably at me because I have 
carefully, responsibly, and honorably exercised my duty to 
uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, so 
help me God.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, this is the article which would 
call for the dismissal from office of President Clinton because 
of false statements he made in the deposition in the Paula 
Jones case. I do not believe with regard to Article I that 
false statements were demonstrated.
    With regard to this article, I do believe, as I read and 
heard the testimony, that the President spoke falsely when he 
denied being alone with Ms. Lewinsky, and I very much regret 
that. And I believe that given the fact that the statute of 
limitations has not expired and won't expire for some time, he 
will be subject to prosecution on that when his term expires.
    I do not think prosecution is likely because I believe that 
if someone were to bring that it would fail. And I believe we 
heard from a very distinguished group of prosecutors who said 
that it is highly unlikely that a federal prosecutor would have 
brought that.
    And there are two reasons why I think we should reject 
this. First, I disagree with the assertion that a false 
statement is a false statement without regard to the underlying 
act about which it is made. I must say, Mr. Chairman, I don't 
think anybody here believes that all the time. The notion that 
you equally condemn any false statement no matter what the 
context, no matter what the underlying issue, no matter what 
the motivation, is none of you, I believe that any of us 
consistently hold.
    It has gained some adherence because it is a convenient 
stick with which to beat the President. But the fact is that 
the cause of the lie the President told with regard to the 
deposition is a consensual sexual affair and his desire to 
conceal it.
    We have plenty of testimony that the desire to conceal this 
long predated knowledge that it would get involved in this 
lawsuit. Indeed, the gentleman from Florida himself said 
yesterday or the day before that the President and Monica 
Lewinsky had agreed between them that they would try to conceal 
this from people who asked long before they knew about the 
lawsuit. It was an understandable desire to conceal activity 
the President knew to be wrong, but it was not activity that 
assaulted anyone else, that imposed himself on anyone else. It 
was purely consensual sex.
    There's another concern I have. And it has to do with the 
irrelevance, in my judgment, of the conduct that occurred 
between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky to the Paula 
Jones case. People have talked about sexual harassment. I am a 
strong believer in very tough laws against sexual harassment, 
and I think you do the cause of protecting people against 
sexual harassment enormous damage if you erode that firewall 
between consensual and non-consensual sex. People who would try 
to diminish that distinction in my judgment undermine our 
efforts to protect people against harassment, against coercion.
    Monica Lewinsky herself is the undeviating, unrefuted 
witness to the fact that she was the initiator of this 
relationship, and at no point did she ever feel any pressure to 
continue it.
    So here's the problem: You have the President sued by Paula 
Jones. He is then subject to wide discovery. If the fact is 
that because you are sued no matter what the merits ultimately 
of the suit, you can then in a very wide discovery process be 
compelled under oath under penalties of punishment to be asked 
about and answer about any aspect of your personal life, even 
if it is wholly irrelevant to the lawsuit is an erosion of 
privacy that I don't want to give any stamp of approval to. And 
to say that we're going to throw Bill Clinton out of office, 
and you're not simply--and again, this notion that you're just 
here pitting batting practice, it's ole Mark McGwire and Sammy 
Sosa in the Senate, and poor you, you're not making any 
judgments, you're not doing anything. That's simply wrong and 
everyone knows it. There's no more solemn act you can take here 
than to say we think Bill Clinton ought to be thrown out of 
office and we set in motion, as you just did, the process to 
throw him out of office. To throw him out of office because he 
tried to conceal a consensual sexual relationship in a lawsuit 
in which it had no relevance in fact would be a very grave 
error.
    Yes, I have no trouble in differentiating that from the 
impeachment of a federal judge who tried to fix a case of a 
drug dealer and lied about it or a president who tried to 
impinge on the law enforcement of the country. So I hope that 
this article is defeated.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
article.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid that my friend 
from Massachusetts flat out misstated the law on sexual 
harassment. We don't need a law on sexual harassment for 
nonconsenting sexual contact. That's sexual assault. And there 
are adequate laws on sexual assault in all 50 States and the 
District of Columbia that deal with people who perpetrate that 
type of heinous crime. The laws prohibiting sexual harassment 
are designed to provide protection for those who are sexually 
harassed, primarily women but not exclusively, from activities 
that do not rise to the level of sexual assault.
    And I'm awful afraid that if we say it's okay to lie in 
legal proceedings on sexual harassment, we've made enforcement 
of the sexual harassment laws ineffective because every lawsuit 
on sexual harassment is about sex, by, in and of its very 
nature. But Paula Jones' lawsuit was a federal civil rights 
lawsuit, which is under a different part of the law. And part 
of the allegations that Ms. Jones made and which the Supreme 
Court by a 9-0 vote said she had a right to pursue is that 
after she allegedly rejected the President's advances in the 
hotel room in Arkansas, she was harassed at work, denied pay 
raises and ultimately forced to resign her position with the 
Arkansas state government. And with those allegations, she 
would have a much stronger case to take to the court and to 
take to the jury by showing that there are other women who are 
under the direct employ and supervision of Mr. Clinton, when he 
was governor or president, who submitted to his advances who 
got jobs and promotions and pay raises and goodies and the 
like. That's a classic civil rights case.
    Now, I'm not here to say whether she would have the 
evidence to do that or not. That's not the point. The point is 
that the Supreme Court and Judge Wright in Arkansas said that 
she had the right to obtain evidence to try to prove her case, 
and where the alleged perjury of the President came in was to 
prevent her from doing that. That is a very, very serious 
result of that perjury, and it all goes to the business of 
whether an employee of the State of Arkansas who claimed that 
the governor of Arkansas sexually harassed her denied her civil 
rights. The Supreme Court said she had a right to proceed in 
gathering evidence and where I believe the President obstructed 
her wrongfully and perjuriously was to prevent her from 
obtaining that evidence.
    Now, the law on perjury does not depend upon the outcome of 
the case. The case was thrown out of court by Judge Wright. It 
was appealed and the President paid a significant judgment 
before the appeal was decided. The issue of alleged perjury is 
whether it was materially at the time the alleged perjurious 
statement was made. And here we have a decision of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that was 
placed under seal and was unsealed just recently that said it 
was material, the false statements, and those material false 
statements were directly designed to change the outcome of the 
case. That related to the affidavit of Monica Lewinsky that 
even the President's lawyer had to send a letter to the court 
instructing him to disregard.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. Before I begin, I'm going to briefly recognize 
Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. I thank the ranking member. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin completely misstated my position. I was not 
suggesting that the activity involving Paula Jones was in any 
way consensual. Yes, sexual harassment is wrong, but for the 
gentleman to suggest that I'm allowing sexual harassment when I 
say consensual sex, misunderstands sexual harassment. The 
terrible thing about harassment is precisely that it is non-
consensual, that it overcomes the victim's ``no'' with other 
threats. My point was that the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton 
relationship was according to Monica Lewinsky in an uncontested 
way wholly consensual. There was not a shred of any evidence of 
sexual harassment between Monica Lewinsky. When I say I want a 
law, I believe that the wholly consensual relationship between 
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was in fact irrelevant to the 
accusation of harassment by Paula Jones, and I think we do a 
disservice to sexual harassment law by letting that distinction 
be eroded.
    Mr. Conyers. I thank my colleague.
    Ladies and gentlemen, this second article deals with 
perjury in the Jones deposition, and the Republicans on this 
committee would impeach the President of the United States over 
a tortured definition of the phrase ``sexual relations.''
    Now, we all saw the deposition videotape of the 15-minute 
conversation among the three lawyers and a judge about what the 
definition of sexual relations in that case meant. We 
witnessed, watched, and listened to it. No one in the 
deposition room aside from the Paula Jones lawyers who were in 
effect setting up the President understood what that definition 
meant. The judge in the case even said that after all she 
heard, that she did not think that the President understood the 
definition. This is on the record.
    The President's testimony about his consensual relationship 
with Ms. Lewinsky was not material to the Paula Jones claim 
that the President made unwanted advances toward her. Could 
that still be in dispute? Judge Webber Wright made that clear 
in three separate rulings that testimony about the President's 
relationships with other women simply did not go to the core of 
the issues put in dispute by Ms. Jones.
    The Republicans misstate that the issue of materiality was 
settled by the litigation involving Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer Frank 
Carter. The only thing that the litigation involving Mr. Carter 
decided is that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit was material to the 
limited question in that case. That is, whether Ms. Lewinsky's 
affidavit was material to whether she should have to testify as 
a deposition witness in the Jones case.
    The court considering that limited issue never considered 
the overall materiality of the Lewinsky testimony to the Jones 
case and would and could not have made a ruling on a case 
pending in another court. Republicans would impeach the 
President of the United States for his testimony on subjects as 
whether he was ever alone with Ms. Lewinsky. While we're 
troubled by the President's testimony, we believe it is 
insufficient, too insufficient to warrant an impeachment of the 
President. The President's reactions to the setup in the Jones 
deposition were not impeachable reactions but the reactions of 
a husband and a father whose misconduct was about to be 
exposed.
    Please, please let us reject this second article of 
impeachment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Thank you. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Canady.
    Mr. Canady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in supportof 
this article. Now, I will grant that not all false statements under 
oath are equivalent. A lie concerning a barroom fight is not equivalent 
to a lie concerning a rape or murder. I don't think anyone in this room 
would disagree with that. But I think we need to look at this conduct 
of the President in context. I agree, the context is important, but I'm 
driven to the conclusion that when we look at the context here, we have 
to understand that this was a serious act of wrongdoing, a willful act 
of wrongdoing, an act of wrongdoing designed to deprive another 
American citizen of her rights in court.
    Now, I know the President didn't like the fact that he was 
subjected to a lawsuit. He didn't think that the plaintiff 
should ever be in court, at least during his presidency. He 
believed or he says he believed that it was all a plan to get 
him and embarrass him. But the fact of the matter is that in 
this proceeding, the judge decided that the President would 
have to answer questions at the deposition concerning Ms. 
Lewinsky and other people that might have been in a similar 
position.
    Mr. Clinton didn't agree with that decision of the judge. I 
understand that. Mr. Clinton thought that was unfair. I 
understand that. But the judge decided he would have to answer 
those questions.
    Now, the judge having decided that, the President went in 
to the deposition and he lied. We all know that. Well, maybe 
somebody doesn't know it, but I would suggest that it requires 
a turning away from the facts, a closing of the eyes to these 
facts to come to any other conclusion that he lied. He lied 
repeatedly.
    Let me point out that I think the evidence is also clear 
that he went into the deposition with clear knowledge that he 
might be asked questions about Ms. Lewinsky and with a plan to 
lie if he was asked questions. He thought he could get away 
with telling lies because of the affidavit that she had given.
    Now, I would feel differently about this if the President 
had truly been blindsided, if he had not known that the subject 
of Ms. Lewinsky was likely to come up, he thought that was a 
closed chapter, nobody knew about it and a question comes to 
him like a bolt out of the blue. And I think some people 
believe that's what happened in this deposition, but the record 
absolutely shows that wasn't the case. He knew she was on the 
witness list. He knew all the circumstances and he knew that he 
was likely to be asked about her. He was asked about her and he 
sat there and we watched him and he cooly, in a calculated 
manner lied. That's what took place there.
    Now, that is a serious matter for the President of these 
United States who has the responsibility to uphold the rule of 
law in this country to engage in such conduct.
    Now, what does the President say in his defense? Well, we 
get more and more of the legalisms. It is amazing to me that 
the President's lawyers and the President can come forward with 
an argument that turns on the contention that Ms. Lewinsky had 
sex with him but he didn't have sex with her. That's what this 
all turns on. If we're going to believe his interpretation of 
what was going on, we have to believe that version of reality. 
That's an insult to our intelligence. That's an insult to the 
intelligence of the American people. It is not truthful. And I 
would suggest that we focus on the facts here and if we do 
that, we will come to the conclusion that the President 
willfully in a calculated manner lied to defeat the rights, the 
due rights, of an American citizen.
    It's not just his lying about the sexual relations. He also 
lied when he said he didn't have an extramarital affair or a 
sexual relationship, when he affirmed the affidavit given by 
Ms. Lewinsky that said there was no sexual relationship. If 
there was no sexual relationship, what kind of relationship was 
it? Let's get real about the facts here. The President lied and 
he should be impeached for lying.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We all don't know that 
the President lied in his deposition. Many people suspect he 
did, but it has not been proven. One of my chief concerns with 
these--with this whole proceeding is that there is not nearly 
sufficient proof before us to warrant the conclusion that he 
did what the allegation says he did.
    Now, this article of impeachment says he perjured himself 
at the deposition testimony on January 17 in that--that he lied 
under oath about the nature of his relationship, presumably 
when he said that he did not have a sexual affair, a sexual 
relationship, or sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. The 
President asserted that he did not have a sexual affair with 
her within the undefined meaning of that term, that Ms. 
Lewinsky was correct in her statement that she did not have a 
sexual relationship with the President within the undefined 
meaning of that term and, three, that he did not have sexual 
relations with Ms. Lewinsky as that term was defined by the 
Jones lawyers and limited by Judge Wright.
    It is by now more than clear that the undefined term sexual 
affair, sexual relations, and sexual relationship, despite the 
fact that what I'm about to say is counterintuitive, in fact is 
at best ambiguous, meaning different things to different 
people, and that President Clinton's belief that the terms 
referred to sexual intercourse and not to certain other acts is 
supported by courts, commentators, and numerous dictionaries. 
As one court has stated in common parlance, the term ``sexual 
intercourse'' and ``sexual relations'' are often used 
interchangeably. The Webster's Third New International 
Dictionary defines sexual relations as coitus. Random House 
Webster's College Dictionary defines sexual relations as sexual 
intercourse; coitus. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 
defines sexual relations as coitus. Black's Law Dictionary 
defines intercourse as sexual relations. Random House Compact--
Unabridged Dictionary defines sexual relations as sexual 
intercourse; coitus. The President's understanding of these 
terms or his testimony to the understanding of these terms, 
which is shared even by several common dictionaries, cannot 
possibly support a prosecution for perjury. How would a 
prosecutor prove these dictionaries wrong? And in any event, 
regardless of one's view that sexual relations means 
intercourse, the evidence is indisputable that this is indeed 
what President Clinton believed at the time. And of course, 
perjury is dependent on what the deponent believed. Perjury 
requires more than that someone else believes President Clinton 
was wrong about the meaning of these terms. It also requires 
proof that President Clinton knew he was wrong and 
intentionally lied about it, but the evidence demonstrates that 
the President honestly held that belief well before the Jones 
deposition. The genuineness of the President's belief on the 
subject is even supported by the special prosecutor'saccount of 
Ms. Lewinsky's testimony during an interview with the FBI. And I quote 
from an FBI 302 form cited in the report referral. After having a 
relationship with him, Lewinsky deduced that the President in his mind 
apparently does not consider oral sex to be sex. Sex to him must mean 
intercourse, closed quote.
    Finally, Ms. Lewinsky herself took the position that her 
contact with the President did not constitute sex and 
reaffirmed that position even after she received immunity and 
begun cooperating with the special prosecutor. In one of the 
Linda Tripp tapes, which she didn't know she was being recorded 
on obviously, Ms. Lewinsky explains to Linda Tripp that she 
didn't have sex with the President because having sex is having 
intercourse. And in fact Neysa Erbland, one of the alleged--one 
of her friends who was an alleged collaborator of her 
testimony, according to the special prosecutor, states that Ms. 
Lewinsky said the President and she didn't have sex. In her 
original proffer to the independent prosecutor, she wrote, 
quote, Ms. Lewinsky was comfortable signing an affidavit with 
regard to the sexual relationship because she could not justify 
to herself that she and the President did not have sexual 
intercourse, unquote. In short, the evidence supports only the 
conclusion that the President's responses with respect to these 
undefined terms were truthful and at worse good faith responses 
to indisputably ambiguous questions. We have seen from the 
independent prosecutor, from Mr. Schippers, from anybody else, 
no, and I repeat no, evidence to the contrary. And simple 
statements that come on, how can anybody think that, well, the 
fact is that the dictionaries think that and a lot of people 
think that. Maybe nobody at this table thinks that but a lot of 
maybe less sophisticated people or more sophisticated people, I 
don't know, do think that.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time----
    Mr. Nadler. I request an additional 15 seconds.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's 15 seconds are granted.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. A lot of people do think that and 
one cannot possibly prove with no evidence that the President 
thought the contrary. Therefore it's counter to all the 
evidence to base a perjury article on this and therefore as 
well as for all the other reasons I stated with respect to 
Number I--Article I, we must oppose Article Number II also.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I, like 
all of us, am uncomfortable with this article, as I was with 
the other one, because of the subject matter. The more we plow 
into this and the more we debate it, the more I'm convinced 
unfortunately that the President did indeed commit perjury, not 
just lying on numerous occasions in that deposition with Paula 
Jones as well as in front of the grand jury. But it is 
disappointing.
    I heard the President a few moments ago. I reviewed what he 
said before the public--in the public eye here about his 
supposed again contrition. I don't think he said anything new, 
unfortunately, except that he was ashamed of what he did, as he 
certainly should be, but he's never admitted actually 
committing the perjury or the lying under oath, and so forth, 
that are the subject matters here today. I think some of us had 
it right in the past, it would have been preferable if he 
resigned--he did not announce that he was resigning today--than 
to what we're doing. But we have an obligation constitutionally 
to proceed. I must say that with all due respect to Mr. Nadler 
and my colleagues on the other side that the evidence here of 
what this President was about is abundantly clear if you just 
take the blinders off and you look at the whole picture. I 
described some of that a few minutes ago.
    Putting it back in context very briefly once again, the 
President was involved in being concerned about his sexual 
relationship with Monica Lewinsky, whatever words you want to 
use, coming to bear and being acknowledged in the Paula Jones 
civil rights suit. He was determined to defeat that suit. And 
in order to do so it's very clear that a few weeks before his 
deposition, he made some comments that were made clearly to 
Monica Lewinsky that made everybody understand that they were 
not going to tell the truth about their relationship. Now, 
whether he made it before he knew about the suit or before he 
knew about the deposition or whatever makes no difference 
because at the time she was called upon as a witness, put on 
the list, he called her up, he knew that and they knew, both of 
them knew that they were not going to tell the truth about this 
matter under any circumstances. And so the evidence is very 
clear he went into this deposition with that in mind and he 
went through the process of testifying numerous times. The 
sexual relations question, what was it, what was the 
definition, we can all argue about. Common sense says, as Mr. 
Canady did a minute go, that he knew good and well what it was 
and that he lied when he tried to avoid telling the truth about 
it. But even if you believe him in every respect, the contorted 
definition that was put before him he did understand. With all 
due respect, the other side has been arguing he didn't 
understand it, he understood the definition that was put before 
him when it finally was resolved in that court and the 
deposition, when his attorneys had finished the argument. He 
clearly was paying attention to all of that. We saw some of 
that on television yesterday. And then in the grand jury 
deposition, he was specifically asked if he understood it and 
what it meant. And he said, yes, he did, in terms of the actual 
words that went on. Now, it may not have been intercourse but 
he knew that certain parts of the body, if he had touched them, 
were indeed included in that definition.
    We went over before the grand jury, but I'll go over it 
briefly here again with regard to perjury in the deposition in 
the Jones case. The fact of the matter is that Monica Lewinsky 
has testified in the grand jury proceedings that he did in fact 
touch her in certain ways that were in the definition that the 
court gave to Mr. Clinton, and that Mr. Clinton acknowledged he 
understood. And there are numerous witnesses who corroborate 
that in fact what Monica Lewinsky said before the grand jury 
she had repeated to them on several occasions 
contemporaneously, in other words, at the same time roughly 
that these supposed contacts were going on. All of that is 
corroborated. It's very believable and it's very much 
corroborated also by a computer letter she had in a draft to 
the President, and so and so forth.
    And the President lied on numerous other occasions in his 
testimony in that deposition. He lied after being asked if 
anybody reported to him in the past two weeks that they had a 
conversation with Monica Lewinsky. He lied in the deposition 
about being alone in certain quarters in the Oval Office. He 
lied in the deposition about hisknowledge of gifts that they 
may have exchanged. He lied in the deposition about his knowledge about 
whether he'd ever spoken to a subordinate employee about a possibility 
that the employee might be called as a witness. He lied about his 
knowledge of the services of a subpoena in the case. He lied about his 
knowledge of the final conversation he had with an employee who was 
going to be a witness in the case brought against him. He lied in the 
deposition about his knowledge to the contents of the affidavit 
executed by--and so on and so forth, nine or ten times. And I won't go 
on with the list.
    He clearly committed perjury in that deposition. I would 
suggest that it does rise to an impeachable standard and he 
should be impeached, unfortunately and sadly, for it and that's 
what we're called upon to do in the article we're debating 
today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Thank you. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After the last debate, 
I guess we can give up on getting the specifics. I guess we'll 
find out what we voted on after we vote. But since again we're 
talking about perjury, if you're going to allege perjury, you 
have to prove all the elements of perjury, which in this case 
include materiality. And we're talking about testimony that the 
judge ruled as inadmissible in a lawsuit that was thrown out on 
a summary judgment and then settled. Never anywhere in America 
would a perjury charge be brought in such a situation. And 
therefore we're faced with a question of whether whatever he 
said was such a subversion of government that his conduct 
warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office and the 
additional optional judgment that he be disqualified from 
holding and enjoying any office of honor, trust, or profit 
under the United States. Now, that additional judgment was not 
requested in Watergate. And so history will record that this 
committee thought that the punishment for his testimony in the 
Paula Jones case was worse than President Nixon's corrupt use 
of the FBI, the CIA, and Internal Revenue Service and Watergate 
and that's why one of our witnesses recently was provoked to 
suggest that history will hunt some of us down for our votes 
today. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. I thank the Chair and I just wanted to make 
a comment on the statement from the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Frank. He indicated that the statements that 
were given under oath that are alleged to be perjurious were 
wholly irrelevant to the lawsuit. Who determined that they are 
irrelevant? Are we going to let litigants in a lawsuit 
determine what is relevant and whether they're going to answer 
a question under oath or not?
    In this case, there was an extraordinary circumstance. The 
federal judge was sitting in the room, and the judge, Judge 
Wright from Arkansas, indicated that the President should 
answer the question. She heard the President's lawyers object 
and say this is irrelevant, it's not material, we should not 
consider this, and she said yes, it is, you need to answer. And 
so are we going to let a litigant in a lawsuit determine and 
make the decision unilaterally what is relevant?
    Now, I understand and appreciate what Mr. Frank is saying 
but, you know, you can change the law. You can change the 
rules, but under the rules you operate, the judge determined 
that he should answer, the question and she expected a truthful 
answer and that goes to Mr. Scott's question of materiality.
    Mr. Frank. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hutchinson. For a question I will yield.
    Mr. Frank. I was going to answer the question you asked me.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Let me see if we can get some more time and 
we'll discuss this.
    Go ahead. I'll yield.
    Mr. Frank. Very brief. If the President were to be 
criminally charged with perjury, if someone brought that, then 
the judge said it would be relevant.
    We are here being asked to make an independent judgment as 
Members of Congress as to what punishment we think is 
appropriate. My answer to your question is I and each of the 
rest of us have to judge about that. That is, this is not the 
criminal perjury that might be brought. I have an independent 
constitutional responsibility. Do I think the President of the 
United States should have been thrown out of office for it and 
I believe----
    Mr. Hutchinson. I'm reclaiming my time. I appreciate the 
gentleman's distinction, which is just the opposite distinction 
that your side has been making for the last hour.
    Mr. Frank. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hutchinson. No. You say that we can't meet the elements 
of a criminal case but now you're saying well, it's beyond 
that. We're talking about the action of Congress and it is a 
distinction there. I understand----
    Mr. Frank. But the gentleman is simply misstating my 
position.
    Mr. Hutchinson. It's still my time, Mr. Frank. It's still 
my time. If you look at this, I just think it's bad practice. I 
think that it would be extraordinary to carve out an exception 
to materiality and say that the President should not be held 
accountable because he determined or his lawyers determined 
that he could lie because he determined that it was not 
relevant.
    Now, let's go to the statements that were actually made in 
the deposition. Numerous, numerous statements were made. The 
first one of course, the most obvious, is that he was never 
alone with Monica Lewinsky and we don't need to debate what 
alone means, but the question was asked about whether he had 
been alone with her and his answer was he did not recall. The 
question specifically was, ``So I understand your testimony is 
that it was possible then that you were alone with her but you 
have no specific recollection of that ever happening?'' Answer: 
``Yes, that's correct.'' This is an amazing statement. I 
believe it is a false statement.
    Another question was: ``When was the last time you spoke 
with Monica Lewinsky?''
    Answer: ``I'm trying to remember. Probably sometime before 
Christmas.'' And then he adds: ``She came by to see Betty 
sometime before Christmas and she was there talking to her and 
I stuck my head out and said hello to her.'' That is not a 
correct response. It's not a truthful response. In fact, the 
President met with Monica after Christmas, on December 28, to 
exchange gifts. It was something that anyone would remember, 
and he is trying to tie it all to Betty Currie.
    Another question: ``Did she tell you that she had been 
served a subpoena in this case?'' Answer: ``No, I don't know if 
she had been.'' Another false statement. Question: ``Did you 
have anextramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?'' 
Remember that the question was not under the definition of sexual 
relations, but the question was, did you have an extramarital sexual 
affair with Monica Lewinsky? The answer was no. Then he goes on later 
and he again states, I've never had an affair with her. And so you can 
go through the deposition time after time and point to numerous 
incidences very specifically of false statements being given. Are they 
relevant? Are they important? I believe they were important to the 
plaintiff in that civil rights lawsuit. Any other person would be held 
accountable if they unilaterally made a decision it is not important, 
it is of no consequence, I'm not going to tell the truth on that. We 
cannot have litigants in court making that determination. I'm not happy 
that we have to look at this and determine that the President of the 
United States lied under oath, but those are the facts and so we must 
proceed.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentlelady--I'm sorry. Mr. Berman from California.
    Mr. Berman. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
    Mr. Frank. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the 
gentleman from Arkansas' comments, but he seriously misstated 
what I said. I think there's a very fundamental issue here. 
First, he said I was being inconsistent in saying that we 
should apply the standard of impeachment because some members 
on this side have been talking about a criminal case. I'm not 
one of those. I make a deal with the rest of the world. Then 
I'm responsible for what I say. I'm not responsible for what 
they say.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Will the gentleman yield for an apology?
    Mr. Frank. I'll yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Hutchinson. I think you're absolutely correct. You do 
show a great deal of independence.
    Mr. Frank. I thank the gentleman. I want to continue in the 
spirit because it is one of the central questions here. I did 
complain about the lack of specificity because I thought and 
still think it was an effort to try and fuzz up the issue 
because members aren't satisfied in taking it to impeachment. 
As to criminal prosecution, and I do believe that the judge's 
ruling was conclusive as to criminal prosecution, that's right. 
As to perjury, if you're going to have that kind of accusation 
and you're going to bring a criminal case, then that could be 
conclusive. That could be litigated there. But we're not in a 
criminal prosecution. I haven't said that we are. I would also 
note----
    Mr. Hutchinson. Would you yield for a clarification?
    Mr. Frank. Yes.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Am I correct to understand that you believe 
that the materiality question for a criminal prosecution is 
satisfied and that he could be criminally prosecuted for a 
false statement that was material?
    Mr. Frank. No, I think it could be litigated. I think the 
fact of what you said is relevant and not dispositive because 
there were later decisions that might be different, but that's 
not our issue. I haven't talked about that as being the same 
issue. I'm talking about our independent responsibility to 
decide if this is impeachable because there's another factor 
that would intervene in criminality. As former Governor Weld 
said, in addition to materiality, there's substantially. He was 
talking specifically about this. I agree with the many 
prosecutors who have said, very few prosecutors if any would 
bring this case so that the question about whether or not the 
President would be convicted is almost irrelevant, but that is 
for prosecution. And I do make the note. Ken Starr will 
probably still be the independent counsel. There will be a 
successor in office. The statute of limitations will not have 
elapsed, so therefore I think it ought to be left to 
prosecution. But for us, and this is very important, we have an 
independent responsibility to decide whether or not the 
President of the United States ought to be thrown out of 
office. Frankly, I'm surprised to see members on the other side 
shying away from that. There's a pattern of some members 
saying, who, us? We're just sending it over to the Senate. 
We're just finding probable cause. No, this is our 
constitutional solemn responsibility and you voted for 
something that says he should be thrown out of office. And then 
the question is for each and every one of us to decide. Should 
Bill Clinton be thrown out of office, should the presidency, 
twice won in a popular election, be terminated because he 
denied having been alone with Monica Lewinsky in a civil 
deposition and lawsuit to which I believe it was irrelevant 
because I believe that there is an absolute bar between the 
wholly consensual sex in the Lewinsky matter and the allegation 
of harassment in the Paula Jones matter.
    So no, I don't think the fact that a judge ruled is 
dispositive for us. Whether or not it would be later on would 
be if anybody brought the prosecution. I don't think anyone 
would, but I do not think members ought to hide behind judges 
or senators or anyone else. This is your choice. Are you going 
to vote individually to throw Bill Clinton out of office, which 
is what you are voting for in this resolution. It cannot be 
gainsaid because in a civil deposition, he lied to conceal a 
private consensual affair and that's the standard. The question 
is who decides what rises to that level? Each and every one of 
us do. I cannot think of a more solemn or heavier 
responsibility.
    I thank my friend from California.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas.
    Mr. Gekas. I thank the Chair. One could argue that the 
falsehoods under oath uttered by the President in the 
deposition are more serious and more damaging and more 
definable than those which we have voted have occurred in the 
grand jury. In the grand jury, oh, it's a criminal 
investigation and on first glance would seem to be more serious 
than a civil case. In the grand jury in a criminal case at 
least, there's no known victim, no individuals whose rights 
have been damaged but rather the societal atmosphere which the 
criminal investigation involves. But in the civil deposition 
that we're talking about, let's assume for a moment that Monica 
Lewinsky uttered in her affidavit that she indeed did have a 
relationship, a sexual relationship with the President. Paula 
Jones was entitled to have that affidavit which shows that even 
the consensual relationship of Monica Lewinsky with the 
President, Paula Jones would have been able to display that as 
something further discoverable that if indeed Monica Lewinsky 
had this consensual relationship because of the promise of or 
the fear of certain consequences that would follow her 
relationship with the consent of herself and the President, 
then Paula Jones couldpoint to that as additional evidence that 
what she had confronted was totally damaging to her rights. But we 
never got that far because Monica Lewinsky filed an affidavit that 
claimed that there was no sexual relationship. What happened then it 
means, the whole world should recognize this, that this destroyed, 
utterly destroyed in that little section of the world, in that section 
of time, destroyed the rights of Paula Jones, who only Mr. Carville 
would trash immediately. It got out of hand----
    Mr. Nadler. Would you the gentleman yield for a quick 
question?
    Mr. Gekas [continuing]. Who destroyed the case of Paula 
Jones or attempted to by not acknowledging or trying to hide 
the fact that there was a sexual relationship. That's why that 
affidavit, the false affidavit filed by the witness, Monica 
Lewinsky, attested to as it were by the President falsely in 
that deposition which later carried over to the grand jury, 
definitely was a damage to the constitutional rights----
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Gekas [continuing]. Of an individual and did extreme 
damage in the long run to the rights of you and me and our 
spouses and our sisters and our----
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Gekas [continuing]. Brothers and everybody else in the 
society, damaged our conceptual and prospective rights to sue 
in court for damages done to our family----
    Mr. Nadler. Now will the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Gekas [continuing]. Only to have that suit irreparably 
damaged by someone appearing, taking an oath and falsely 
testifying with an attempt and rationale and intent to destroy 
your case. That is what this was all about.
    So when in Article II we include as one of the most 
damaging portions of the falsehoods uttered by the President, 
it is in the context of the deposition in a civil case, a civil 
case in which our fellow citizens are involved every day in 
every courtroom in every State in the Union and on which our 
civilized society depends on an oath and the evidence, the 
truthful evidence to be given under that oath. That is why 
Article II in the minds of some, I could argue and do argue, 
may be, in the context of the entire impeachment proceedings, 
more vital, more important and more worthy of our conscientious 
decision making than even the falsehoods uttered in the grand 
jury.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. I ask unanimous consent to grant Mr. Gekas 2 
minutes so I can ask him a question.
    Chairman Hyde. Is there any objection?
    I hear no objection, so the gentleman has 2 minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Gekas. Should I yield?
    Mr. Nadler. I am sorry, would you yield?
    Mr. Gekas. Yes, I will yield.
    Mr. Nadler. I was struck by what you said when you said 
Paula Jones was denied the evidence of Monica Lewinsky's 
affidavit, which was relevant because of a sexual affair as a 
result of--a sexual affair because of the emoluments or the 
advantages that she was essentially given.
    My question was, wasn't it the case, isn't all the evidence 
uncontradicted, that she had the sexual affair first, and that 
it was not motivated by any gifts or anything else?
    Mr. Gekas. The gentleman misses the point. I am saying to 
you, at first, when this affidavit would be filed, the one that 
I maintain for the purpose of arguing arguendo that she 
admitted a sexual relationship, that would allow Paula Jones to 
indulge in the further discovery to learn from this situation, 
the one that Monica admits under the hypothesis, admits the 
relationship, that would entitle Paula Jones to discover 
further whether or not, in return for that consensual sexual 
relationship, Monica Lewinsky received any benefits, any 
promotions like going from intern to paid employee, et cetera--
no, I want to answer this fully, because it is an important 
question that the gentleman raised, and it has got to be 
answered--that Paula Jones, by the virtue of the false 
affidavit, was deprived of the ability to look further into 
this to try to compare it to her case or to some other case in 
which in a sexual harassment suit is so vital.
    Chairman Hyde. All time has expired.
    Before I recognize someone on this side, Mr. Watt, I just 
want to announce I have been given several ceremonial gavels 
which I am to use up here, and then they are to be given to 
people, for what purpose I don't know, but if you see me up 
here banging away, don't worry. I am just trying to use the 
ceremonial gavel.
    Okay, Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope the Chairman 
doesn't plan to use any of them on the members. That's the only 
thing I think might not be appropriate.
    I want to weigh in to a discussion that my good friend Mr. 
Frank and my good friend Mr. Hutchinson were having, because I 
am not sure I disagree with them. I am almost afraid to 
disagree with them, both of them are such brilliant minds. But 
I actually started this discussion last night in my opening 
statement when I pulled out a phrase that Mr. Schippers had 
made on pages 36 and 37 of his statement.
    There he said, ``This is a defining moment both for the 
Presidency and especially for the members of this committee. 
For the presidency as an institution, because if you don't 
impeach as a consequence of the conduct that I have just 
portrayed, then no House of Representatives will ever be able 
to impeach again. The bar will be so high that only a convicted 
felon or a traitor will need to be concerned.''
    Now, I agree with Mr. Frank that there is a substantiality 
question here, but I read the Constitution to require a 
criminal act, and that is why I pulled this out from Mr. 
Schippers' statement, because I believe the bar was set so high 
intentionally that you would only get traitors and felons under 
the impeachment standard.
    Now, I don't want to be technical about this, but let me 
read to you the exact wording of Article II, Section (4). It 
says that they shall be removed from office on impeachment for, 
and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and 
misdemeanors.
    Treason is a constitutional crime. Let me start before 
that. Conviction means criminal conduct. Treason is a 
constitutional crime. Bribery is a crime. Or other high crimes 
and high misdemeanors is a crime. It is either a crime against 
the state, which we have been arguing, which is still criminal 
conduct, or it is a crime, as the Republicans have been saying, 
in the criminal context, but there still has to be a crime if 
you read the literal language of the constitutional provision.
    Now how does that apply to what we are debating here? It 
applies this way. If there cannot be a crime, I think it goes 
to what Mr. Frank is saying, it can't be a high crime because 
it is insubstantial, it doesn't have thesubstantiality. But if 
it is not a high crime that is required, there still has to be a crime, 
and you have got to meet the criminal code standard. And if nobody 
would convict in the criminal context, then we wouldn't be able to 
convict in the impeachment context.
    And that is the point I was making. I think Mr. Schippers 
is absolutely wrong to imply and demean somehow that if we 
don't accept his version that the only people who need be 
concerned are convicted felons or traitors. I think that is 
what the standard is in the Constitution.
    Can I just ask for more time?
    Chairman Hyde. Sure, wind up your thought.
    Mr. Watt. I think the reason the standard was set so high 
was for the very reason again I talked about a little bit in my 
opening statement last night, was that you have got three 
independent branches of government, and if we lower the 
standard in the legislative branch and make it just a 
popularity contest, as opposed to a criminal, treasonous, 
traitor, felon act, then what we have done is elevated the 
legislative branch over the executive branch, and we have 
disturbed that balance.
    Now that is not different from what I said last night in my 
opening statement. It is a little bit more directly on point. I 
do believe we need substantiality, as Mr. Frank has said, but I 
also believe, even if you interpret it according to the way the 
Republicans have been interpreting it, you can just do this on 
a crime. You still have got to then revert to the criminal code 
and comply with that code. In this case, I don't think we have 
done either.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Would the gentleman yield just a few seconds to me?
    Mr. Bryant. I would be happy to.
    Chairman Hyde. I am fascinated by the discussion of what 
the words mean, ``high crimes and misdemeanors,'' and I have 
read a little bit on it, far from exhaustively, but I would 
just say to Mr. Watt, the plain English of misdemeanor, 
demeanor means how you conduct yourself, and misdemeanor, I 
would suspect, is not conducting yourself very well, 
misconduct. Certainly in the law, a misdemeanor is less than a 
felony; and just the etymology of the word would indicate not a 
very profound wrong. But, of course, over the years, the 
literature and the scholarship has meant that it had to be 
something either touching on a breach of trust or subverting 
the government. So it couldn't be a very little thing.
    But demeanor means something in the English language, and 
misdemeanor is like something that is malapropos, it is the 
opposite of appropriate, and misdemeanor is the opposite, I 
think, of good conduct.
    I am taking Mr. Bryant's time. I will start again with you. 
Go ahead.
    Mr. Watt. If the gentleman will yield just for a second, I 
remember the Chairman had this discussion with one of the 
experts, and the expert, the historian, I can't remember which 
one it was, said that the Chairman's interpretation of 
misdemeanor in the historical context was just simply not 
correct.
    Chairman Hyde. That is usually the response I get to my 
ideas. I hasten to describe an intellectual as one who is 
educated beyond his intelligence, but I wouldn't say that to 
him.
    Thank you, Mr. Bryant, for indulging us.
    Mr. Bryant. Thank you. I don't have that problem.
    Any time we get into this discussion that we have been in 
today about, well, this is not serious crime here, it was just 
about a sexual matter, I think of Professor John McGinnis, who 
testified before this committee. He is a law professor at the 
Benjamin Cardozo Law School, and he gave us a hypothetical, and 
I want to substitute the current names of the current parties 
for his hypothetical.
    But he said, suppose that--again, I am using not the names 
he used, but the current names--suppose the President bribed 
the judge in the Paula Jones case to ensure that he didn't have 
to pay a money judgment and protected his presidency, but 
actually bribed the judge. There would be no question about it. 
We would be in here voting an impeachment on the President. 
But, instead, what the President did was intervene in a way of 
perjury.
    Perjury is actually, under the Uniform Sentencing Code a 
more serious offense than bribery, and it is what I call a 
fraternal twin to bribery. Both end up thwarting justice, as 
was done in the Paula Jones case. She was denied her monetary 
judgment up until recently because of the President's actions, 
not the least of which is the perjury offense.
    But I want to talk also very quickly about one of the lies 
that he told during the deposition in the Paula Jones case. He 
had been asked, did he ever talk to Monica Lewinsky about the 
possibility that she might be subpoenaed to testify in the 
Paula Jones case, and his answer was, ``Bruce Lindsey, I think 
Bruce Lindsey told me that she was. I think maybe that is the 
first person who told me she was. I want to be accurate. I want 
to be as accurate as I can.''
    Apparently, they were interrupted a little bit, and the 
questioner basically said, can you say that again? And he said, 
``I'm not sure, and let me tell you why I'm not sure. It seems 
to me the--the--the--I want to be as accurate as I can here. It 
seems to me the last time she was there was to see Betty before 
Christmas. We were joking about how you all, with the help of 
the Rutherford Institute, were going to call every woman I ever 
talked to and ask them that. And so I said that you would 
qualify, or something like that. I don't think we ever had more 
of a conversation about it.''
    Now, let me tell you the truth to that lie. Monica Lewinsky 
has testified that she had a telephone conversation with the 
President on December the 17th, and the President, she says, 
``Yes, he told me he had some more bad news, that he had seen 
the witness list for the Paula Jones case and my name was on 
it. He told me it didn't necessarily mean I would be 
subpoenaed, but that was a possibility, and if I were 
subpoenaed, I should contact Betty and let Betty know that I 
received the subpoena.''
    Also, she went on to say he asked her to submit the 
affidavit. The answer, her testimony was, ``I believe I 
probably asked him, you know, what should I do, in the course 
of that, and he suggested, well, maybe you can sign an 
affidavit.''
    ``Question: Well, when he said that you might sign an 
affidavit, what did you understand that to mean at that time?''
    Her answer was, ``I thought that signing an affidavit could 
range from anywhere--the point of it would be to deter or 
prevent me from being deposed, so that could range from 
anywhere between maybe just somehow mentioning, you know, 
innocuous things, or going as far as maybe having to deny any 
kind of relationship.''
    So, very clearly we have proven here a lie in the Paula 
Jones deposition. That is one of the many subjects of this 
particular article of impeachment, that he denied having 
anything other than just a passing casual conversation about 
how she might be called as a witness, when, in fact, he had a 
telephone conversation wherein he told her we have bad news 
here, and you know, one thing you might do to avoid having to 
go in and testify would be to file an affidavit.
    We know the rest of that story. She did ultimately file an 
affidavit which exonerated the President, within 24 hours of 
receiving that long-sought-after job she had wanted with a 
Fortune 500 company in New York City. Just a coincidence, I 
suppose.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson 
Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    If you need to gavel one of those ceremonial gavels, go 
right ahead. In fact, you might want to gavel that the meeting 
has been adjourned.
    But let me agree with Representative Canady, because he is 
probably right. The President was very unhappy that the Paula 
Jones case was allowed to go forward. I disagree with the 
Supreme Court's decision, but it was the Supreme Court. They 
ruled, and we, frankly, had to live with that decision and are 
living with it.
    I call this article, Article II, the spider web article, 
because the more you touch it, the more it sticks and provides 
a web of confusion.
    I remind the committee again that what we are doing today 
will lay the underpinnings of the vote our colleagues will take 
next Thursday. We have a responsibility, again, as the moving 
body to determine whether or not there are grounds to vote 
articles of impeachment out of this committee to our colleagues 
who will not have the minimal contact with many of this 
documentation that we have had. So I think that some of these 
issues that my friends on the Republican side want to ignore 
are relevant issues.
    I think that we have all gone around--some people have 
indicated that it is crimes that are high crimes and 
misdemeanors and others have talked about sexual harassment. 
Let me make these points.
    First of all, having watched the employment atmosphere 
before sexual harassment laws were in place, I know how 
valuable and important they are; and I am comforted by the 
Congresses that preceded me that saw fit to pass such laws. But 
at the same time as they passed such laws, we must recognize 
that there are elements of those laws that, in fact, we should 
be sensitive to, because we don't want to make light of a very 
important right that people have if they feel sexually harassed 
in the workplace. It is a very important right for men and 
women, as we have seen in the case law.
    And whatever my friends may say, Ms. Jones' case was 
dismissed, subsequently appealed to the 8th Circuit and 
subsequently not ruled upon but settled.
    In addition, let me say that there were a lot of variables 
dealing with the web that was being perpetrated, such as Linda 
Tripp, who put the Paula Jones lawyers on notice, we got him, 
here is a get-you question. These are the kinds of spidery web 
kind of mystery activities that maybe, in a normal person's 
litigation, they might at least have the scales of justice 
balanced a little bit.
    Now the President's behavior certainly was part of the 
reason he was where he was. But you cannot deny that the case 
was dismissed--that Ms. Jones' case was dismissed on the 
elements of sexual harassment as to whether or not she was 
denied promotions or she had made her case. And, yes, someone 
can make the element or make the comment that she was trying to 
find out whether there were patterns of the President's 
conduct. But it is clear on the record, if we have one, that 
Monica Lewinsky said she was consensual and did not feel 
sexually harassed.
    Kathleen Willey was something we were supposed to be 
investigating. That was an allegation of potential sexual 
harassment. Maybe we would have found a connection to Paula 
Jones. We haven't even looked into that. We threw that out, 
along with campaign finance reform.
    And why, my friends, do you think we are raising this whole 
question of the bar? Well, the reason is because this is a 
somber decision. And, frankly, I think my colleagues in 1974. 
You could understand what it means to break into a 
psychiatrist's office. If you live in Arkansas, if you live in 
New York or Chicago, you understand what that means. You 
understand when 19 people of the Cabinet or surrounding the 
Cabinet were indicted as coconspirators, five or six of them 
Cabinet members.
    This particular article, Mr. Chairman, is sticky because we 
have got a lot of things going with it.
    Mr. Schippers, for example, stated as one of his lies, he 
was not paying attention when his attorney said no sex in the 
Jones' deposition exchanges. I venture to say, Mr. Chairman, 
some of us in these proceedings today might be or might not be 
paying attention, and so----
    Chairman Hyde. I am paying attention to the light, and your 
time is up.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me to 
conclude my remarks, I would appreciate 30 seconds.
    Chairman Hyde. Surely.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you.
    So this is a sticky web that gives me great discomfort, 
disturbs me, gives me little room to go forward and say to my 
colleagues voting next Thursday, you have got an article of 
impeachment of which is high crimes and misdemeanor, treason 
and bribery. It is not here, Mr. Chairman. That is why we are 
suggesting in addition to the specifications issue, but it is 
not here, because it is grounded on too much didn't happen, too 
much not done. That is the spider web that we have.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Buyer. Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to do this, but I ask 
unanimous consent that the gentlewoman be given 1 minute and 
ask that she yield to me.
    Chairman Hyde. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Buyer, I will be happy to yield. I 
don't know why you hesitated to do it.
    Mr. Buyer. Thank you. Thank you.
    I heard you say that with regard to the claim of sexual 
harassment in regard to the Kathleen Willey case that we had 
made a decision to throw it out. I think that is completely 
false and is still within the jurisdiction of the Office of 
Independent Counsel, and I note that this committee subpoenaed 
Nathan Landow and took his deposition. I even read in the paper 
where he took the Fifth Amendment--over 70 times. So there is a 
lot of discussion still involved in that case. Just for 
clarification----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman.
    Might I reclaim my time.
    I was certainly aware of that and certainly would say to 
you I think it is pointed that Mr. Landow claimed the fifth 
amendment and the fact that we are now voting on articles of 
impeachment without the Kathleen Willey materials before us 
today, and that is what I am speaking of, and it will not be 
before our colleagues next Thursday.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Mr. Rogan of California.
    Mr. Rogan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In reviewing the evidence respecting this particular 
article, Article II, this deals with perjurious statements in 
sworn testimony in the Paula Jones' litigation. In my opening 
statement this morning, I discussed the reasons why the 
President was required to answer specific questions about his 
personal life in that litigation.
    It is important to remember that the judge in the Paula 
Jones case did not order the President to answer any random 
question about his personal life. However, because he was a 
defendant in a sexual harassment case, the judge did say that 
Ms. Jones was entitled to ask questions as to whether the 
President, while he was President or Governor, ever had a 
sexual relationship with a subordinate female employee over 
whom he had control in the workplace.
    Now that question was not invented for the President, as I 
said this morning. It is a routine question that is asked in 
sexual harassment cases every day in courts throughout the 
country, because judges have to find out if the harasser has 
shown a ``pattern of conduct'' that will help the female victim 
prove her case.
    Harassers in the workplace normally don't commit their 
offenses under the glare of television lights, where witnesses 
can observe their conduct. They like to get their victims alone 
and isolated, because they understand one of two things will 
generally happen: the victim, through intimidation, fear and 
isolation, will submit; or, the victim will not submit but 
because of fear and intimidation, they will never report it.
    So that is why the law allows these questions to be asked. 
Typically, it is the only way a woman complainant ever has an 
opportunity to prove harassment in the workplace.
    What is the message that we send to every victim of 
harassment in the workplace if the arguments that are being 
made from the other side are adopted? The message is this: if 
you have been harassed in the workplace, you had better keep 
quiet about it. Because if you do have the courage to come 
forward and if there is no physical evidence to prove it, and 
if you try to get evidence about potential conduct that may 
have happened with other women, the defendant in that case can 
come in and lie with impunity. Under their standard, the 
defendant will know the chances of ever being caught are 
minuscule. But in the unlikely event there happens to be DNA on 
some dress, or there is some other physical evidence, the 
defendant, especially if they are powerful or famous can come 
forward, bite their lip, say they are sorry, and suddenly 
embarrassment becomes a defense to sexual harassment.
    One simply cannot say out of one side of one's mouth that 
one support the laws of harassment that protect women in the 
workplace and, in the same breath, defend the conduct of a 
political ally by saying, well, everybody lies under oath about 
sex, especially if he is the President and didn't want to be 
embarrassed.
    If we set that standard, what happens the next time a 
President or a Governor or a Senator or a CEO decides to lie 
under oath in these cases? We have to make a decision: Are 
these cases important enough to give them the due respect of 
the law? Are we going to recognize them for what they are--
assaults that often are vicious, intrusive, embarrassing and 
insulting to human dignity? Or are we going to simply look at 
the party affiliation and the job title that the defendant 
holds, and if it happens to comport with our own political 
philosophies, of who should be President, we give them a pass.
    Now, my friend from Texas indicated that the Paula Jones 
case ultimately was dismissed. She is correct. But the law is 
clear: perjury occurs at the time the defendant committed the 
perjurious statement. The later disposition of the case is 
irrelevant. Otherwise, we would establish a policy that would 
allow one who was a good enough liar to go in and perjure 
oneself; if the lie was good enough during discovery, to get 
the case dismissed, and if later perjury was discovered, one 
could defend the perjury on the ground that the case was 
dismissed. They could claim, ``I am immune from prosecution.''
    That is not the standard of the law. That should never be 
the standard of the law. And I don't believe any of my 
colleagues, on the other side, really want to see that become 
the standard of the law. I would suggest to them, as important 
as the presidency of Bill Clinton is to them politically, it is 
not so important to our Nation that we should adopt that as a 
standard for women in the workplace, or for our country.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would you yield the gentleman an 
additional two minutes so I can pose a question to him, Mr. 
Chairman?
    Mr. Rogan. I have no objection, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, the gentleman is 
recognized for two additional minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank my dear friend for his comment 
about where perjury holds. I think the point I was making about 
the dismissal of the case was made to the point about 
materiality, and I ask you, is the fact that I believe the 
opinion suggests that Ms. Jones had not made her case on the 
elements of sexual harassment, meaning that she had not been 
able in the facts of her case--putting aside the course and 
pattern, that she had been demoted, that she had not received 
benefits, that she hadn't gotten even a pay raise. In fact, I 
think there was some evidence that she had gotten flowers and 
stayed on the job.
    So that was the point I was making. The case was being 
dismissed on the four corners of Ms. Jones' immediate case of 
whether she had made a case at that time upon her action 
dealing with the elements of sexual harassment. I don't know if 
the gentleman cares to respond to that inquiry. That is where I 
was going, not on the question of whether perjuryholds or does 
not hold. The case was dismissed.
    Mr. Rogan. I thank my dear colleague for that 
clarification. That was a fair one to make. That was the 
judge's ultimate decision. I didn't think my colleague was 
suggesting that because the case was dismissed, that we should 
somehow view that as something that would negate potential 
perjury.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Barrett, the gentleman from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Barrett. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of 
observations. Sometimes common sense isn't that common, but I 
just want to make a couple observations that I think might at 
least for me be common sense observations.
    I can't sit here with a straight face and say that I think 
the President was telling the truth when he said he couldn't 
remember whether he was alone with Monica Lewinsky. I just 
can't do that. Just about everybody I know knows whether they 
were alone when they were having a sexual encounter with 
another person. So I just have to put that on the table.
    But I have to put something else on the table, and that is 
that the system has worked. The case that was filed with Paula 
Jones was not a $850,000 case. I think most people looking at 
it would say ``This is not a $850,000 case.'' If President 
Clinton had simply defaulted on the liability portion and gone 
to damages, I don't think it would have come to even 10 percent 
of $850,000.
    So the system worked because President Clinton was held 
accountable. Nobody settles a case that has been dismissed for 
$850,000 unless they are terrified it is going to be reversed 
and there is going to be a huge judgment, or there is something 
else going on there. And here we all know what the something 
else was. It was that he felt that he could lower his exposure, 
both to this committee and the American people, by settling 
that case.
    So I think that the system works. And when we talk about a 
perjury per se rule, I think we have to be careful. If a person 
is in a courtroom and is charged with speeding and says ``Your 
honor, I wasn't speeding, my odometer was broken,'' and the 
odometer wasn't broken, is that perjury?
    Certainly speeding laws are in effect so that lives are not 
lost, so one could argue it was a life or death issue. That 
person may have been going 85 miles an hour, but they were able 
to say that it was a faulty odometer and all of a sudden they 
are off the hook.
    So we have to be careful. I think the Democrats have to be 
careful and I think the Republicans have to be careful as to 
what we do with this perjury bar and where we put it. And I 
think the framers of the Constitution in all their genius gave 
us some guidance, because I do think that the language of 
``treason, bribery, and other crimes and misdemeanors,'' 
without that phrase--it was dropped by the stylistic committee 
that we have talked about before--that phrase ``against the 
United States'' that the stylistic committee felt was implicit, 
gives us the guidance.
    This was not an offense against our democratic 
institutions. Even if true, it was not an offense against our 
democratic institutions. It was not an offense against the body 
politic. It did not threaten our Republic. That doesn't mean it 
was right. It means that impeachment may not be the sanction 
that is necessary here, that there are other sanctions that are 
available.
    Now it is true, as the gentleman insisted over there, that 
an individual can be prosecuted for perjury even after the case 
is settled, and if justice requires that in this case, so be 
it. I question whether it would happen. I sat here, as many of 
you did, with the two witnesses who had been involved in 
perjury cases, and I found them both a little interesting.
    One woman who had been involved was a basketball coach 
whose case was based on an article in Sports Illustrated. What 
we didn't really talk about was, she didn't like the article in 
Sports Illustrated, so she filed the lawsuit. She was the 
plaintiff. She was the one that invoked all the powers of the 
court to go after Sports Illustrated based on her false 
representations. So the entire lawsuit was based on a lie.
    The other woman was the defendant, but she actually used 
perjury as a sword as well by saying to the Federal Government 
in a sense ``I want you to immunize me for these damages.'' So 
she was trying to use it as a sword.
    And I am not saying it is okay to use it as a shield, but I 
think we have to be careful to look at what the forefathers 
wanted. Did they want every offense to be an impeachable 
offense? That is my fear. My fear is we are going down the road 
where every offense becomes an impeachable offense, and I do 
not believe that that is what the forefathers had in mind.
    So even though I think that the President was lying when he 
said he couldn't remember being alone with that woman, I do not 
think that that reaches the constitutional barrier or the 
constitutional mandate that this be an offense that threatens 
our democracy.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The question occurs----
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Delahunt, yes.
    Mr. Delahunt. I move to strike the last word. I will not 
take all five minutes.
    I just want to associate myself with Mr. Barrett's comment 
about common sense. I don't know whether I agree with him in 
his recitation and his conclusions, but I do think there is a 
lot of common sense when we say that the President did take 
advantage of a convoluted, contorted description or definition 
of the term ``sexual relations.'' But I think that we have got 
to remember, and I think the American people have to understand 
that it was the lawyers for Paula Jones that insisted on the 
definition. And I think that what he did, it provided him an 
opportunity to be nonresponsive, to evade, to obfuscate, and he 
did take advantage of that.
    However, when we talk about perjury, it does not constitute 
perjury to evade, to obfuscate and not to respond. I clearly 
acknowledge that he wasn't forthcoming, but I don't want to 
divine his intent as to whether he intended to commit perjury 
or whether one can find that intention.
    I dare say if the lawyers for Ms. Jones, and clearly they 
were highly regarded professionals and people of some 
considerable experience, asked those specific questions, we 
would have known. It might have presented a different case 
whether the President was going to embark upon perjurious 
testimony in that deposition.
    But if there is an uncertainty, as I said before, if there 
is an ambiguity, if there is a cloud in murkiness, I think it 
is incumbent upon the fact-finders, and that is ourrole at this 
point in time, to give him the benefit of the doubt. That is where I 
come down, and I really do think common sense plays a role.
    And I can understand and respect the position of the 
counsel for Ms. Jones. But my memory is, I think it was Mr. 
Camarata who on one of the national TV stories acknowledged the 
fact that it was a contorted, convoluted definition and the 
President did take advantage of it.
    Now, whether he committed perjury or whether he lied, it 
just can't be determined. And that is where I come down as far 
as the facts are concerned, because I really do believe, Mr. 
Chairman, that that concept of due process penetrates Article 
II, comes into the impeachment clause and creates a standard of 
proof that is clear and convincing. And I submit there has not 
been a clear and convincing body of evidence that can lead us 
to a conclusion that he did.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Hyde. The question occurs--we will have to go to 
the Republican side. Mr. Buyer.
    Mr. Buyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Buyer. I didn't speak on the first article. I wanted to 
reserve my time to speak now. As some of the drafting of the 
articles were being done, I wanted to thank my colleagues. We 
separated out the grand jury perjury from the other perjury, 
and I wanted to do that for a particular reason, because grand 
jury perjury is so serious.
    I think the grand jury process is the integral part of our 
criminal justice system. It is the truth-finding mission. The 
Supreme Court described the grand jury's authority to compel 
testimony as ``among the necessary and most important powers 
that ensures the effective functioning of government in an 
ordered society.'' The importance of the grand jury function is 
underscored by the fact that perjury in a grand jury proceeding 
is discussed separately than perjury in general.
    The Supreme Court has noted the gravity of perjury in 425 
U.S. 564: ``In this constitutional process of securing a 
witness' testimony, perjury simply has no place whatsoever. 
Perjured testimony is an obvious flagrant affront to the basic 
concepts of the judicial proceeding.'' This case was in 
reference to grand jury perjury.
    Under Article II we have the other forms of perjury, and 
that is in the interrogatories and the civil deposition in the 
Jones case. I would like to refer specifically to Article II, 
paragraph (2), which would be the January 17th, 1998 civil 
deposition, and speak in particular to the issue of perjury 
cases for feigned forgetfulness.
    Mr. Ruff, the counsel for the President, was here and he 
testified that Bill Clinton has a great memory, one of the best 
memories of anyone he has ever known. A witness cannot use a 
phrase ``I don't recall,'' ``I don't remember,'' ``I don't 
know,'' when in fact they do know. That is the purpose of the 
oath.
    If we didn't care about the feigned forgetfulness, we would 
just say stand and tell the truth. We ask them to tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So they 
can't say ``I don't know'' or ``I don't remember'' when in fact 
they do know, and they then want to play tortured word games.
    Cases have been charged when witnesses claim ``I don't 
remember'' when in fact they do. In U.S. v. Chapin, that is one 
of the Watergate cases, where one of the President's men 
decided that in the investigation he would use this same mind 
game and verbicide that President Clinton has used, and claimed 
a feigned lack of memory. He was convicted. The court found 
that a feigned lack of memory is sufficient for a perjury 
conviction.
    Now, when you bring these cases for feigned memory, the 
state of mind is very important, and it is proved by either 
direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. In particular, 
there are two sections that I wanted to bring up about the 
feigned memory and why I believe it supports paragraph (2) and 
Article II. That is the issue of the hat pin and the gold 
brooch.
    Now, what I find most interesting here is that on December 
28th of 1997, it is a Sunday, and the President has Betty 
Currie provide access for Monica Lewinsky to the White House. 
They discuss the Jones case. But what I really find fascinating 
is that Ms. Lewinsky mentioned her anxiety about a subpoena by 
the Jones lawyers in reference to a hat pin, and the President 
said that sort of bothered him too. You see, he had a present 
knowledge about a hat pin because he gave that hat pin to 
Monica Lewinsky as a belated Christmas gift on February 28th of 
1997.
    So then during this civil deposition, there was a specific 
question, have you ever given any gifts to Monica Lewinsky? ``I 
don't recall. Do you know what they were?''
    Question: ``A hat pin.''
    Response: ``I don't--I don't.'' You see, he stutters. 
Stuttering is very important, because you challenge the 
demeanor of the witness. Bill Clinton is not the kind of 
individual that I have known who stutters. He says ``I, I, I, I 
don't remember, but I certainly could have.'' He then was 
questioned, ``Do you remember giving a gold brooch?'' He says 
no.
    Well, see, the gold brooch was a specific gift given by 
Monica Lewinsky. She testified that the President had given her 
a gold brooch and as a matter of fact, she made contemporaneous 
statements to four of her friends about the gold brooch.
    You see, uncooperative attitude is also--Mr. Chairman, I 
ask unanimous consent for two additional minutes.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection.
    Mr. Buyer. Uncooperative attitude is also relevant in this 
discussion about state of mind. The President's defense said 
the President had specific intent to be evasive, incomplete, 
misleading. That goes directly to his state of mind, and that 
is the circumstantial evidence with regard to this feigned 
memory.
    You can't answer questions, whether it is in 
interrogatories, requests for admissions or before a grand 
jury, in trial or even in a civil deposition, ``I don't know,'' 
``I don't recall,'' ``I don't remember'', if in fact a person 
that knows exactly what they are doing, using tortured words, 
hairsplitting, and verbicide, actually murder of the English 
word, the plain-spoken word. This is unacceptable, whether it 
is in a civil court proceeding or in a criminal court 
proceeding.
    So I believe that this charge with regard to perjury, not 
only in the interrogatory in the Jones case but also here in 
the civil deposition, is more than substantiated. What bothers 
me is that it is not--my colleagues say to my left, he was 
being deceitful because he wanted to hide a sexual affair.
    Well, true. But tell the rest of the story. What was his 
motive to lie, which goes to the circumstantial evidence? His 
motive to lie wasn't just to hide a sexual affair, but it was 
to win the case. He was a defendant in the sexual harassment 
case, and he wanted to win that case, and he wanted to win it 
by all means possible. He felt in his heart that it was a 
politically motivated lawsuit, therefore it justified his 
actions to not only lie but to obstruct justice.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Buyer. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional 
seconds.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection.
    Mr. Buyer. I will conclude with this. It is so important, 
what were his justifications in his own mind.
    We had two witnesses, two women who came before this 
committee who went to prison, one in particular who lied in a 
sexual harassment case, in particular for obstruction of 
justice, and she said, ``You know, what I did was wrong. I went 
to prison for it. I can no longer practice law, I can't 
practice medicine. I will accept the consequences.''
    But this is not just to hide an affair, folks. The 
President wanted to win the case by all means possible, 
including lying and the obstruction of justice, which will be 
found in Article III. I yield back my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlewoman from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that it has 
been adequately covered by my colleagues that whatever offenses 
are alluded to in this article, whether true or not, would not 
constitute conduct that threatens our institutions and the form 
of government of the United States, and therefore may not 
constitute a grounds for impeachment.
    However, I did want to briefly raise an issue. I see it is 
a little after 6 o'clock. We are close to voting on Article II, 
and I was interested in listening to Mr. Buyer's comments about 
the Chapin case, in which ``I don't remember'' and ``I don't 
know ''was enough to get a conviction of Mr. Chapin because of 
his feigned lack of memory.
    My recollection is that that was actually testimony given 
to one of the congressional committees. Which reminds me that I 
have yet to receive an answer to the three questions I asked on 
the 19th of November to Mr. Starr, the three questions I asked 
that he said he did not remember and he would get back to me.
    I wrote to him on the 24th and again on the 2nd. Mr. 
Conyers has written and most recently, Mr. Chairman, you and 
Mr. Conyers wrote together. I had understood that he was going 
to answer the questions, and I don't understand why those 
answers have not been received. It does not require an essay, 
just yes or no. And I am very concerned that we are not getting 
answers and we are already halfway through the deliberations.
    Chairman Hyde. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Lofgren. I certainly would, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Diana Schacht, who is right there with you, 
has the latest word and will whisper to you.
    Mr. Watt. They are working on them.
    Ms. Lofgren. I am advised that they don't have them yet and 
they are working on them.
    Chairman Hyde. All we can do is ask. We are asking.
    Ms. Lofgren. I understand that. Mr. Scott made an issue of 
his questions and eventually got a letter. I am hoping that by 
making an issue of my three questions, I will get the affidavit 
that I expect, and I really am concerned. We are almost 
through, and it is really three questions that are yes or no 
answers, and I wanted to raise the issue. I think it is 
terribly unfair, and makes all of us very concerned and even 
suspicious.
    That is all I have to say on this subject.
    Mr. Conyers. Will the gentlelady yield so I can associate 
myself with her remarks?
    Ms. Lofgren. I certainly will, Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. I think this has been well over a week that we 
have been waiting for the response, and it seems like that it 
could have been a little bit more expeditious than it was.
    Ms. Lofgren. It has been actually not quite a month since 
the questions were first posed, a little shy of a month. I will 
yield back. I know how the vote is going to go on this. I think 
it is inappropriate, but I expect that we either will get an 
answer to these questions or will have to take some other more 
drastic action, and I would yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Pease, the gentleman from Indiana.
    Mr. Pease. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Pease. It is my intention actually to yield to my 
colleague Mr. Canady, because I had intended to point out a 
matter that has since been pointed out by my colleague from 
Indiana, Mr. Buyer, and that is that this article has been 
referred to generally as the Paula Jones deposition article. 
While most of the material in the article does deal with the 
Paula Jones deposition, there are matters dealing with alleged 
false statements by the President in interrogatories involving 
the Paula Jones case as well, those having been made in 
December of 1997.
    That having already been addressed, I will yield to my 
colleague, Mr. Canady.
    Mr. Canady. Thank you, Mr. Pease, I appreciate that. I want 
to focus on a point that has been mentioned previously, I think 
every point has been mentioned at some point previously, but 
this is one that hasn't been mentioned for a while, and I think 
it is important for us to keep this in mind as we are making a 
judgment about these matters. And it doesn't focus on the 
specific facts here.
    As I have stated before, I think that it is clear that the 
President went into the deposition, lied repeatedly, willfully, 
and I believe that at least on some of these matters there is 
pretty general agreement, at least when he testified that he 
couldn't remember or had no specific recollection of ever being 
alone with Ms. Lewinsky. There may be others other than Mr. 
Nadler who believe that that is truthful, but I think most of 
us understand that that was a false statement.
    But let's put this in context. This House has impeached and 
the Senate has removed from office Federal judges forlying 
under oath. Just to mention two of them recently, Harry Claiborne in 
1986 was impeached for filing a false income tax return, signing a 
false statement on his income taxes. Judge Walter Nixon was impeached 
in 1989 for lying before a grand jury.
    The key thing in both these cases was that there was an 
undermining of the integrity of the office held by the judge. 
The judge did something that was inconsistent with the position 
that the judge held. It didn't necessarily directly affect the 
judge's performance of his official duties, but it was 
inconsistent with the trust that had been given to him in that 
particular position.
    Now, it is contended that these impeachments of the Federal 
judges really aren't relevant for our present considerations, 
that somehow we should set a lower standard for the President 
of the United States than the standard that has already been 
set by this House and by the Senate for a Federal judge. I 
simply disagree with that. I don't think it makes sense for us 
to set a lower standard of integrity for the President of the 
United States than we would set for a Federal judge.
    Is the integrity of a Federal judge more important than the 
integrity of the President of the United States under our 
system of justice? Now, the President, it is important to 
understand, appoints Federal judges, including members of the 
Supreme Court. He appoints the Attorney General and the FBI 
director. Do we really want to take the position that we want 
someone who repeatedly lied under oath in a calculated effort 
to defeat the rights of another citizen, appointing Justices of 
the United States Supreme Court? Do we want someone who is 
guilty of repeated acts of perjury appointing the Attorney 
General or the FBI director?
    What does that do for the system of justice in this 
country? What does that say about our view of the rule of law? 
What does it say about our respect for the rule of law in this 
country?
    I will have to tell you, I think it would send a very bad 
message. It is not the kind of message that we on this 
committee should be sending, and that is why I would urge my 
colleagues to look at these charges against this President in 
the proper context and understand the extreme seriousness of 
having the President of the United States go into a deposition 
and raise his hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth 
and nothing but the truth, then violate that oath and do so 
with impunity under our system of justice.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The American system of government that was created by our 
Founders, was a revolutionary form of government in the 1700's, 
revolutionary to have a strong President elected for four years 
at a time, with two other branches of government as the checks 
and balances, judiciary and legislative. But it was a 
revolutionary form of government, and they gave the President a 
great deal of power.
    They said they wanted a strong and stable executive. And I 
think, as others have pointed out, that a part of America's 
great success, aside from the goodness and greatness of its 
people, is the fact that our form of government has allowed us 
some stability, certainly stability at the top rather than 
having parliamentary removals of prime ministers and leaders 
year after year.
    But the framers did give that opportunity for the people's 
representative, the Congress, to get rid of their choice even 
in the middle of that IV years, but they set a high standard. 
As I mentioned earlier today, they were worried that maybe one 
political party, if it controlled the Congress, might want to 
get rid of the President of another political party without 
sufficient cause. So they set the bar for impeachment very 
high: treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.
    Someone suggested that maybe they should add failure to 
adhere to good behavior. The framers of the Constitution 
rejected that notion. They said for judges, yes, that should be 
the standard, good behavior, but not for the President. For the 
President there is only treason, bribery, and other high crimes 
and misdemeanors.
    And while we may debate whether they made a mistake or not, 
they did it that way. We have been living under that system for 
over 200 years. And I dare say if someone wants to change the 
definition--the standard of impeachment for our Constitution, 
they have got to do it by getting the people to approve that 
change first.
    I want to make another point. It has been said that we must 
take on the responsibility and the burden of protecting 
litigants in civil sexual harassment cases. Certainly those are 
extremely important cases, and I am glad the laws are on the 
books to protect people who have been sexually harassed so that 
they can be compensated for the harassment.
    But the question is whether it is the job of the House 
Judiciary Committee to enforce the sexual harassment laws, or 
isn't it, in fact, the job of the civil courts to enforce the 
sexual harassment laws? Because if President Clinton were found 
to have lied in the civil deposition in the Paula Jones case 
and the case continued on, the civil court judge could have 
imposed fines and other punishments on the President and order 
that he be deemed to have violated her civil rights, and treble 
damages and attorneys fees. Perhaps that is why the President 
settled that civil case.
    So the President was accountable. The sexual harassment law 
was observed and enforced by the civil court system. And the 
rule of law was observed even against the President. And if the 
President committed some criminal act, if he committedperjury, 
which has not been proved, but if he committed perjury in the course of 
the sexual harassment case, there are criminal courts that can put him 
in prison for that.
    My good friend from Florida, I believe, Mr. Canady, was 
asking if we want to set a different standard for Presidents 
than for judges? Well, the nuclear bomb of punishments, 
impeachments, applies only to Presidents, only if the burden of 
proof has been met that treason, bribery, or other high crimes 
and misdemeanors has occurred.
    I would say that if we want to punish our President for 
waving his finger at us and lying to us about his relationship 
with Ms. Lewinsky, if we want to punish him for his adulterous 
and wrongful relationship with an intern that occurred in the 
White House, in our White House, which most people say does not 
rise to the level of treason, bribery, and high crimes and 
misdemeanors, then we should censure the President for that 
wrongful behavior and show our children that Presidents who lie 
and behave so dishonorably will be punished.
    But do we want to create a precedent for our Constitution 
where the burden of proof has not been met on these charges 
regarding Ms. Lewinsky and for the first time, remove a sitting 
President of the United States on these charges.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. I thank the Chairman. It's obvious that the 
President lied numerous times under oath in his deposition in 
the Paula Jones civil rights suit against him. There were 
numerous times when the President falsely claimed that he could 
not recall very memorable events. His failure of recollection 
really strains credibility.
    For example, President Clinton claimed in his Jones' 
deposition that he could not recall whether or not he gave any 
gifts to Monica Lewinsky, even though he gave her more than a 
dozen gifts. And remember, he was under oath. He swore to tell 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when he 
said that.
    Further, the President and Ms. Lewinsky specifically 
discussed a hat pin which he had given her and was under 
subpoena in the Jones case. And that was less than 3 weeks 
before his deposition; however, he could not remember giving it 
to her. That's what he claimed. And he was under oath. Remember 
that. That's very important. This failure to recollect is just 
not credible. And since he was under oath, it clearly 
constitutes perjury.
    In addition, as I pointed out a few days ago, when the 
White House released the 184-page so-called defense papers that 
they sent to us the other day, the President's continued 
strained definitions, continued evasions, and outright 
falsehoods do not withstand simple reasonable interpretation.
    For example, in that defense, the President's lawyers 
claimed that the word ``alone'' does not necessarily mean 
alone. No, according to their definition, alone is a term that 
is vague, unless a particular geographic space is identified. 
It depends upon the geographic context. That's how we determine 
what ``alone'' means.
    I am offended by the suggestion that lying under oath to 
defeat a civil rights suit is somehow not serious. Our courts 
have repeatedly emphasized that perjury in a civil proceeding 
is, indeed, just as serious as criminal perjury. And courts 
have rejected any suggestion, implicit or otherwise, that 
perjury is somehow less serious when made in a civil 
proceeding.
    Perjury, regardless of the setting, is a serious offense 
that results in incalculable harm to the functioning and 
integrity of the legal system, as well as to private 
individuals. That's a direct quote from the case U.S. v. 
Holland. In fact, Mr. Chairman, over 100 people are in Federal 
prison for perjury, and thousands and thousands in state 
prisons all over this country. And I think they would agree 
that civil perjury is a serious offense.
    Our whole judicial system is dependent upon the truth and 
upon the idea that no man is above the law. I believe that the 
President, the chief law enforcement officer, should also be 
subject to the law that he is supposed to enforce.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The question occurs----
    Mr. Meehan. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde [continuing]. On Article----
    Mr. Meehan. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Oh, Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Meehan. I won't take all of 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman. 
But as I'm sitting here listening to the debate go back and 
forth, and sometimes it's legal issues and elements of the 
crime we're trying to prove, other times it's impeachment and 
Article II, Section IV of the Constitution.
    And I am just thinking about what a Senate trial is going 
to be like if the Republican members of the committee, when 
they vote for this article, have their way. And I just can't 
believe, as I think about it, a prolonged Senate trial on the 
scope of the terms sexual affair, sexual relationship, when we 
saw in Mr. Lowell's presentation how difficult it was in the 
civil deposition for the judge and the attorneys to deal with 
the whole issue of what constitutes sexual relations.
    And it went on and on and on on the tape here. And there 
was definition A and definition B and definition C. And I think 
about how Americans are going to react when inevitably Monica 
Lewinsky is called to the stand and goes through grueling 
questioning. And I think about all the others, Linda Tripp and 
everyone else that's going to be called to the stand as one 
attempts to prove this case, all the while Social Security 
reform is put on hold, health care reform, that's all put on 
hold, school repairs all put on hold, all so that we can have a 
trial in the United States Senate, determining what sexual 
affair means, what sexual relationship means, where the 
President put his hands and when he put them there.
    Mr. Chairman, lying about fully consensual sexual conduct 
even under oath simply does not rise to the level of treason, 
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. It's not an 
offense of the magnitude of treason and bribery. It does not 
speak clearly and convincingly and concretely to the 
President's capacity to govern.
    So as we proceed, I hope that we really think about what 
this trial is going to be like. And I hope the American people 
focus on the fact that, if this committee has its way, when 
1999 comes around, this country is going to have to brace for a 
trial of impeachment for the second time in our history, 
defining the terms sexual relations, cross-examining Monica 
Lewinsky and the rest the people that have beensubject to this 
investigation.
    I cannot believe that we are going to do this when 65 to 70 
percent of the Americans are begging us, begging us not to do 
this, begging us to find reason, to find bipartisanship, to 
find a middle ground so that we can punish the President 
without punishing the country and without putting our people 
and our country and this institution through this. I only hope 
and pray that some way between now and the floor of the House 
that middle ground is reached.
    I return the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The question occurs on Article II, as 
amended. All those in favor will say aye; opposed nay.
    In the opinion of the Chair, a record vote had best be 
called. The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
    Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCollum votes aye.
    Mr. Gekas.
    Mr. Gekas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas votes aye.
    Mr. Coble.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
    Mr. Canady.
    Mr. Canady. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Canady votes aye.
    Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis votes aye.
    Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte votes aye.
    Mr. Buyer.
    Mr. Buyer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Buyer votes aye.
    Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant.  Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bryant votes aye.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr votes aye.
    Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins votes aye.
    Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson votes aye.
    Mr. Pease.
    Mr. Pease. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pease votes aye.
    Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes aye.
    Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rogan votes aye.
    Mr. Graham.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bono.
    Mrs. Bono. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bono votes aye.
    Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers votes no.
    Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank votes no.
    Mr. Schumer.
    Mr. Schumer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schumer votes no.
    Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman votes no.
    Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher.  No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher votes no.
    Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler votes no.
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott votes no.
    Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.
    Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters votes no.
    Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan votes no.
    Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt votes no.
    Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler votes no.
    Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rothman votes no.
    Mr. Barrett.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde.
    Chairman Hyde. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde votes aye.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from North Carolina.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble is not recorded, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Coble. I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble votes aye.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Barrett from Wisconsin.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrett votes no.
    Mr. Graham. Is this Article II?
    Chairman Hyde. Yes, Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Chairman Hyde. Have all voted who wish?
    The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 20 ayes and 17 noes.
    Chairman Hyde. You will try--could we have some order 
please. Could I have the count again.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I have 20 ayes and 17 noes.
    Chairman Hyde. And the amendment--and the article is----
    Mr. Barrett. How is Mr. Barrett recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrett is recorded as a no.
    Mr. Barrett. Thank you.
    Chairman Hyde. And the article is agreed to.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent 
request.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. On behalf of my colleague, Maxine Waters of 
California, I wanted to put in the record here the hearings in 
the Constitution Subcommittee focusing on curtailing remedies 
for discrimination in the 104th and 105th Congress and request 
for hearings on the persistence of discrimination in this 
Nation.
    Chairman Hyde. You are----
    Mr. Conyers. I ask unanimous consent that this be entered 
into the record.
    Chairman Hyde. Without----
    Mr. Canady. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman reserves the right.
    Mr. Canady. I'm just curious about how voluminous this is 
and whether this really has the proper place in the proceedings 
here.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I can put this in in another 
place in the proceedings. It doesn't have to go in here. I will 
withdraw it.
    Mr. Canady. Thank you.
    Mr. Conyers. You are welcome.
    Chairman Hyde. Very well. The committee will now consider 
Article III.
    Are there any amendments to Article III? If not, I will----
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Are you asking for--well, I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Are there any amendments?
    Chairman Hyde. There are no amendments. It is the chair's 
intention when we finish this article to adjourn for the 
evening and come back at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. I just wanted 
to announce that for scheduling purposes.
    Now, does anyone seek recognition? Was that Mr. Scott? Yes, 
Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think we ought to 
reflect a bit about the facts on this article. We have things 
like a false affidavit and false statements. The gentleman from 
New York, Mr. Nadler, has spared me the necessity of quoting 
from the dictionary about certain words. But Monica Lewinsky 
was not provided with a contorted definition that the judges 
and lawyers argued over. She said what she believed certain 
words mean.
    And there's evidence in this case, the tape recording, when 
she didn't know that she was being recorded or being set up by 
Linda Tripp, she said what she thought certain words meant. And 
Linda Tripp, who knew they were being recorded, tried to get 
her to change her mind about the definition, but Monica 
Lewinsky wouldn't.
    Also, in the witness tampering, there has to be a witness 
for there to be tampering. And after you review the conflicting 
uncross-examined hearsay and dubious inferences used to make 
the other elements of this article, you still have to place the 
articles in the--the allegations in the context of impeachment.
    Our authority to do what some wanted to do but couldn't do 
with the polls, that is, defeat Bill Clinton, that authority is 
limited to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and 
misdemeanors. Now ``high'' is a word that doesn't really--isn't 
really used very much in America, because it's an English word 
against the State.
    Our experts at our hearing also told us to pay close 
attention to another word in the phrase, and that is ``other.'' 
It's treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors; 
that is treason, bribery, and stuff like that and its effect 
against our government. That is, there has to be a subversion 
of the Constitution. There has to be a danger in the President 
staying in office. That is, the President must be removed 
because of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and 
misdemeanors.
    He will later be subject to the rule of law just like 
everybody else. And when we review these allegations to see if 
they are impeachable offenses, we have to remember what 
impeachment is for. It's to protect our Nation.
    So we look at the history of impeachment and look at what 
kinds of offenses have been impeachable offenses, and we look 
at Watergate and see the corrupt use of the FBI, CIA, and 
Internal Revenue, official use of those agencies, and lying 
about it have been impeachable offenses in Watergate, but $500 
million tax fraud where the evidence, according to those who 
were there, was overwhelming and certainly stronger than the 
hearsays and inferences we're relying on today, but they did 
not support the article involving half a million dollars tax 
fraud which was certainly a crime, a serious crime, but not a 
high crime.
    Furthermore, our experts unanimously agreed that the term 
``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors'' 
does not cover all felonies. So we cannot remove a President 
because he, quote, failed to faithfully execute the laws or 
when we can't stand him being President anymore.
    The rule of law restricts our authority to act to treason, 
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. So even if we 
believe the hearsay and inferences we have before us, there has 
been no showing that the conduct constitutes a threat to our 
constitutional form of government. And that's why historians 
and legal scholars have told us that, whether or not these 
allegations are true, they are not impeachable offenses.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner [presiding]. The gentleman yields back 
the balance of his time.
    I rise in support of the article of impeachment and 
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Chairman, this article of impeachment, Article III, is 
the one that relates to obstruction of justice by President 
Clinton. There are seven specifically mentioned instances of 
alleged obstruction of justice that are contained in this 
article, and it does have the words ``one or more'' in that, so 
we don't have the problem of making that interpretation.
    There will be members on the Republican side of the aisle 
who will specifically address themselves to each of these 
instances of obstruction of justice. But I think that if we 
looked at it from the criminal context, which we are not here, 
but there have got to be three elements of what makes 
obstruction of justice.
    First, there's got to be a pending Federal judicial 
proceeding. There was in this case with the Paula Jones' civil 
rights lawsuit.
    Secondly, the defendant had to know of the proceeding. Mr. 
Clinton was the civil defendant in that lawsuit. He had been 
served the papers on it.
    And, third, that the defendant acted corruptly and with 
intent to obstruct and interfere with the proceeding or the due 
administration of justice.
    The first of the seven instances that are contained in 
Article III states that on or about December 17th, 1997, 
William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in the 
Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a 
sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be 
perjurious, false, and misleading.
    In his deposition testimony in January of this year, the 
President said that he spoke with Monica Lewinsky before 
Christmas and that, while he was not sure that she should be 
called to testify in the Paula Jones' civil suit, she might 
qualify or something like that.
    The President denied encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to lie about 
filing a false affidavit. But in answer 18 to the 81 questions 
submitted to this committee, he did say that he told her that, 
quote, other witnesses had executed affidavits and there was a 
chance that they would not have to testify, unquote. Hint, 
hint.
    Ms. Lewinsky was more emphatic on the subject in her grand 
jury testimony. When she asked the President what she should do 
if she was called to testify, he said, ``Well, maybe you can 
sign an affidavit.'' The point would be to deter, to prevent me 
from being disposed so that they could range anywhere between 
just somehow mentioning innocuous things or going as far as 
maybe having to deny any kind of relationship. That's what 
Monica Lewinsky told the grand jury.
    She further stated that she was 100 percent sure, 100 
percent sure that the President suggested she might want to 
sign an affidavit to avoid testifying. And that was in an 
independent counsel interview, false statements of which are a 
Federal crime.
    Ms. Lewinsky also noted the President never explicitly 
instructed her to lie about the matter. Rather, since the 
President never told her to file an affidavit detailing the 
true nature of their sexual relationship, which would only 
invite humiliation and prove damaging to the President in the 
Paula Jones' case, she contextually understood that the 
President wanted her to lie. That also is in the OIC referral.
    Furthermore, attorneys for Paula Jones were seeking 
evidence of sexual relationships the President may have had 
with other State or Federal employees. Such information is 
often deemed relevant in sexual harassment lawsuits to help 
prove the underlying claim of the plaintiff, and Judge Susan 
Webber Wright ruled that Paula Jones was entitled to this 
information for purposes of discovery.
    Consequently, when the President encouraged Monica Lewinsky 
to file an affidavit, he knew that it would have to be false 
for Ms. Lewinsky to avoid testifying. If she filed a truthful 
affidavit, one acknowledging a sexual relationship with the 
President, she certainly would have been called as a deposition 
witness, and her subsequent truthful testimony would have been 
damaging to the President, both politically as well as legally.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Michigan rise?
    Mr. Conyers. I rise to strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. In reviewing Article III that is before us, 
obstruction of justice, I review the seven clauses. And it's 
almost like we have come here this evening and have never 
examined the facts in the matter. These have all been gone 
through repeatedly. Each one can be very carefully answered.
    The filing of an affidavit by Ms. Lewinsky, is there anyone 
here who doesn't know that she swore that no one ever asked her 
to lie and that the decision as to what the affidavit should 
contain was a decision made by her alone, and that the 
President said that Ms. Lewinsky might be able to avoid 
testifying by filing a limited, but truthful affidavit, a 
perfectly legal activity on his part and, as a matter of fact, 
what her own lawyer ended up doing?
    In clause 7, statements to aides, the President made 
statements to his staff on January 21st, 23rd, and 26th in 
order to protect his family from discovering the Lewinsky 
relationship. He could not have known that his staff would be 
called at that time before the office of independent counsel's 
grand jury. The President's denial of his relationship with Ms. 
Lewinsky to his staff was after he had already made the same 
denial to the public. The President was not then singling out 
his staff. He denied the affair to everyone. So he was not 
denying the affair to his staff with the idea that they would 
be called before the independent counsel grand jury.
    Clause 6, attempting to influence Betty Currie. We have 
heard repeated testimony that the President of the United 
States did not attempt to influence Betty Currie's testimony in 
any proceeding when he spoke with her on the Sunday and the 
Tuesday, January 18th and 20th respectively, before the news 
regarding Ms. Lewinsky broke in the media.
    The President was concerned about the media reaction to 
what he knew would be a leak of his deposition testimony. He 
could not have known about the OIC investigation. So, 
therefore, he could not have thought that Ms. Currie was or 
could be on a witness list.
    With reference to statements by the President's lawyers, 
clause 5, there's no evidence that the President knowingly 
allowed his lawyer to make false representations in the Jones' 
deposition. In fact, the President testified that he was not 
focusing on his attorney when he made the statements. Instead, 
he was concentrating on his own testimony in his deposition. 
There is no evidence, none, that the President encouraged his 
attorney to make those statements or even had any idea that his 
attorney would make them for him.
    Here we go with clause 4, the job search. How many times 
has this been put into evidence that there's nothing connecting 
the efforts to help Ms. Lewinsky find a job with Ms. Lewinsky's 
submission of an affidavit. She's testified that no one ever 
promised her a job. That may be the 45th time that phrase has 
been uttered in this room.
    If the President were intent on getting her a job, he 
clearly would have done that and could have done that. The fact that he 
did not know shows that there was no linkage with her affidavit.
    And then, of course, we have the gift situation, in which 
all witnesses agree the job search started long before Monica 
Lewinsky was named on the Jones witness list. Mr. Chairman, I 
ask unanimous consent to put my statement into the record at 
this point.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information was not received at time of press.]
    Mr. Conyers. Could I return any time that may remain.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired. For 
what purpose does the gentleman from Arkansas seek recognition?
    Mr. Hutchinson. I move to strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to address the 
second paragraph of this article of impeachment. The second 
paragraph provides that, on or about December 17, 1997, William 
Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal 
civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, 
false, and misleading testimony if and when called to testify 
personally in that proceeding.
    This is in reference to a call that occurred on December 
17th at 2 a.m. or 2:30 a.m. in the morning by the President of 
the United States. The President of the United States learns 
that Monica Lewinsky is on the witness list, and he calls her 
first to purportedly advise that Betty Currie's brother has 
passed away; but of course the real purpose was to advise her 
that, bad news, your name is on the witness list. And they 
discuss this.
    And he went ahead to say, if you are subpoenaed, which of 
course he knew was coming, you should contact Betty. And then 
he told her, ``You can always say you were coming to see Betty 
or that you were bringing me letters,'' according to the 
testimony of Monica Lewinsky.
    And this is very important, because here you have a 
witness, without any question, who was going to be a witness in 
a Federal civil rights suit; and in this case, the President 
personally calls this witness to let her know that she is going 
to be subpoenaed, that she is on the witness list, and how she 
should handle it. The call is to encourage her not to provide 
truthful testimony, but to provide false testimony and to 
provide a cover story, suggesting ``you can always say.'' And 
this is confirmed in the grand jury testimony of Monica 
Lewinsky.
    Now the President denies this in part. He admits that that 
telephone conversation took place, and so there is some 
corroboration to it. But he has no specific recollection of the 
details of the conversation. But when Monica Lewinsky has a 
clear recollection and the President has no specific 
recollection, I think that the weight of the evidence goes to 
the testimony of Monica Lewinsky.
    Second, the cover story is consistent with their pattern of 
deception. Prior to this, they had arranged the cover story. 
And I understand that's not in a legal context. But when it 
moved into the legal context, they continued that scheme to 
cover up in the legal context by suggesting the same cover 
story would apply.
    And so there's no dispute about the call. It is consistent 
with the pattern of deceit. There is a motive obviously for the 
President to encourage the perjury. And then it is also 
consistent with the false affidavit that is ultimately provided 
by Monica Lewinsky.
    I would also call upon the testimony of Mr. Jordan who 
confirmed in his testimony before the grand jury that President 
Clinton knew that Monica Lewinsky was going to execute the 
false affidavit. And he kept the President very closely 
apprised as to every development with that affidavit.
    And so when I look at this matter from the standpoint of 
clear and convincing evidence, I believe that there is clear 
testimony, and because of the corroboration, because of the 
motivation behind it, the other testimony of Vernon Jordan, 
this allegation does rise to obstruction of justice by clear 
and convincing evidence.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired. For 
what purpose does the gentleman from New York rise?
    Mr. Schumer. I moved to strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Schumer. I thank the gentleman. And let me say that on 
the--particularly on the second article, while I--I certainly 
believe that, even assuming the facts that Mr. Starr presented 
and Mr. Schippers reiterated, it doesn't rise to the level of 
impeachment.
    I can see the argument among my colleagues that, in a basic 
criminal context or a civil context, there's a strong argument 
on the other side. And in Article I, to a somewhat lesser 
extent, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts summed that up 
as well. But, yeah, it's sort of trivial, but you might be able 
to make a very legalistic argument, albeit one that wouldn't 
come close to the level of impeachment.
    But when we get to Articles III and IV, we really begin to 
reach. Article III reaches. Article IV reaches and almost gets 
into the theater of the absurd.
    But today we are here to address Article III. I would 
submit that, based on a standard of clear and convincing 
evidence, which the majority professes to use, we are not even 
close. Yes, you can string together facts and, by surmise, say 
this was the motivation; but there is, at the very least, an 
equally plausible explanation that there was a different 
motivation. And there is not one direct fact that shows that 
the motivation attributed, for instance, by the gentleman from 
Arkansas to the President is the motivation.
    How can we submit articles of impeachment based on surmise? 
Even Mr. Starr, when he was here, admitted it was surmise.
    So take the job hunt. Yes, there was a job hunt. We all 
agree there was a job hunt. We all agree it started before 
there was any knowledge of a judicial process of a Paula Jones 
suit or later a grand jury, and continued after. We all agree 
it was a very similar job search. And we all agree there are 
two plausible explanations after the job--after it became clear 
that there was a Paula Jones lawsuit and a deposition: One, to 
get Monica Lewinsky away from the scene, to prevent the 
continuation of an illicit affair, and, two, to keep Monica 
Lewinsky quiet before a judicial proceeding.
    One explanation I would argue is as plausible as the next. 
In fact, the noncriminal explanation is more plausible because 
it began before we even knew there was a possible intervention, 
judicial intervention. And, yet, the majority has the temerity 
to say, oh, no, we know by clear and convincing evidence that 
he was doing it to prevent her from testifying.
    I ask you, where is your direct evidence? Where is it more 
than surmise? And you have an obligation, in my judgment, to 
make sure that it is more than surmise if you are asking us to 
impeach, if you are asking America to impeach its President.
    The same thing with the Monica Lewinsky story. Yes, it is 
true, we all admit, that the President and Monica Lewinsky had 
a cover story, a story that was not truthful, that was of lies. They 
had it, once again, before, before any knowledge of a grand jury, any 
knowledge of a deposition.
    And, again, just on the basis of surmise, the majority 
says, oh, yes, they did it to deceive in the deposition and in 
the grand jury. That's not good enough, ladies and gentlemen. 
You need more than that to be clear and convincing in a court 
of law. You certainly need more than that to impeach a 
President.
    And, finally, because my time is ending, and finally, 
listen to this one, ladies and gentlemen. The President didn't 
tell the truth to his cabinet about Monica Lewinsky because he 
thought they might later be called into a grand jury, and he 
wanted to mislead them.
    I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Schumer. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
minute.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the gentleman will be 
granted an additional minute. Hearing none, so ordered.
    Mr. Schumer. I thank the gentleman.
    Imagine putting a count in here that says, well, we somehow 
think that the President would lie to his cabinet, would tell 
the--not tell the truth to his cabinet, when he had no idea 
there would be a deposition and no idea that there would be a 
grand jury proceeding, because he wanted them not to tell the 
truth. We can do a lot better. We must do a lot better than 
that.
    This is a string put together piece by piece that leads to 
a conclusion that is so demonstrably stretched that, when 
people ask why do some out there believe that the motivation 
here is more partisan than coming directly on the facts, I 
would not argue that about counts 1 and 2, but when you look at 
count 3, and particularly at count 4, it is logical, not 
provable, but logical to say some people on the other side are 
out to get the man regardless of the facts.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The man's time has again expired.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina 
rise?
    Mr. Inglis. To strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Inglis. Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to bring 
out some facts about paragraph 3 in this part of this article. 
Here we are talking about the scheme to conceal evidence that 
had been subpoenaed in that Federal civil rights action brought 
against the President. And of course we heard from minority 
counsel that, and the President's counsel, that this was not 
orchestrated by the President and, therefore, they would put 
this claim in this particular article.
    But I think that the evidence clearly indicates, it clearly 
indicates an effort here, a scheme to conceal this evidence. 
And in this case, it's supported by a telephone record. And of 
course this is indicative, I think, of the excellent 
investigative work that's been done here.
    So what happened is the--there's testimony from Ms. 
Lewinsky that she was concerned about the gifts. She raised the 
issue with the President. The President told her that he--about 
the suggestion that possibly the--she should do something to 
the gifts. The President, according to Monica Lewinsky, said I 
don't know or let me think about that.
    And then later that day, Ms. Lewinsky got a call from Ms. 
Currie, according to Ms. Lewinsky, saying I understand you have 
something to give me, or something like the President said you 
may have something to give me.
    Now, on this point, Ms. Currie, as Mr. Schippers pointed 
out, has a fuzzy memory. And she reported that, actually she 
couldn't remember, but the best she can remember, she thinks 
that Monica Lewinsky called her, Betty Currie.
    But that is contradicted by a key piece of evidence, and 
that key piece of evidence is the cell phone record of Ms. 
Currie's phone, showing that she placed a call within hours 
after they left the White House on that day to Monica Lewinsky.
    And with that evidence, it's clear that the call was 
initiated by Ms. Currie to Monica Lewinsky. And of course that 
is further buttressed by the fact that why else would Ms. 
Currie call Ms. Lewinsky and ask if she had something for her 
to pick up? And why would she take that box of gifts and put it 
under her bed? These are not normal things that people do. You 
don't call up somebody, ask if you have something for me, and 
then takes the box and put it under your bed. It just defies 
common sense to think that it was the other way around, in 
other words, that Ms. Currie was--or that Ms. Lewinsky was 
initiating the transfer here.
    It's pretty clear from this evidence, and I think clear and 
convincing from this evidence, that the President must have 
been involved in a scheme to get those gifts from Monica 
Lewinsky into the hands of his trusted secretary, Betty Currie; 
and that was part of a scheme to obstruct justice in this case, 
to stop the discovery of this information.
    And so, Mr. Chairman, I think it's clear that this 
particular paragraph of the articles of impeachment is clearly 
substantiated by the evidence. And I yield back the balance of 
my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Delahunt, rise?
    Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Delahunt. I'm real pleased that my friend Mr. Inglis 
has raised this particular evidence, because I would suggest 
that this is exactly the peril of this particular approach that 
this committee has adopted, never hearing once from a witness, 
never hearing from Ms. Currie or Ms. Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, 
or anyone else. Shame on us. Just simply taking written 
documents and suggesting that that constitutes evidence, 
totally unlike what occurred during the Watergate inquiry 
where, as Charles Wiggins, a Republican member in the minority, 
told us that they heard from John Dean, from Mr. Halderman and 
Mr. Erlichman. Shame on us. We did have that responsibility. 
And now we are doing it real sloppy.
    Let me tell you, I did my own homework on this particular 
point, Mr. Inglis. You're right. It's undisputed that Ms. 
Lewinsky returned the gifts to Ms. Currie. And she did so on 
December 28th. The key question is whether the President asked 
Ms. Currie to retrieve the gifts or whether Ms. Lewinsky made 
her own arrangements to return the gifts without Mr. Clinton's 
involvement.
    On Wednesday, the independent counsel released a statement 
to the press, which I would submit into the record----
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.062
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.063
    
    Mr. Delahunt [continuing]. Taking issue with Mr. Ruff's 
presentation to this committee and claiming that the 
President's involvement is substantiated by the billing records 
from Ms. Currie's cellular or telephone account, just as you 
mentioned.
    The records, and Mr. Schippers, as you indicated, used 
these in his closing statement to the committee, indicated that 
that 1-minute call was placed from Ms. Currie's cell phone to 
Ms. Lewinsky's telephone number at 3:32 p.m. on December 28th.
    In his press release, the independent counsel claims that 
Ms. Currie placed this call for the purpose of arranging to 
pick up the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky. In his closing statement 
to the committee, Mr. Schippers made much of the document. He 
said that--he said that it, and I quote, corroborates Monica 
Lewinsky and proves conclusively that Ms. Currie called Monica 
from her cell phone several hours after she left the White 
House.
    Why did Betty Currie pick up the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky, 
Mr. Schippers asked? And he answered the facts, the facts, oh, 
if we only had facts, the facts strongly suggest the President 
directed her to do so. And that his support for the charge is 
that the President sought to conceal evidence.
    But do you know what, there's a problem with this so-called 
evidence. It is directly and explicitly contradicted by the FBI 
report of the interview with Monica Lewinsky taken this past 
July, on July 27th of this year.
    That report, which appears in the first appendix to the 
Starr referral on page 1,396--as you know, there are 60,000 
pages in there, so I don't blame Mr. Schippers for missing it, 
and I certainly don't suggest he would try to mislead the 
committee--and I am quoting, Lewinsky met Currie on 28th 
Street, outside Lewinsky's apartment at about 2 p.m. and gave 
Currie the box of gifts.
    Not at 3:32, but at 2 p.m. was the transfer of that--of 
those gifts, Mr. Inglis. An hour and a half discrepancy. This 
raises the following question: If the gift exchange had already 
taken place----
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Delahunt. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 
minutes.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This raises the 
following question: If the gift exchange had already taken 
place at 2 p.m., how could the telephone call placed at 3:32 
have been for the purpose of arranging it? This is what I would 
suggest some would conclude is a considerable inconsistency, 
one of the many troubling inconsistencies in the documents 
themselves. Yet, this potentially exculpatory fact taken from 
materials, sworn-under-oath materials, documents, 60,000 pages 
of them, from the possession of Mr. Starr, was never 
acknowledged by Mr. Starr, nor unfortunately was--was it 
acknowledged by Mr. Schippers.
    Both of them, and I am not suggesting it was intentional, 
affirmatively lead the committee to believe the call was for 
the purpose of arranging for Ms. Currie to pick up the gifts.
    And now, now we are preparing to vote on an article, on an 
article of impeachment that is substantially based on that 
telephone call. What was the purpose of the call? We don't 
know. It appears that the investigators never asked. And we 
have never had the opportunity to ask because we have not heard 
from the witnesses themselves. And this is no way to conduct an 
inquiry, Mr. Chairman. It's a disgrace. And it's an insult to 
the rule of law.
    Mr. Cannon. Would the gentleman yield just to a question as 
what the citation was on that, Mr. Delahunt, on the page 1,300 
something as I recall.
    Mr. Delahunt. It's page 1,396. I yield back.
    Mr. Cannon. Thank you.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time is again expired.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia rise?
    Mr. Barr. To strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, witnesses and defendants, witnesses who are 
targets of investigations and defendants in cases frequently 
have a very clear motive to take steps to either ensure that 
adverse witnesses don't appear in court in order to testify 
against them, to provide testimony at other times and places, 
or to change in some way their testimony so it is either not 
damaging or less damaging to the target or the defendant.
    That being a fact of human nature and the Federal 
Government for many years having knowledge of that 
characteristic of defendants and targets of investigations has 
had on the books in Title 18 of the Criminal Code provisions of 
our criminal laws that address that and seek to prevent or 
punish those who, in fact, take steps to what is determined in 
the eyes of the law tamper with witnesses.
    Specifically, Mr. Chairman, that statute is found at 18 
U.S.C., that is the Criminal Code, section 1512, and, in 
addition, section 1515, which contains definitions that are relevant to 
that provision of the Code.
    In essence, Mr. Chairman, and this is in large part the 
essence also of paragraph 4 of this third article of 
impeachment, we are looking at the provision of Title 18, 
section 1512, that provides, in part, whoever knowingly engages 
in misleading conduct towards another person with intent to 
influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an 
official proceeding, causes or induces any person to withhold 
testimony, evade legal process or be absent from an official 
proceeding or hinder, delay, or prevent the communication of 
information is guilty of a criminal offense.
    Turning to section 1515, one finds a common sense 
definition of misleading conduct as well as common sense 
definitions of official proceedings and to corruptly persuade.
    When one then turns to the evidence in this case and the 
evidence regarding the so-called job search, one fact that 
immediately jumps to mind is why would the most powerful human 
being on the face of the earth, that is, the President of the 
United States of America, and one of the most prominent and, in 
legal circles in Washington, most powerful private attorneys, 
drop essentially everything they are doing--and the President 
constantly reminds us how important his work is, as indeed it 
is--and conduct a job search for what might be termed, at best, 
a second- or third-rate employee?
    Vernon Jordan testified that he had, indeed, conducted 
quite a few job searches for individuals of note to him--the 
former mayor of the City of New York; a talented attorney from 
Akin, Gump, one of the preeminent law firms in Washington; a 
Harvard business school graduate; Monica Lewinsky. That, in and 
of itself, contrary to the pattern of activity of this 
particular witness--and, by the way, that testimony was 
controverted by the testimony of the CEO of a Fortune 500 
company, Mr. Perlman, who said Mr. Jordan had never called him 
about a job search--raises a very legitimate presumption that 
there was some reason other than a legitimate job search for 
Monica Lewinsky that occupied considerable attention of the 
President and Vernon Jordan.
    And one finds it indeed in the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky 
that the President suggested to her that it might be 
appropriate if she took a job in New York and he would help her 
find that through Vernon Jordan, somebody that heretofore was 
unknown to Ms. Lewinsky, that this might cause her to avoid 
being called as a witness or available as a witness. And indeed 
that is what happened. Mission accomplished, in the words of 
Mr. Jordan.
    I believe very clearly, Mr. Chairman, that we have here a 
very substantial case involving a violation of Title 18, the 
U.S. Criminal Code, section 1512, tampering with a witness, 
clearly involving----
    Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for 2 
additional minutes.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Barr. I thank the Chairman--involving an effort, a 
deliberate effort, a knowing effort, a willful effort on the 
part of the President to cause Ms. Lewinsky or to take steps to 
cause Ms. Lewinsky, once it became known that she would be a 
witness, that she had, in fact, been subpoenaed.
    The other side might make some hay out of the fact that Ms. 
Lewinsky really had been involved in a job search for quite 
some time--and, indeed, that is the case--since July of 1997. 
What certainly raises legitimate suspicions and fits within the 
pattern of activity here and the evidence, though, Mr. 
Chairman, is the fact that this went from a back burner effort 
by a second- or third-rate employee of the government to a very 
accelerated effort involving a flurry of activity by Mr. 
Jordan, by the CEO of a major Fortune 500 corporation, 
involving, indeed, the ambassador, the U.S. ambassador to the 
United Nations, all set into motion after it became known, not 
before but after it became known that Ms. Lewinsky would indeed 
be a witness and provide testimony in the Paula Jones' case.
    These are appropriate, reasonable, common sense 
conclusions, which, even in a criminal proceeding, a trier of 
fact would be instructed by a United States District Court 
judge they could properly conclude, based on the evidence, 
which is very voluminous, set forward, summarized yesterday by 
Mr. Schippers, and uncontroverted.
    I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there is a more than 
substantial basis, a more than adequate basis for paragraph 4 
of Article III involving tampering with a Federal witness by 
the President of the United States of America.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has again expired.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Nadler, rise?
    Mr. Nadler. To strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, the recklessness of the 
Republican Majority in this proceeding is really illustrated by 
Articles III and IV. I believe, as I have stated many times, 
that Articles I and II are not sufficient. They don't rise to 
the level of impeachable offenses even if provable, and there 
is not sufficient evidence. But numbers III and IV, frankly, 
don't pass the giggle test. They are quite simply laughable as 
well as outrageous.
    What is number 3, Article III? A grab bag of different 
allegations. The President encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to file a 
false affidavit. A fair reading of the evidence says only one 
thing, she asked how she could avoid testifying. And he said, 
well, other witnesses have been allowed to not to testify in 
person by submitting an affidavit. So maybe they will let you 
do that, too.
    There's no evidence, no testimony from anybody that he 
asked her to file a false affidavit as opposed to simply 
suggesting that she could file an affidavit instead of 
appearing in front of a grand jury, which she was 
understandably nervous about. Indeed, she testifies he never 
asked her to lie. There's no contradictory testimony at all. 
Yet the surmise, as Mr. Schumer put it, is sufficient to make 
that part of an article of impeachment.
    The job search. The job search, helping someone find a job 
is not illegal. It's generally considered praiseworthy. There 
is no evidence whatsoever connecting the efforts to help Ms. 
Lewinsky find a job with her submission of an affidavit or her 
testimony. She testified that no one ever promised her a job.
    The suggestion to tie them together we know came from Linda 
Tripp. We know that from the tapes. We know if the President 
were really intent on getting her a job, he clearly could have 
done that. He is, after all, quite a powerfulperson. The fact 
that he did not shows there was no linkage with her affidavit. What 
linkage do we have with her affidavit? None at all except surmise.
    And the fact that the effort started well before there was 
any knowledge that she might be called as a witness, that she 
might have to file an affidavit or appear indicates that there 
was no connection beyond which even the surmise--the surmise 
is, why else would the President or Betty Currie or Vernon 
Jordan be interested in helping this young woman? There must be 
a corrupt motive. Well, no, it musn't be. Betty Currie might 
have--Betty Currie was a friend, we know, of Vernon Jordan. 
Betty Currie asked Vernon Jordan to help her. Why would Betty 
Currie ask Vernon Jordan to help Monica Lewinsky find a job? 
Well, maybe because Monica Lewinsky asked here to, and Betty 
Currie was a friend of hers. That is as logical as any other 
explanation. That is as logical as the sinister explanation you 
gentlemen posed, for which there was no evidence whatsoever.
    This is a classic example of a logical fallacy some of us 
learned in college: After this, therefore because of this. 
After this, therefore because of perhaps a lot of different 
reasons.
    Then we have the gifts. Monica Lewinsky returned--gave 
gifts to Betty Currie. It must be because the President was 
trying to hide the evidence. It must be because the President 
asked Betty Currie to retrieve the gifts, except that Betty 
Currie says that's not the case. Betty Currie testifies that 
Monica Lewinsky was the one who asked her to get the gifts.
    But we're told there was this phone call. Now there is no 
evidence of what was said in that phone call. But what's the 
difference? We can surmise what we want to surmise. We can 
pretend it makes a difference.
    Now Mr. Delahunt destroyed that by showing the phone call 
came an hour and a half after the gifts were retrieved or were 
given by Monica Lewinsky. That's proof positive there has 
nothing to do with it. So there is no evidence whatsoever of an 
evil motive for giving these gifts.
    But we've also been subjected to outrageous leaps of logic. 
Because if, in fact, these gifts were being given by Monica 
Lewinsky to Betty Currie because the President wanted to get 
evidence away from her, why would he be giving her additional 
gifts on the same day? If he's trying to get the evidence away 
from her, why is he giving her more evidence?
    Well, there is outrageous leaps of logic to answer this. 
Mr. Schippers tells us, for example, that he intends to deal 
with the fact that the President----
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Nadler. I ask unanimous consent for an additional two 
minutes.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Schippers attempted to deal with the fact 
that the President gave Ms. Lewinsky additional gifts after 
Betty Currie supposedly retrieved the earlier gifts, acting 
allegedly on the President's behalf to conceal those gifts in 
the Jones case. He says, he told this committee with a straight 
face, the only logical inference is that the gifts, including 
the bear symbolizing strength, were a tacit reminder to Ms. 
Lewinsky that they would deny their relationship even in the 
face of a Federal subpoena.
    Is he kidding? For nonsense like this we are going to 
overturn the votes of the American people? The bear symbolizing 
strength was a tacit reminder to Ms. Lewinsky and a secret 
code, I suppose, to continue to deny the relationship? I don't 
think so. I think the bear was a warning by the President that 
the stock market was going to tank and she should put her money 
in bonds. It is as logical an inference; it has as much 
evidence behind it.
    The fact is, this is a nonsense article and, finally, the 
fact that the President spoke to co-workers in his office, to 
people he works with every day and said, and told them the same 
cover story that he was presumably telling his wife and others 
to protect his family because he was ashamed of this 
relationship, what is that evidence of, a conspiracy against 
justice? No, it is evidence of the fact that he is having a 
cover story for a sexual affair he wasn't proud of and didn't 
want to go public. That becomes an impeachable offense? This is 
ludicrous, along with the rest of this article, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has again expired. 
The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Cannon. Thank you. Let me just say that I think a 
compelling case, Mr. Nadler, has made for a scheme here, and it 
doesn't make sense to pick out details and mock them when we 
have a deep responsibility.
    But I did take Mr. Delahunt's question to heart and looked 
up the information there, and to some degree he is right. I 
would just like to point out that I don't think it has--his 
argument has the weight that he would suggest. On page 13996 of 
the documents, it does indicate in a 302, one of the FBI 
reports which was done on July 27th, 1998, that on December 
28th--the document was done on the 27th of July--Monica 
Lewinsky says that on December 28th, so roughly seven months 
earlier, she had had a phone call and then met or was outside 
of her apartment on 28th Street to give those, the gifts, to 
Ms. Currie at about 2:00 p.m. That's a fair statement, but it 
does say about. On the other hand, you have a call at 3:32 
which is fixed in the records of her cell phone. I suspect that 
there may have been a mistake by Ms. Lewinsky of an hour and a 
half there and that that is not substantial.
    I would like to talk briefly about the fact that Mr. 
Clinton, President Clinton allowed his attorney to make false 
statements and misleading statements to a Federal judge, as he 
characterized in the affidavit, in order to prevent questioning 
which during the course of the question the judge deemed was 
relevant. On January 15th, Robert Bennett, who was the attorney 
for President Clinton, obtained a copy of the affidavit that 
Monica Lewinsky had filed to avoid testifying herself in the 
Jones case and then in this affidavit, you will recall, Ms. 
Lewinsky asserted that she had never had a sexual relationship 
with the President.
    At the President's deposition 2 days later on July 17, 
1998, an attorney for Paula Jones began to ask the 
Presidentquestions about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. We saw 
this on the video recently. Mr. Bennett objected to the innuendo of the 
questions and he pointed out that she had signed an affidavit denying a 
sexual relationship with the President. Mr. Bennett asserted that this 
indicated there was no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form.
    Now, we all heard that being stated as the President sat 
there and nodded a couple of times in assent. After a warning 
from Judge Wright he stated that, look, I am not coaching the 
witness. In the preparation of the witness for this deposition, 
the witness was fully aware of Ms. Jane Doe 6's affidavit, so I 
have not told him a single thing he doesn't know.
    Mr. Bennett clearly used the affidavit in an attempt to 
stop the questioning of the President about Ms. Lewinsky. The 
President did not say anything to correct Mr. Bennett even 
though he knew the affidavit was false. Judge Wright overruled 
Mr. Bennett's objection and allowed the questioning to proceed.
    Later in the deposition Mr. Bennett read the President the 
portion of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit in which she denied having, 
quotation marks, a sexual relationship with the President, and 
asked the President if Ms. Lewinsky's statement was true and 
accurate. The President responded, ``That is absolutely true.''
    The grand jury testimony of Monica Lewinsky, given under 
oath following a grant of transactional immunity, confirmed 
that the contents of her affidavit were not true. Of the 
affidavit, she says, under questioning, ``I have never had a 
sexual relationship with the President.'' ``Is that true?'' And 
her answer is, no, it was not true.
    When President Clinton was asked during his grand jury 
testimony--backing off from the Lewinsky testimony now in the 
deposition to the grand jury--how he could have lawfully sat 
silent at the deposition while his attorney made a false 
statement, ``There is no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape 
or form,'' in the district court, the President first said he 
was not paying a great deal of attention to Mr. Bennett when he 
said this. The President also said, ``I didn't pay any 
attention to this colloquy that went on.''
    Of course, we saw the President sort of nodding at that, as 
the colloquy happened. The videotape deposition shows the 
President looking in Mr. Bennett direct while Mr. Bennett was 
making a statement about no sex of any kind.
    The President then argued that when Mr. Bennett made the 
assertion that there is no sex of any kind, Mr. Bennett was 
speaking only in the present tense. Therefore we get the famous 
``is,'' ``is what'' question. The President stated it depends 
on what the meaning of ``is'' is and that if it means there is 
none, that was a completely true statement.
    President Clinton's suggestion that he might have engaged 
in such a parsing of the words at his deposition is at odds 
with his assertion that the whole argument had just passed him 
by.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Bryant. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for two 
minutes to be yielded to Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, of course.
    Mr. Bryant. Mr. Cannon, are you aware that the President's 
attorney, Bob Bennett, has since this time sent a request or a 
letter to the court formally withdrawing that affidavit?
    Mr. Cannon. I am aware of that, and I think that is a 
remarkable fact.
    Mr. Bryant. My question is, as he did that, I understand, 
as an officer of the court, do you understand the significance 
of that action and how that impacts the President?
    Mr. Cannon. I believe actually that I do understand the 
significance of that action. But you were a Federal prosecutor 
and it might be nice if you stated that, what you think that 
is.
    Mr. Bryant. Well, we have got several on this panel but 
my--certainly my opinion of these facts is that Mr. Bennett, 
the lawyer for the President, as any attorney would in any 
litigation, once they find out that there has been improper or 
false evidence submitted to the court, as an officer of the 
court they have a duty to notify the judge of that and to take 
the proper steps to disassociate themselves from their client 
or withdraw that evidence from the court. I just wanted to 
point that out to you and I don't know if----
    Mr. Delahunt. Would my friend yield?
    Mr. Bryant. I would be happy to, another great prosecutor 
over there.
    Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Bryant. You know, Mr. Cannon 
alluded to the fact that you are a United States Attorney and 
suggested that you respond to one of his questions. I see my 
friend from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, here also. And as former 
U.S. Attorneys, both of you, and for whom I truly have great 
respect for both, let me pose a question.
    Take Bill Clinton out of the deposition. Substitute 
ordinary citizen. Would either one of you have brought a 
perjury case when you were the United States Attorney? And the 
context that I pose this is that we had five United States 
attorneys here testifying that in both the grand jury as well 
as the deposition----
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has again expired.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent to speak out of 
turn for one minute.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be appear to be 
the grinch who stole Christmas but I want to tell my Democrat 
and Republican friends alike, I think five minutes are 
sufficient, and if it doesn't annoy anybody too severely, I 
intend to object at the end of each five minute segment so we 
can go home and go to bed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt, seek recognition?
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes exactly.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to proceed very 
carefully in what I say here because I think of all the 
articles in this document, this is the one that is most 
troubling to me. And when I hear Mr. Cannon refer to a scheme, 
it troubles me even further, because I really think there are 
some things in this article that come dangerously close to just 
McCarthyism.
    We went through a period in our history when behind every 
tree there was a communist. You know, if you made a phone call 
to somebody who was a communist, you became a communist.We 
assumed the absolute worst. That is what I see happening in some parts 
of this article. And when you do that, you start to presume things that 
just--I mean they are like bad people behind every tree and bad 
motivations for every phone call and bad motivations for every contact, 
even when the contacts are completely innocent.
    Now, I just want to specifically look at part 6 and 7 on 
page 7 of the articles where when the President is having a 
conversation with Ms. Currie. You say that, I presume you are 
talking about Ms. Currie, on or about January 18, January 20, 
21, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading 
account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action 
brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding 
in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.
    Now, we know that in the Paula Jones case, when the 
President had a conversation with Ms. Currie, that conversation 
with Ms. Currie, the discovery period was almost over. It was 
within a few days of being over. And Ms. Currie's name had 
never appeared on a witness list. So this notion that she is 
somehow a potential witness, I don't know where it comes from. 
And then you go back later and you do the same thing.
    Now, let me show you where this leads, finally, in Mr. 
Schippers' presentation yesterday and show you how sinister it 
becomes. Mr. Schippers then says, ``When he called Ms. Currie, 
he made sure that this was a face-to-face meeting, not an 
impersonal telephone call. He made sure that no one else was 
present when he spoke to her. He made sure that he had the 
meeting in his office, an area where he was comfortable and 
could utilize his power and prestige to influence future 
testimony. Once these controls were established, the President 
made short, clear, understandable declarative statements 
telling Ms. Currie what his testimony was.''
    Now, that is fine if that is what happened, but look at 
what the actual statements were that the President made. They 
are one page before Mr. Schippers has given us this declarative 
statement. He has told us what the statements were. Number one, 
it was never really--``I was never really alone with Monica, 
right?'' Is that a declarative statement? Two, ``You were 
always there when Monica was there, right?'' Is that a 
declarative statement? ``Monica came on to me and I never 
touched her, right?''
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for two 
additional minutes.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I hate to do it but I object.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Objection is heard.
    Mr. Watt. If you set this precedent, then you are going to 
be the beneficiary of it, too.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman----
    Mr. Coble. May I respond to that, Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Objection is heard. The time of the 
gentleman from North Carolina has expired.
    Would the gentleman from North Carolina like to strike the 
last word and get five minutes?
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I will strike the last word and 
use one minute.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Coble. I did that to put everybody on notice earlier--
--
    Mr. Watt. Will the gentleman yield two minutes to me?
    Mr. Coble. No, sir. I won't do it, Mr. Watt, not yet.
    Mr. Watt. Okay, I have done my best.
    Mr. Coble. Because, folks, I think five minutes are 
adequate. I always finish before that red light illuminates, 
and I believe most of us can do it. I yield back my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from North 
Carolina has expired.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida seek 
recognition.
    Mr. Canady. To strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Canady. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up on 
the comments made by----
    Mr. Nadler. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
    Mr. Nadler. The point of order is, it should be a Democrat 
now, Mr. Coble having been the last.
    Mr. Frank. I think the Chairman made the right call.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Canady. Mr. Chairman, may I have the full five minutes?
    Mr. Frank. It's okay with us. Check with Coble.
    Mr. Canady. I wanted to follow up on the issues raised by 
the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, about paragraph 6 
in this article concerning the conversations that the President 
had with Ms. Currie on January 18th and January 20th and 21st.
    The record reflects that President Clinton attempted to 
influence the testimony of Betty Currie, his personal 
secretary, by coaching her to recite inaccurate answers to 
possible questions that might be asked of her if called to 
testify in the case of Jones v. Clinton. The President did this 
shortly after he had been deposed in that case, as we all know. 
In his deposition, when asked about whether it would be 
extraordinary for Betty Currie to be in the White House between 
midnight and 6:00 a.m., the President answered in part, ``Those 
are questions you would have to ask her.''
    Furthermore, the President invokes Betty Currie's name 
numerous times throughout the deposition, oftentimes asserting 
that Monica was around to see Betty and that Betty talked about 
Vernon Jordan helping Ms. Lewinsky and that Betty talked with 
Ms. Lewinsky about her move to New York. After mentioning Betty 
Currie so often in answers to questions during his deposition, 
it was very logical for the President to assume the Jones 
lawyers might call her as a witness. That is not a leap. That 
is right there. That's for all of us to see in the President's 
own words. This is why the President called her about two hours 
after the completion of his deposition and asked her to come to 
the office the next day, which was a Sunday.
    Now, the President has stated that on January 18th, 1998, 
he met with Ms. Currie and asked her certain questions ``in an 
effort to get as much information as quickly as I could and 
made certain statements, although I do not remember exactly 
what I said.'' That is what the President contends. The 
President added that he urged Ms. Currie to tell the truth 
after learning that the Office of Independent Counsel might 
subpoena her to testify. The President also stated that hecould 
not recall how many times he had talked to Ms. Currie or when.
    But let me go on and tell you what Ms. Currie said, and you 
have gone through it, but I think it bears repeating. While 
testifying before the grand jury, Ms. Currie said this when an 
OIC attorney asked her if the President had made a series of 
leading statements or questions that were similar to the 
following: ``You were always there when she was there, right?'' 
``We were never really alone. You could see and hear 
everything.'' ``Monica came on to me and I never touched her, 
right?'' ``She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do 
that.''
    Now, in her testimony Ms. Currie indicated that the 
President's remarks were ``more like statements than 
questions.'' Now, that is her characterization of it. Based on 
his demeanor and the manner in which he asked the questions, 
she concluded that the President wanted her to agree with him. 
Ms. Currie thought that the President was attempting to gauge 
her reaction and appeared concerned.
    Ms. Currie also acknowledged that while she indicated to 
the President that she agreed with him, in fact she knew that 
at times he was alone with Ms. Lewinsky, and that she could not 
or did not hear or see the two of them while they were alone.
    At their subsequent meeting on January 20 and 21, after the 
first time he talked with her about this, Ms. Currie stated 
that it was sort of a recapitulation of what we had talked 
about on Sunday.
    Now, the President's response that he was trying to 
ascertain what the facts were or trying to ascertain what 
Betty's perception was is simply not credible. The President 
knew the facts about what had happened with Ms. Lewinsky. Betty 
Currie was not his source of information about the details of 
that relationship. That is ridiculous on its face. The only 
reason he had to pose that series of so-called questions or 
statements to her was to corruptly influence her testimony. I 
think that is clear on the face of the record, and any contrary 
interpretation suggests a willful disregard of all the 
circumstances.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, this is a very shoddy effort, it 
seems to me, intellectually. I agree again that the central 
facts of this case remain central to this: Bill Clinton had a 
consensual sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky and sought to 
conceal that fact. That is the only fact that we have at the 
center of all this. That is the cause. We again remember that 
all of the other issues that have been raised, from the FBI 
files to Whitewater to Kathleen Willey, et cetera, et cetera, 
are simply absent from this.
    So then the question is, did the President obstruct 
justice? And there are a number of, I think, very strained 
efforts to prove that. One central fact has been missing. 
Monica Lewinsky is treated here as if she was just bursting to 
get to that deposition and tell all. And the whole premise of 
this is that Monica Lewinsky was being preyed upon, suborned, 
persuaded by this combination of Vernon Jordan, Betty Currie, 
Bill Clinton, et al., not to tell the truth.
    It is in this context that it is very relevant that Monica 
Lewinsky volunteered, because the prosecutors knew enough from 
their case's standpoint not to ask her, she volunteered, ``No 
one asked me to lie and no one promised me a job.'' Now, I have 
noticed that my colleagues on the other side have developed a 
very peculiar verbal tic. Monica Lewinsky said ``No one asked 
me to lie.'' They are incapable of repeating that without 
adding the word ``explicitly.'' It is a form of verbal disease. 
Monica Lewinsky said no one asked her to lie. They all say, 
including Kenneth Starr, ``No one explicitly asked me to lie.'' 
There is an enormous difference between the two. And the very 
fact that my colleagues on the other side almost always add 
that word ``explicitly'' indicates their recognition of the 
power of her denial.
    It is also interesting that Monica Lewinsky is a woman of 
absolute perfect memory in Ken Starr's version except she just 
had a terrible memory lapse, she lost a couple of hours of her 
life, because the gentleman from Utah, explaining the important 
point made by my colleague from Massachusetts, said, ``Oh, 
well, she must have thought it was 2:00, but it was really 4 
o'clock because the call came at 3:30.'' There is nothing 
remotely to suggest that.
    Betty Currie, interestingly, also goes through 
transmogrification. We are told that she was willing to give 
testimony to the grand jury that the Majority finds damaging. 
But she also said, Betty Currie said Monica Lewinsky initiated 
the gift transfer. So we have your acknowledgment that Betty 
Currie was prepared to tell the truth even if it was somewhat 
damaging to Bill Clinton. You are citing one of her statements 
as very damaging to Bill Clinton. Why does she then become a 
liar and a schemer when she volunteers it?
    The fact is that the most sensible explanation here is that 
both Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky wanted to withhold the 
truth of this. Neither one of them wanted to do it. Monica 
Lewinsky and Bill Clinton worked together. The gentleman from 
Florida said they had agreed long before the Paula Jones, a 
month before the Paula Jones thing was on anybody's horizon for 
Monica Lewinsky, that they would not tell the truth.
    But you have to change the facts. You have to assume that 
there was this Monica Lewinsky dying to tell everybody. As a 
matter of fact, let's be very clear. Even after all of this, 
what got Monica Lewinsky to talk was Kenneth Starr threatening 
to throw her and her mother in prison. Monica Lewinsky had to 
be threatened by Kenneth Starr with imprisonment and have her 
mother be threatened by Kenneth Starr with imprisonment before 
she would say it.
    That is relevant because you are portraying this notion 
that it took all of Bill Clinton's wiles and Vernon Jordan and 
Betty Currie to keep her from doing this. The truth is she 
never wanted to do it. The truth is she was resisting 
vigorously doing it on her own. The truth is, if this young 
woman only told these facts when she was threatened with 
prison, that destroys the whole case.
    You are accusing Bill Clinton and Vernon Jordan and Betty 
Currie of doing something all of them have denied, and they 
have all denied that they did this, and you are saying that 
they did it to persuade and cajole Monica Lewinsky to do 
something which she in fact--that she wanted to do. She did not 
have to be restrained from testifying. She didn't want to 
testify. Quite the contrary is the case. She had to be--first 
Linda Tripp tried to get her to do it, and thenKenneth Starr 
threatened her with it.
    I think this failure to recognize Monica Lewinsky's 
reluctance to testify is a central problem, and that is why you 
have so much trouble explaining away her statement that no one 
asked her to lie and no one promised her a job.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Gekas, seek recognition?
    Mr. Gekas. To strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Gekas. We will all recall that the President gave that 
deposition on January 17th, 1998. On or about January 21st, in 
conformity now I am speaking with number 7 of the article of 
impeachment number 3, in the days following, the 21st, et 
cetera, he started talking with his aides, because by that time 
the Washington Post had broken the story and everybody in the 
country was talking about it and so his aides, one by one, the 
President's aides would be talking to him about it.
    In one of those instances, Mr. Blumenthal, one of his 
aides, asked him, ``Have you done anything wrong?'' A lot of 
details to it, but this is basic, ``Have you done anything 
wrong?'' He said, ``No, I have done nothing wrong,'' and words 
to the effect, that he did not have a relationship with this 
intern as the Washington Post had indicated.
    Now, at that time it was also revealed by the Washington 
Post that Judge Starr was looking into this matter. So when 
Blumenthal asked this, the President knew that Starr was 
pursuing this matter. When he told Blumenthal that he did 
nothing wrong and that there was no relationship between him 
and Monica Lewinsky, he had an inkling that and a notion, a 
knowledge that Ken Starr was after this case.
    Back up for a moment. If he had told Blumenthal the truth 
that, ``Yes, Mr. Blumenthal, I did have a relationship, I have 
done something wrong, I did have this relationship with Monica 
Lewinsky,'' Blumenthal, upon being subpoenaed by the grand 
jury, would have to testify on an admission against interest on 
the part of the President and say, ``The President did admit to 
me that he had this relationship.''
    So the President, in telling Blumenthal and Podesta and X 
and Y and Z among the aides who he knew were going to be 
testifying after Judge Starr began to pursue witnesses, had to 
block out the item that he was trying to protect. He was trying 
to protect himself and Monica Lewinsky and his family and 
everybody else from the break of the news that he had this 
relationship with Monica Lewinsky. So he told one after the 
other, knowing that they were in a position to be subpoenaed by 
the grand jury, that he did nothing wrong, he had no such 
relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
    This is obstruction of justice.
    Now, how did the President know, is a question that might 
be looming, how did the President know, how do we know that the 
President knew that there were going to be witnesses in the 
grand jury? The President said so.
    In the grand jury testimony that he himself presented, the 
question was, it may have been misleading, sir, and you knew, 
though, after January 21st, when the Post article broke and 
said that Judge Starr was looking into this, you knew that they 
might be witnesses, meaning Podesta, Blumenthal, X, Y and Z, 
the aides in the White House, you knew that they might be 
called into a grand jury, didn't you? Answer: That's right. I 
think I was quite careful what I said after that. I may have 
said something to all these people to that effect but--I am 
reading the whole thing to be fair so that I wouldn't be taking 
it out of context--but I also, whenever anybody asked me any 
details, I said, look, I don't want you to be a witness or I 
would turn you into a witness or give you information that 
could get you into trouble. I just wouldn't talk. I, by and 
large, didn't talk to people about this.
    And so that forms the gravamen of this particular averment 
in the third article of impeachment. It is palpably an attempt 
by the President to protect himself, but in doing so he gives 
evidence from which a trier of fact can easily deduce that he 
obstructed justice.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentlewoman 
from California, Ms. Lofgren, seek recognition?
    Ms. Lofgren. To strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. First, I would like to comment once again that 
it is now almost 7:50 p.m. We are concluding or getting close 
to concluding our third article, and we have still not heard 
from Mr. Starr in response to my questions, despite the 
chairman and ranking member's letters and the repeated phone 
calls from the staff, among both Republican and Democratic 
staff, to ask for the answers.
    I would like unanimous consent to submit for the record the 
form that I sent to Mr. Starr on December 4th asking him three 
questions and asking that he merely fill in the blanks and 
circle ``yes'' or ``no'' as an answer. And I am hopeful that by 
continuing to raise this issue, we might actually get the 
answers that we are owed before we are finished----
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the gentlewoman's 
letter will be placed as a part of the record. She may proceed.
    [The letter follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.064
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Secondly, I think it is clear that the 
allegations in this article are so far from what would be 
required to prove that the conduct was destructive to our 
American constitutional system of government that I really 
think it is preposterous. My colleagues have handled this quite 
well. I don't need to go at very great length. So I would 
therefore like to yield the remainder of my time to my 
colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I 
understand, I wasn't in the committee room at the time, but I 
understand that Mr. Cannon acknowledged that Ms. Lewinsky might 
be wrong about the time and I appreciate that acknowledgment. 
But I really wonder when we should stop assuming that she was 
making mistakes. I think we have that responsibility. It is a 
very dangerous assumption, but anyhow--or that she was correct.
    Mr. Cannon. If the gentleman would yield on that point, I 
don't think I acknowledged that she made a mistake. I don't 
know. But a two-hour mistake after several months is not a 
major thing.
    Mr. Delahunt. I don't have a lot of time. Again, Mr. Frank 
talked about shoddiness. While we are on the subject of that 
phone call, I just want to make another point that speaks to 
the quality of the evidence. And I dare say it speaks to all of 
the evidence contained within the Starrreferral because no 
member of this committee, including myself, have had the opportunity to 
review it. And we know that, and the American people should know that. 
It is just--it was simply an impossible task.
    You know, both the referral from Mr. Starr and Mr. 
Schippers state that Ms. Currie initiated the call when she was 
visiting her mother in the hospital. Now, if Mr. Starr had 
bothered to investigate, again another point, I would call it a 
rather key point, or if Mr. Schippers had done the work an 
impeachment should really be about, they would have found that 
Ms. Currie was at the Howard University hospital here in D.C.
    Now, go back to this key corroborating evidence, the cell 
phone bill that we keep talking about. Putting aside why Betty 
Currie would use her cell phone to call Ms. Lewinsky to begin 
this obstruction of justice, let us put that aside, but just 
notice, notice that the phone bill says the call was from 
Arlington, Virginia, not from Washington, not from the 
District.
    You know, when should we believe Mr. Starr? It is 
interesting to note that in the grand jury Ms. Lewinsky stated 
rather clearly that the Office of Independent Counsel asked her 
if she would agree to be wired to get Vernon Jordan or Betty 
Currie and possibly the President.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman from 
California has expired.
    Mr. Gekas. Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. State your point.
    Mr. Gekas. Do we have to refer to Mr. Coble to gain extra 
time for our members?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Coble told us that he was more of 
the official timekeeper than this contraption.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I think I have ruffled feathers. I 
didn't mean to. We are in the shadow of the yuletide season. I 
will withdraw my complaint and I will try to get some time and 
I will give it to Mr. Watt before the midnight hour.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the feathers are 
unruffled.
    Mr. Coble. I am not sure about that, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Delahunt. May I have an additional minute?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered. Well, it 
is the time of the gentlewoman from California. She has to ask 
for it.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, could I ask for an additional 
minute for the gentlewoman from California?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I guess so, without objection.
    Mr. Nadler. And I yield it.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, even though proxy voting has been 
abolished for four years, I guess the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is now recognized on his own for a minute.
    Mr. Delahunt. Well, I thank the creativity of the Chair. 
But I just simply want to make the point that during her grand 
jury testimony, Monica Lewinsky unequivocally stated that 
during the encounter at the hotel, the Ritz, she was asked by 
the Office of Independent Counsel whether she would consider to 
be wired.
    And yet Mr. Starr, under oath, when he testified here 
before us in reference to a letter that I had produced to him 
that he had sent to Mr. Brill, where he said that the 
suggestion that he had in any way requested Ms. Lewinsky to be 
wired was totally false, was totally false. I mean, this is--we 
are on the verge of voting another article based on pick and 
choose and pick and choose and just shoddiness everywhere. I 
sincerely ask my friends on the other side just to think about 
these things. Please.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired. Before 
recognizing the next speaker, let me announce that I have been 
informed by staff that the Office of Independent Counsel has 
prepared the responses to the questions that were jointly asked 
by Chairman Hyde and Ranking Minority Member Conyers. And I--
using their words, they are literally ``out the door'' with 
these responses and should be here within the next half hour. I 
hope that that satisfactorily answers the questions that have 
been posed at least about the timing of this.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Goodlatte, seek recognition?
    Mr. Goodlatte. I move to strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 
intend to vote for this article of impeachment. I have listened 
to the debate, studied the evidence very carefully. I think 
that the evidence very strongly supports the allegations of an 
effort to obstruct justice by the President of the United 
States.
    I would like to address my attention to motives. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts focused on the motivation of Ms. 
Lewinsky, and I think that is important and I would like to 
address that. But I think the motivation of the President in 
this case, particularly when we come to the issue of whether or 
not this is an impeachable offense, is particularly important 
because many on the other side have suggested that even if all 
of these events described in this article took place, it is 
still not an impeachable offense because it is simply the 
President's efforts to cover up an embarrassing situation. I 
don't believe that to be the case, but I will get to that in a 
moment.
    I think the gentleman from Massachusetts is right that Ms. 
Lewinsky was motivated not to testify, but I also think there 
are a lot of different ways that she might result in not 
testifying, and one of those was the very affidavit that is the 
subject of this article. And it is an issue of control. The 
President of the United States did not want Ms. Lewinsky to 
testify because if she went before the civil deposition and 
testified, she would be expected to tell the truth under 
penalty of perjury, the very issue in this case.
    And so the issue of this affidavit, the President knows 
that an affidavit is being prepared, he knows that if it is 
being prepared truthfully, that she is definitely going to be 
called to testify in that case because she would then be a 
material witness, because as a subordinate employee of the 
President, her evidence of her relationship with the President 
is very much related to the question of whether or not Ms. 
Jones is telling the truth in her case.
    It all boils down to how you prove a sexual harassment 
lawsuit, and every one here should know that it is very 
difficult to prove a sexual harassment lawsuit. You do it by 
showing patterns of behavior. Very often the only two witnesses 
to the case are the two people involved. In this case Ms. Jones 
and the President were the only people in the room during the 
incident that is alleged. So what can you show to corroborate 
Ms. Jones' testimony? Well, Ms. Lewinsky can corroborate that. 
So it is very important that thataffidavit be false.
    And so, yes, there is a motivation on the part of Ms. 
Lewinsky not to testify, but how she goes about not testifying 
is of grave concern to the President. And I think that is 
substantiated.
    But the greater concern that I have is, what is the 
motivation of the President? I reject the argument that this is 
simply to avoid embarrassment, because in the very same 
deposition that the President gave testimony in, which I 
believe he gave substantial amounts of false testimony, he 
acknowledged his relationship with Gennifer Flowers. He 
acknowledged embarrassing circumstances.
    And as a result, it is my opinion that the President 
engaged in the activity, both in that deposition and in all of 
these activities surrounding it, with regard to the affidavit, 
with regard to the gifts, with regard to Ms. Currie's testimony 
and so on, all of that was designed to defeat that sexual 
harassment lawsuit. That is the purpose of the President's 
activities here. It is not to avoid embarrassment. It is to 
defeat the lawsuit.
    When we had Professor Dershowitz come before us and 
testify, he attempted to define several levels of perjury, some 
of which he acknowledged would be impeachable and some not. And 
he attempted to make this perjury the lowest level of perjury 
and therefore not impeachable. But I pointed out to him that if 
these facts are indeed the case, that this is a part of an 
effort to defeat this lawsuit, that is not dissimilar to the 
police officers that he complained about giving false testimony 
in criminal cases in the effort to win those lawsuits.
    So his effort to defeat this lawsuit or win it from his 
standpoint, in my opinion, is a very serious form of perjury. 
It is not based upon simply covering up his personal activities 
but rather to subvert the judicial process, to harm a right 
that people in this country have to bring, and that is sexual 
harassment lawsuits when they are treated in a certain fashion. 
And we should not treat the President's behavior lightly 
because it was, in my opinion, founded upon an effort far, far 
removed from simply covering up a personal embarrassment.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I am going down the line in order on the Democratic side. 
Do either the gentlewoman from Texas or the gentlewoman from 
California seek recognition?
    The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would like to strike the last word. We 
are dangerously tilting over the edge, and for many of us this 
exercise has not been taken lightly. And frankly, I again, a 
word that I continue to use because I hope it signifies some 
seriousness in this effort, I am just not sure where we are 
going. We are at the point of these articles of impeachment.
    And for those who are studying this process and have seen 
us work through yesterday and today, the articles have several 
paragraphs and so they make up the article as an entirety. And 
this one that is Article III is called or at least suggests 
obstruction of justice.
    But I believe we shouldn't even be here, if you will, 
because these are private matters, albeit reprehensible. And if 
we would tend to the constitutional mandate and the Framers 
mind-set or the Federalist papers or the words of James 
Madison, we would understand that treason, bribery and other 
high crimes and misdemeanors were intended to deal with the 
acts of a President that impacted the governmental system, that 
subverted the Constitution, that toppled the government, that 
destroyed the trust in government of the chief executive 
officer of the United States of America.
    We are here quarreling over these private matters and 
discussing phone call distinctions, albeit relevant since our 
colleagues are relying upon this, but, unfortunately, we cannot 
rely on witnesses called by the Majority to have been able to 
assess their credibility, to have been able to ask Ms. Currie, 
to have been able to ask Ms. Lewinsky of the discrepancy. So it 
troubles me and somewhat provides an unfortunate degree of 
humor when I hear my colleagues citing the record, when it is 
nothing but the unchallenged record of testimony where we have 
not had the ability to give and take, to examine and cross-
examine.
    In the Madison papers, written quite well by James Madison, 
who was a good note taker of the proceedings to frame the 
Constitution, it is made very clear that they had intended or 
had the language dealing with how they perceived high crimes 
and misdemeanors, treason and bribery against the State. And it 
was only when the stylistic committee, meaning the grammar 
committee, the committee that makes it look pretty, decided to 
take out ``against the State'' to eliminate redundancy.
    So we are actually talking about private matters of the 
President of the United States, and the impeachment provision 
doesn't even provide for that. But that is another story, I 
guess.
    I want to focus on number 7 of Article IV because it talks 
about the President using his Cabinet and attempting--and his 
chief deputies--to cover up and to obstruct justice.
    First of all, as this was unveiling, the President was 
telling more or less the same story to everyone. This was 
embarrassing, didn't want to have this come out, anyone to know 
anything differently. I don't know how we can attribute to him 
the fact that he knew that all of this was going to explode. At 
the time, he was still dealing with Whitewater and Travelgate 
and Filegate. And then all of a sudden this came about.
    But let me simply say, in the Starr report you have the 
most senior officials in the executive branch serve 
asadditional, albeit unwitting, agents of the President's deception. 
The Cabinet and White House aides stated emphatically that the 
allegations were false, and they are basing that upon what Mr. Clinton 
said to them. Now, none of them got on a telephone or got into a 
meeting and organized themselves and said, you go here, you go here, 
make sure when you go into the grand jury, which they did not know, 
including Mr. Lindsey and Lieberman and all the others, you say this.
    And then the ultimate foolishness, foolhardiness of this is 
in Mr. Starr's referral he talks about the First Lady. We all 
are familiar with the very forceful statement she made on one 
of the morning talk shows sometime in January. He wants to call 
that obstruction of justice.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The President is not being treated fairly. 
These are not impeachable offenses, Mr. Chairman. These are not 
offenses against the State. This article should fail because it 
is groundless.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Ohio, Mr. Chabot, seek recognition?
    Mr. Chabot. To strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As we come to a close on this unfortunate but very 
necessary debate, let me address the third article of 
impeachment, obstruction of justice.
    As I discussed last night, the charges arrayed against the 
President are individually very troubling but together they are 
overwhelming. This article I believe demonstrates the web and 
deceit and cover-up that the President constructed to hide his 
lies in the Jones' civil rights lawsuit.
    This third article of impeachment charges the President of 
the United States with, one, encouraging a witness to file a 
false affidavit; two, encouraging a witness to give false 
testimony; three, encouraging a witness to conceal evidence; 
four, assisting a witness to get a job in order to make sure 
that she didn't tell the truth in her testimony; five, allowing 
his attorney to make false statements and thus cut off a 
specific and very important line of questioning in the Jones' 
case; six, attempting to influence Betty Currie to lie; and, 
seven, making false and misleading statements to his staff and 
to his Cabinet with the intent that they would repeat those 
lies before a Federal grand jury and also would repeat those 
lies to the American people.
    The purpose of all this lying and deceit wasn't just to 
keep the President from being embarrassed. He had been 
embarrassed before. It was to defeat a civil rights sexual 
harassment lawsuit. That was the purpose. This isn't just about 
sex, as many people have said and would like it to be about. It 
is not. It is the lies. It is the obstruction of justice. It is 
the covering up. It is that lawsuit that was the basis for all 
of this.
    These serious seven obstruction charges are extremely 
troubling. We are not talking about little white lies or half-
truths. Instead, we are talking about the President of the 
United States engaging in cover-up, witness tampering and a 
well-planned effort to thwart our system of justice.
    These are criminal acts that cannot be ignored. Let us 
always keep in mind that, as the President was concealing the 
evidence and the other things that he was doing in this case, 
he was consciously and deliberately breaking the law. At that 
time, he was the chief law enforcement officer of this country. 
And that is completely unacceptable. That is why we are here 
this evening.
    At this time, I would like to yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
    Much has been made by various of the other speakers on the 
other side of the aisle in their continuing defense of the 
President; and, indeed, they remind me dramatically of defenses 
and arguments that I would hear as a United States Attorney 
raising arguments against indictments, against proof in 
criminal cases.
    I would point out to particularly my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle that, as they are well aware, obstruction of 
justice, as the gentleman from Ohio stated, is an extremely 
serious portion of the United States Criminal Code reflected in 
the very serious penalties applicable thereto in the Federal 
sentencing guidelines. There is indeed an entire chapter of 
Title 18 of the United States Code, which is the Criminal Code, 
relating to obstruction.
    The reason why there are so many different provisions of 
the Federal Criminal Code that relate to obstruction as 
opposed, for example, to the perjury provisions of the Code, 
which are found entirely in one particular section, is because 
of the very subtle nature and very subtle practice that 
obstruction usually takes, very frequently involving 
sophisticated and intelligent defendants. And one may accuse or 
feel a lot of things about the President of the United States, 
but I don't think anybody could claim that he is neither 
sophisticated nor intelligent.
    In those types of situations involving application of the 
obstruction statutes, what almost invariably prosecutors are 
faced with are defendants who do not tell the person whom they 
are seeking to obstruct justice, I want you to lie. I am 
tampering with you. Do you understand that? I am asking you and 
directing that you hide this evidence? Do you understand that?
    It is much less, much less direct than that, much more 
sophisticated.
    The case that we have heard today, reflected in the general 
but with sufficient specificity provisions of Article III of 
these articles of impeachment, is more than sufficient to 
satisfy the burden of your United States attorneys and many 
State prosecutors for those States which have--might I have one 
more minute, Mr. Chairman, by unanimous consent?
    Chairman Hyde. Yes, sure.
    Mr. Barr. For those States which have statutes similar to 
the Federal obstruction statutes. Frequently--more frequently 
than not, prosecutors present and have convictions sustained on 
less evidence than we have addressed here today, much less 
evidence than the Independent Counsel has already presented to 
this committee and which will be transmitted along with 
whatever articles of impeachment may be voted out by the House 
to the Senate.
    And as members on our side have indicated, these involve 
the tampering with witnesses, tampering of evidence, efforts to 
have other people go forth, sally forth in the world and relay 
to other people, in this case literally millions of other 
people, your side of the story which is not in accordwith 
reality or the facts of the case.
    That is the essence of tampering. That is the essence of 
obstruction. And I feel very comfortable, Mr. Chairman, in 
recommending the members on this committee vote in favor of 
Article III and all of its component parts which more than 
satisfies both the legal and historical burden of an 
obstruction article of impeachment.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's times has expired.
    The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman and members, at one point during the day I 
thought I would not engage in this anymore because I know that 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made up their 
minds and you certainly can't change their minds. They know 
what they have to do. They know what they must do. There is not 
a lot of independence over there, and they are going to vote 
lockstep together, and that is that.
    But I want to really talk about some of this to the 
American public that may be listening. This hodgepodge of 
referral information that is general in nature, not specific 
and does not cite anywhere exactly what Bill Clinton said or 
did to support the allegation in the referral is just 
absolutely amazing.
    But let me talk a little about the job assistance part of 
it, and that is on page 6, where they say, beginning on or 
about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including 
January 14th, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and 
succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in 
a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to 
corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in 
that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that 
witness would have been harmful to him.
    There is nothing, absolutely nothing in any of the 
information that we have received, none of the documents, that 
supports this allegation. As a matter of fact, if you listen to 
the telephone conversations between Monica Lewinsky and Linda 
Tripp, you will see Linda Tripp carefully guiding her to get to 
Vernon Jordan. Tripp suggests to Lewinsky that Vernon Jordan 
could really get her a job, that what she needed to do was to 
find a way to get to Vernon Jordan because he was a powerful 
man with a lot of friends. And she literally put a string 
through her nose and just led her right through to her going 
back to Betty Currie asking if they could get some help from 
Vernon Jordan.
    The President did not ask her, did not ask Vernon Jordan. 
Nowhere in the document do you see the President in a 
conversation with her saying that he will give her job 
assistance if she will not testify. Nowhere do you see him 
asking anybody to do anything.
    But what you see is a very aggressive young woman who knows 
what she wants, and she's learned a lot about how to stay in 
people's faces, how to get what she wants, how to ask for it, 
how to get to the next person higher up, and she does it quite 
well. She bugs everybody. She ensnares a lot of people into 
this circle of trying to get her a job. And she keeps pestering 
and sending notes.
    And we know about this because we have interns in our 
office. Some are very aggressive, and they let you know what 
they want right away. Ms. Waters, can you introduce me to so 
and so? Can you get me into a party with the President? Can you 
get me on a campaign? I want to be the press person. And, some 
of them really go after it.
    And when they come here, they do their work oftent imes, 
but they're at the parties, and they find out where the big 
things are happening. They want to rub shoulders. That's what 
she was all about. That's how she did it.
    There's nothing in this information that shows that the 
President and Vernon Jordan dropped everything they were doing, 
as Mr. Barr said. Now that's really putting a spin on it, to 
say the President of the United States and Vernon Jordan 
dropped everything that they were doing in order to get Monica 
Lewinsky a job.
    Let me tell you something. He referred to her as second or 
third rate. Well, we have interns that come into our office, 
and they may come in making no money or very little money or 
they may just be volunteering. But they're not second- or 
third-rate people. Even if they come in at an entry-level rate, 
they just happen to be people breaking in the door, getting a 
job for the first time. They're not second or third rate. We 
have some first-rate people in low-paying jobs.
    And to identify her, a college graduate who's bright, who's 
computer literate, who keeps the damnedest records I've ever 
seen--this woman documents everything. She's not a second- or 
third-rate person. She's very bright. She knows how to go after 
a job and to get people doing what she wants them to do.
    This is a bunch of baloney. I'm not a lawyer, but I could 
argue this case in court and win. I could win because they have 
no documentation. They have nothing but the spinning of someone 
like Mr. Barr, and that's dangerous. And why am I so fixed on 
this--
    I request unanimous consent for two more minutes.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlelady wants two minutes. She shall 
have it.
    Ms. Waters. Let me tell you why I'm fixed on this. I'm 
fixed on this because I think Ken Starr is the poster boy for 
all the bad prosecutors in America.
    What does that mean? That means you have prosecutors who 
abuse people, who use their powers to make people plea bargain 
because they don't know their rights. They perjure.
    I don't care if you're from the right wing or the left wing 
or in the center. I am with you in fighting against bad 
prosecutors.
    I was sympathetic to the people up at Ruby Ridge and Waco, 
and they certainly are not over on the left. I was sympathetic 
to them because there's nothing worse than being descended on 
with the gun and the badge and you're powerless to fight that 
kind of power.
    Americans, you better listen. Because we're talking about 
Ken Starr today, and you're hearing people make up information, 
make up documentation. This could be your child, your wife, 
your friend tomorrow who found themselves in a very difficult 
situation with an abusive prosecutor who will do whatever is 
necessary to convict you. That's what this is all about.
    It's not simply about Bill Clinton. This is aboutjustice in 
America. How does the justice system work? You don't know about it 
until you come in contact with it, but God forbid you get a Ken Starr 
or Bob Barr. You don't ever want that.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant. I'd strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Bryant. I'm not sure if I can follow that presentation, 
but I certainly have seen lawyers in court do worse.
    In response to my friend Bill Delahunt, who is a very 
experienced, good prosecutor from Boston, we had sort of a 
dangling question there at the end. He had asked whether I, as 
a prosecutor myself, would take this case to court. And I hear 
that this is a private matter consistently, that this is just 
private parties, and it was, to an extent.
    Again, the U.S. attorney, the prosecutor from 
Massachusetts, doesn't handle divorce cases; and up to a point 
that's about all it would have been had anybody been interested 
in the case. But from the point in which it went from just 
allegations about sex to an active cover-up, that's when it 
came into the public domain and when the law started being 
violated regarding perjury, obstruction of justice and 
tampering with witnesses, hiding evidence.
    And you can isolate these in a vacuum all you want and talk 
about them and take a statement out of context, and it sounds 
perfectly innocent, but you do have to look at the big print. 
You do. You don't throw away your common sense. You have to 
look at the big picture and you have to look at the results.
    As I mentioned yesterday in my statement, just this point 
about the job, this lady was aggressive. She tried for months 
to get a job. She had friends in high places and could not get 
a job, but, lo and behold, within 24 hours of signing an 
affidavit which exonerated the President, she got the job in 
New York with a Fortune 500 company. The evidence was in her 
apartment one day and then, almost by magic, it was in the 
President's personal secretary's house under the bed, hidden, 
just there.
    So you have to look at these things in the big picture. You 
can't ignore them. These things just don't happen by magic.
    But in answering my friend's question, you have to look at 
several issues. And it would be hard, he said, if this weren't 
the President. But you have to look at it as if this were 
another highly elected official. If it were the everyday 
person, they wouldn't have the opportunity to do the abuse, to 
perform the level of abuse that occurred in this case. So I 
think you have to look at it as a very visible person, the 
person that, once this comes out, they're going to say, well, 
why didn't you look at this person? Why didn't you prosecute 
this person? Because he's famous, he's rich, he's powerful. So 
that is a special consideration.
    In fact, it's in the U.S. attorney's manual. That was 
discussed two days ago when we had this panel in. Ron Noble 
brought that up and said, sometimes you have to send it to Main 
Justice to prosecute it. Because they're going to say, well, 
you know this person, you're giving them special treatment and 
so forth. You have to be extremely careful there and especially 
with somebody like the President.
    I never had the opportunity to prosecute the President, and 
I hope I never do. But the person who is the chief law 
enforcement official, the fact that he brought other people in 
this and caused other people to commit crimes, the fact that 
there is a cover-up here, the fact that you are vindicating the 
laws against perjury and obstruction of justice, vouchsafing 
this, as Griffin Bell said, the fact that all this lying and 
cover-up occurred in a sexual harassment case, you have to 
vindicate that lawsuit. You have to protect the rights of 
people who file these lawsuits. Because they're difficult to 
file. They're difficult to prove.
    So at the risk of being named an unreasonable prosecutor by 
a couple of these folks who testified here in the past, I would 
have to say I would have carried this case to court and would 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. Thank the gentleman.
    Anyone else seek recognition? Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Meehan. Mr. Chairman, sitting here on this article and 
listening back and forth for the last four hours or so, there's 
an old joke that comes to mind when I hear the case for Article 
III. It goes something like this, to the best of my memory.
    A physicist, a chemist, and an economist are stranded on a 
desert island. Now, there's little food on the island, so 
they're all starving. Suddenly a can of soup floats ashore. 
They're all elated until they realize they don't have a can 
opener.
    Then the physicist has an idea. He says, you know, if you 
drop that rock over there at a certain angle from a palm tree 
of a certain height on the top of the can, it will pierce the 
top of the can, and we can eat.
    The chemist replies, well, that's interesting, but I have a 
better idea. We can mix some of the sand over there with some 
of the saltwater, grind up the palm leaves, smear the resulting 
paste on top of the can, leave it out in the sun, and the top 
of the can will eventually dissolve.
    Well, the economist leaped up after listening to his 
colleagues to speak on the subject, nodding his head. Finally, 
the economist said, that's great stuff, but I think I know how 
to deal with this. Assume a can opener.
    Mr. Chairman, I call Article III the ``assume a can 
opener'' article. Monica Lewinsky tells us no one asked her to 
lie; and no one promised her a job in return for her silence. 
Betty Currie tells us that she didn't feel the slightest bit 
pressure when she spoke with the President following his civil 
deposition. We know that Ms. Currie wasn't a witness at the 
time. The job assistance and the cover stories between the 
President and Ms. Lewinsky long predated Ms. Lewinsky's 
involvement in any way, shape, or manner in the Jones' case. No 
one accuses the President of saying very much, if at all, in 
response to Ms. Lewinsky's suggestions that the gifts be 
concealed. No one testified that the President told Ms. 
Lewinsky to file a false affidavit.
    In short, there are no hard facts to support any 
obstruction of justice charge. So in the absence of any hard 
facts, we just assume a conspiracy. We assume implicit 
understandings. We assume subtle suggestions, tacit agreements, 
bad intent. We assume a case from nothing.
    Mr. Chairman, there's a reason why few consider this 
article to have any chance of approval on the House floor, even 
though its central allegation, obstruction of justice, sounds 
much more serious than mere perjury. It is because there are no 
hard facts to support the charge. Just assumption after guess 
after inference. Not the stuff our Founding Fathers anticipated 
for the constitutional equivalent of the atom bomb.
    I urge opposition to this clearly misguided, unproven 
article of impeachment and yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. Thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Pease, the gentleman from Indiana.
    Mr. Pease. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Pease. I yield two minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina, Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman from Indiana.
    If you would yield to my friend, Mr. Watt, two minutes and 
get me out of his doghouse, I would appreciate it.
    Mr. Pease. I would be pleased to. I yield to the gentleman 
from North Carolina.
    Mr. Watt. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
    I was on a roll at the time you all interrupted me. You've 
given me a whole hour to cool off, but I appreciate the time 
anyway.
    I was going to conclude my story, and it actually follows 
with what Mr. Meehan says. Because you can put all this stuff 
together if you have a conspiratorial mind and you can draw the 
conclusion that the Majority is drawing. But it just is not 
supported by any evidence. I mean, you've got to do a lot of 
speculating.
    One of the things they're speculating about is that, well, 
Vernon Jordan couldn't possibly get a job or try to get a job 
for somebody as terrible, although reliable in her testimony, I 
would say, as Ms. Lewinsky. And you should be aware that I have 
a member of my staff who drove Mr. Jordan to the negotiations 
for the debate preparations in the last campaign. In the 
process of getting there, as he was parking and Mr. Jordan was 
in the car, he backed into a pedestrian. And Mr. Jordan has 
actually made several offers to try to get him a job. I mean, 
that's the kind of guy that Mr. Jordan is.
    Now, you could--sure, it's not consistent with your theory 
that somebody could just have an innocent motive that they 
could be helping out somebody, but it's just as consistent that 
Mr. Jordan, and I know him, is that kind of person.
    Mr. Pease. I need to reclaim my time to say something here.
    Mr. Watt. I'm going to yield back to you. My point is that 
you are seeing these ghosts behind every tree and, you know, 
you package all this stuff, as Mr. Meehan has said, and you 
come to what appears to be a rational conclusion but it's not 
very rational.
    I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Pease be given 4 minutes.
    Mr. Pease. Thank you. I don't think I'll need it. I won't 
ask for it. I'm trying to do cleanup. Mr. Delahunt asked a 
question of Mr. Hutchinson. I wanted to give him time to answer 
that question on my remaining time.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Pease. I understand that Mr. 
Bryant answered this, but the question is whether these cases 
would be prosecuted if the President was an ordinary citizen. I 
would just respond very quickly that the case of an ordinary 
citizen would be considered from a standpoint of probable cause 
proof, a very low standard as to whether a prosecutor would 
bring charges. We're looking at this as an impeachable offense, 
and therefore at a very high burden. So I think we're looking 
at this much closer than an average citizen. I think with 
eyewitness testimony, it would be a good case to bring forward.
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield for a moment?
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Nadler. Could I ask unanimous consent that he be given 
one additional minute to respond to my question?
    Chairman Hyde. If he chooses to.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hutchinson. Certainly.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. You just said if the President were 
an ordinary person, the prosecutor would look at this from a 
level of probable cause. Yet we heard all these prosecutors say 
that although you only need probable cause for grand jury 
indictment, prosecutors look at a case as to whether they'll 
prosecute it, and properly so, as to whether they're likely to 
get a jury conviction. So they would be looking at a much 
higher standard than probable cause; isn't that correct?
    Mr. Hutchinson. Well, I heard that testimony and it was 
interesting. I think that a prosecutor does look to see what 
the likelihood of getting a conviction is. But I think also 
that when you're talking about sexual abuse cases, there's a 
lot of cases that they're very tough to bring but in the 
interest of justice it is required to go forward. And lots of 
times you don't know what's going to happen in the jury. I 
think the prosecution is in a little bit of trouble when you 
start figuring out what a jury is going to do. You have to look 
at this and in your heart if you feel this case has the merit 
to go forward it should and let the jury decide.
    Chairman Hyde. The question occurs on Article III. Oh, 
Mr.--Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Thank you. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. I 
would just like to spend a little bit of time examining this 
alleged, corrupt scheme to conceal evidence that the President 
allegedly engaged in. And I use the words ``corrupt scheme to 
conceal evidence'' because that, of course, is what is alleged 
in the articles of impeachment. And to do so, I would like to 
employ what I think was a noteworthy argument advanced by Mr. 
Barr just a couple of moments ago. And if I understand Mr. 
Barr's argument correctly, it essentially went that because the 
President is admittedly a smart, intelligent man, that it is 
appropriate to infer or use circumstantial evidence because 
naturally a smart, intelligent man would not create a chain of 
evidence that so directly establishes that he obstructed 
justice. I can buy that. That's a reasonable proposition.
    So let's apply that proposition to the allegations against 
the President. This smart, intelligent man, according to the 
President's accusers, arranged on December 28, earlier in the 
day, with a corrupt motive to retrieve allthe gifts that he 
gave to Monica Lewinsky. And this intelligent, smart man apparently was 
so taken by his incredibly wise retrieval of the gifts that he wanted 
to up the stakes later in the day. He gave her some more gifts. So 
earlier on December 28, the President with corrupt mind said, here, 
we're going to create this big scheme to take back the gifts. And that 
same intelligent man later on in the day, so taken with himself, said, 
here's some more gifts. I guess he just wanted to do it all over again 
in a couple of days so he could do that same corrupt scheme to get them 
back. It just doesn't make sense.
    And then let's look at the job quest, the so-called we're 
going to keep Monica on the team, I think it was explained by 
either Mr. Schippers or someone else. We've got to keep Monica 
on the team. We've got to get her a job. But of course they've 
got to get over one tremendous hurdle. The job search started 
long before Monica Lewinsky was ever on the witness list. So 
knowing that creatively, the President's accusers, they say, 
well, the job search itself wasn't an impeachable event. That 
wasn't corrupt. What was corrupt was when the President 
intensified the job search. The job search that started for 
months. Well, that was okay. It was just when he got serious 
about it, when he intensified it, it became impeachable. But 
this same smart man, this same intelligent man who apparently 
thought it was so important to keep Monica Lewinsky on the 
team, he never thought to get her a job at the White House like 
she wanted. How did he miss that one? So that's this 
intelligent man that concocted this extraordinary scheme to 
conceal evidence and get a job. But he forgot two things. He 
didn't conceal any evidence because he gave it back to her and 
he forgot to get her a job.
    Ladies and gentlemen, does anybody reasonably believe that 
this is what we impeach a president of the United States over? 
This is as circumstantial as it gets. This employs the ability 
of reading somebody's mind. And we have now concluded that in 
order to get us the impeachable evidence, this intelligent 
president, this intelligent president did some extraordinarily 
stupid things and that is now the basis of his obstruction of 
justice count.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McCollum. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We've 
heard a lot tonight about these seven parts of the obstruction 
of justice article. And I think it is important for us to keep 
in mind a couple of things. One, I wish, as one of the members 
of the other side had said earlier, that the record did show 
that all of this was made up. But unfortunately, it is not made 
up and nobody's made it up. It's before us and we have to deal 
with it. That's why we're here tonight.
    Secondly, I think it's important to remember that this is 
the article we discussed earlier in the day that originally 
came forward saying one or more of the following. There are 
seven of them. Not every one of them may rise to the same level 
of proof that the others do. The strict burden that we have to 
send something forward to trial, as has been stated tonight, is 
probable cause. I happen to think we need to have it a little 
higher than than most of us do and I think clear and convincing 
has been more or less the general standard most of us agree to. 
A couple of these seven I think go beyond that. I would say 
that I'm convinced from the evidence that we have before us 
that if I were on a jury, I'd convict the President beyond a 
reasonable doubt. But all of them are clear and convincing and 
surely to any reasonable person, there would be probable cause 
to take these to trial for crimes if you were going to take 
these to trial before a jury.
    Now, let's look at this. We're not surmising about this, as 
somebody said earlier. We're talking now about, yes, some 
circumstantial evidence. I don't know many crimes that are 
committed in this country that are taken to trial of any sort 
or type of which there is not circumstantial evidence. Most of 
them involve that. And a great many of them have only 
circumstantial evidence. There aren't too many cases of murder 
where you have the eyewitness, at least where you have a trial. 
Usually you have somebody who is going to plead to that one. 
Where you actually have to go to trial, you don't usually have 
the goods from the witness there. You have circumstantial 
evidence.
    What we have today is very compelling circumstantial 
evidence. We know the President of the United States was facing 
a lawsuit, a civil suit we talked about a lot tonight; sexual 
harassment, civil rights suit. He was worried about that suit, 
no doubt, and again, whether you agree with Paula Jones' right 
to bring the suit or whether or not he should have been 
required to testify, the courts ruled he did and he had to go 
forward and testify.
    Now, long before that came up and long before Monica 
Lewinsky was subpoenaed, we know that there was an agreement 
between the President and Monica Lewinsky that if they were 
ever asked, they would lie about their relationship. That's a 
fact. Certain period of time goes by. There is that famous call 
on the night of December 17, after the President learns Monica 
is on the witness list. And they have the discussion. That's 
very clear. And I think this is one of the strongest. It's the 
very first one of the seven obstruction of justice charges that 
are in this article. On that night they have this discussion 
about the fact she's going to be a witness and she's worried 
about it and she says to the President, what do I do about it? 
He suggests that she might file an affidavit. And in that 
discussion, he suggests she might use the cover stories which, 
by the way, form the basis of the second obstruction of justice 
charge. Well, you can always tell them that Betty is the reason 
you came down here and so forth. At any rate, both of them knew 
that night that it was going to be a false affidavit. It didn't 
have to be explicitly stated. They talked about cover stories 
that night and Monica Lewinsky said in a sworn statement to the 
grand jury when asked about all of this, when she did say of 
course that the President didn't tell me to lie, but he did 
suggest things that would lead me to believe that he expected 
we were going to. And she says, quote, it wasn't as if the 
President called me and said, you know, Monica, you're on the 
witness list, this is going to be really hard for us. We're 
going to have to tell the truth and be humiliated in front of 
the entire world about what we've done, which I probably would 
have fought him on, probably, that was different. And by him 
not calling me and saying that, you know, I knew what that 
meant, unquote. Now, that's what she's testified to and that's 
very consistent with the circumstances we're in here in this 
situation. So I'm convinced myself beyond a reasonable doubt 
and I think it would be pretty easy for a prosecutor to 
convince a jury thatthe President indeed obstructed justice 
with regard to suggesting this affidavit, expecting it to be false. But 
that isn't the end of the story. Moving very rapidly in that process, 
you know, on the 18th--I should say on the 19th of December--that was 
on the 17th--the President--I shouldn't say the President--Monica 
Lewinsky received a subpoena for the gifts that we've talked about. And 
in that subpoena was a very explicit request for any dresses or hat 
pins and so forth that the President might have given her, and it 
screamed out at me, she said, the hat pin which was the first gift that 
had been given to her. And so she then tries to make some contact with 
the President. He has indicated he wants to give her more gifts and 
finally after Christmas on December 28, she goes into a meeting with 
the President and has that meeting in which he is going to give her the 
Christmas gifts that so famous has been discussed. In that meeting, in 
that meeting, she says Mr. President, the hat pins here, this is a big 
problem. It's been subpoenaed. She's worried about it. Well, he says, 
you know, she says maybe I ought to give this to Betty Currie. Maybe we 
ought to give the gifts and package them up. He says, let me think 
about it, or words to that effect. That very day on December 28--Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for 3 additional 
minutes to wrap this up.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, the gentleman is 
recognized for 3 additional minutes.
    Mr. McCollum. Thank you. On December 28, again on that very 
same day that the President and Monica have this discussion 
where she gets the Christmas gifts and where she came to 
discuss this with the President about what do I do with the 
gifts, she goes home and Betty Currie calls her. Now, there's 
circumstances we discussed earlier about this but the fact is 
we have the record showing Betty Currie made a call on that 
date, despite all the other disputes, to Monica Lewinsky. And 
there's no question that she then picks up the gifts. Heavy 
circumstantial evidence, but I think it all fits into the big 
pattern, the big picture that's here. Time's passing. About 
this time, by the way, Vernon Jordan gets cooking looking for a 
job. He'd been asked by Monica Lewinsky a long time before all 
of this to look for a job. She suggested that to him a long 
time ago. Remember what Mr. Schippers told us about yesterday? 
We went through that whole sequence of events? But he really 
didn't do anything about it until, lo and behold, on January 7, 
she finally signs the affidavit which he's been aware of she's 
been preparing. She's been going around, talking with him a lot 
about the hat pin and so forth. Once she signs on January 7, lo 
and behold on January 8, just coincidentally, he calls Mr. 
Perlman at Revlon and she has a job. Bang, just like that. 
That's why the obstruction of justice charge is in here for 
that. The coincidences aren't coincidences. They're a pattern.
    On the 17th of January, the President testifies, the famous 
deposition over which we've already passed a perjury and 
articles of impeachment charges. And just after that, he calls 
Betty Currie. Remember, he had explicitly told her that--
explicitly said that she had things she could tell to the court 
in that deposition. So he calls her and has her come over the 
next day. That's when he reads off the litany that's in one of 
these obstruction of justice charges down there on the list. 
One, two, three, four. Now, some people say she was never a 
witness. I want to make the final point on this one, very 
important point and that is the courts have ruled that the 
solicitation of false testimony from a perspective witness may 
provide the basis for a conviction of obstruction of justice. 
In a court case I'm sitting here reading from, in federal 
circuit court, the defendant tried to induce to witnesses to 
provide a false alibi. Neither individual had been subpoenaed 
and neither had any intention of testifying. The court went on 
to say any corrupt behavior to influence any party or witness, 
whether successful or not in this situation constitutes 
obstruction of justice prohibited by the law. So whether Betty 
Currie was a witness or not a witness, the President certainly 
had reason to believe she was going to be. She was truly a 
prospective witness in that case, and I believe that is one of 
the most compelling beyond a reasonable doubt obstruction of 
justice charges that are in this particular article of 
impeachment, Article IV. And then after all of that, beyond 
that we know the President talked--Article III, excuse me--
beyond this the President went on to talk to his--two days 
later, and so forth, to his cabinet, to his White House aides 
telling them even bigger whoppers about his relationship with 
Monica Lewinsky than he had told to the court in the day or two 
before that.
    It's a picture that's wrapped up. I think it's clear. It's 
clear and convincing, Mr. Chairman, and I believe that Article 
III should go forward to the trial and we should pass that 
article of impeachment.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rothman. Thank you. I would like to step away from the 
lawyer minutia--you could call it other things--and try to put 
some of this in perspective. What is going on? What is going on 
here in the House Judiciary Committee? The Republican Majority 
is trying to impeach the sitting President of the United 
States. That is what is going on right now. They have already 
passed two articles of impeachment to impeach the sitting 
President of the United States. Now they are on Article Number 
III of impeachment.
    What does the Constitution have to say about this? The 
Constitution says that a President can only be removed on a 
showing of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and 
misdemeanors. It does not say that you can remove a president 
forbad behavior. It doesn't say you can remove a president for 
having bad character. Some of those ideas were thrown around in the 
1700s but were rejected by the drafters of the Constitution who said 
they wanted a strong presidency for 4 years. That is what has given our 
country stability for a long time, but we cannot remove our President 
whenever the Majority party in the Congress says so. The people say so 
every 4 years whether the President stays.
    They say the President committed impeachable offenses. I 
believe that anyone who wants to impeach the sitting President 
of the United States must bear the burden of proving it.
    Okay, so what is the appropriate burden of proof? Clear and 
convincing evidence. So who brought the proof? We had Judge 
Starr come forth, who was not an eyewitness to anything. He 
admitted that many times. We had Mr. Schippers come forth, who 
is a lawyer, who summarized his inferences and conclusions from 
transcripts of other people's testimony, people who were never 
cross-examined. So you had those bunch of lawyers bring the 
case for impeachment. Then you had another bunch of lawyers on 
the other side defending the President, Kendall, Ruff, and 
Lowell, who refuted and rebutted every single allegation of 
impeachable offense raised by the accusing set of lawyers. And 
that is what we have got. We had a bunch of historians say 
these would never be impeachable offenses. We had a bunch of 
Democratic and Republican former prosecutors who said none of 
these would be indictable. We would never indict for any of 
these. And then you have the American people who say, hey, we 
have heard this for a long time, all the details. We do not 
think this is impeachable. You know who was not before us? Not 
one single fact witness.
    So you have got all of this neutralizing lawyer talk. Some 
say he did it. Some say he did not. All arguing inference. Not 
one fact witness brought before us and they say we are 
convinced by a clear and convincing standard when all the 
lawyers disagreed with each other and not one fact witness came 
forth. Is that the basis on which we are going to overturn our 
last election of the presidency? For the third time in American 
history we are going to impeach a president without meeting the 
burden of proof? Some say, well, we have to uphold the rule of 
law. Well, what rule of law? If the President lied in a civil 
deposition, there are civil courts to enforce that. Maybe that 
is why he paid a $850,000 civil court settlement because he 
knew he would pay a big fine in the civil courts. They upheld 
the civil rule of law. The President can be sued in criminal 
court and he can go to prison once he leaves office if he 
committed perjury and any criminal offenses. So there the rule 
of law does apply to this President, just like every other 
American, but what we are talking about is not upholding the 
civil law or criminal law. We have got civil courts and 
criminal courts to do those. We are talking about whether the 
third punishment should be imposed, impeachment. But it is a 
punishment that is imposed upon the Nation, the people who 
elected this President, and I dare say where you have no one 
who came forth as a fact witness and have competing 
neutralizing lawyer talk to defend and rebut every allegation 
of impeachment and most Americans say it is not impeachable. 
Most historians say it is not impeachable. Most prosecutors say 
they would not prosecute, that they have not met the burden of 
proof.
    Now, I was there when the President waved his finger on TV 
at us and said he did not have sexual relations with Ms. 
Lewinsky and I have kids and I think lying is wrong and I teach 
my kids not to lie and that adulterous, wrongful behavior in my 
White House is wrong and I believe the President should be 
punished for lying to the American people. I do not need to 
hear from the eyewitnesses. I was an eyewitness to those 
offenses.
    So I would be willing to censure the President for what I 
know with my own eyes and ears took place and what he admitted 
to when he waved his finger at us and said no sexual relations 
and he wasn't under any civil deposition definition of sexual 
relations at that time. He was just talking to us on TV. He 
lied to us and he should be punished for that and censured for 
that as well as having an affair with the intern in the White 
House.
    But let us not forget that there has been no meeting of any 
reasonable burden of proof on any of the allegations, none of 
them, and they are about to approve the third article of 
impeachment against our sitting President for only the third 
time in American history. The American people must tell their 
representatives in Congress if they don't think this President 
should be impeached because no reasonable burden of proving his 
guilt has been established. They must stop what will be one of 
the saddest moments in American history from taking place, the 
removal of a sitting United States President with no reasonable 
proof.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Clear and convincing. Clear and convincing. Clear and 
convincing. We all agree that that's the standard that must be 
met. Paragraph number 6, on or about January 18 and January 21, 
1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading 
account of events relevant to a federal civil rights action 
brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding 
in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness. 
We're talking about Betty Currie. He's going to influence her 
in that proceeding. Never mind that the period of discovery is 
going to end several days from then and she's not on the 
witness list. Clear and convincing? I don't know.
    Let's look at the evidence. ``I was never really alone with 
Monica, right? You were always there when Monica was there, 
right? Monica came on to me and I never touched her, right? You 
could see and hear everything, right? She wanted to have sex 
with me and I cannot do that.'' Is that clear and convincing 
evidence that he was trying to influence her testimony in that 
proceeding? I don't think so.
    But there's more. It's not just that proof. You have to 
have some other proof. This is from Mr. Schippers' report. ``He 
made sure that this was a face-to-face meeting, not an 
impersonal telephone call. He made sure that no one else was 
present when he spoke to her. He made sure that he had the 
meeting in his office, an area where he was comfortable and 
could utilize its power and prestige to influence future 
testimony.'' Clear and convincing? He could have also said they 
met at the office, because that's what happened. They met at 
the office. He worked at the Oval Office. She worked outside. 
How often does the boss come out to the desk? Usually the boss 
says to the person, come on in. That's what usually happens. 
Clear and convincing? I don't know.
    But there's more. The President has an explanation for 
this. I thought we were going to be deluged by the press 
comments because we had entered the eye of the hurricane here.
    He had given his testimony in the deposition in the Paula 
Jones suit. Of course, as we all know and again as the report 
indicates, the President had an option. He could have said 
nothing. This is what Mr. Schippers says. He could abide by 
Judge Wright's order to remain silent and not divulge any 
details of his deposition.
    But it made a lot of sense. Presumably, of course, the 
other side is going to do the same. There would never be any 
leaks coming from the other side in the Paula Jones suit and so 
the President, the only motive he would have would be to 
influence her testimony in a lawsuit in which the discovery 
period was about to end.
    But the reality is the President knew what was going on. 
The President knew, even when he was taking that deposition, 
because he knew that his political opponents were paying for 
that lawsuit. He knew that. And he knew there were going to be 
leaks. Now maybe he was paranoid or maybe he wasn't.
    January 22, 1998, was a Thursday. NBC Nightly News 
transcript: ``NBC news has learned that the President did admit 
to sleeping with Gennifer Flowers in his Saturday statement to 
Jones' lawyers, but the President believes that does not 
constitute a long affair.''
    Now, how did that come out? How did that come out? I don't 
think the President did that. Did that come out from Paula 
Jones' side? Could it be possible that the President thought 
that he was going to be asked or Betty Currie was going to be 
asked questions about Monica Lewinsky? I think it's entirely 
possible. I think that he knew what was coming.
    And maybe he didn't. Maybe he did want her to lie. Maybe he 
wanted her to lie to the press. Maybe he wanted her to lie to 
the press because he didn't want the press to know that he had 
an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
    The Republicans would have you believe that that's clear 
and convincing evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, that is not 
clear and convincing evidence. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The Chair yields himself two minutes. I just want to say 
people watching this on television might get the wrong idea 
that we're--if we pass these articles of impeachment, we're 
throwing the President out of office. That's exactly not true.
    Mr. Barrett. Point of information or point of--if I could 
make a point.
    Chairman Hyde. Point of interruption? Go ahead.
    Mr. Barrett. Point of interruption. If I could just read, 
``Wherefore''--from the first article--``wherefore William 
Jefferson Clinton by such conduct warrants impeachment and 
trial and removal from office.''
    Chairman Hyde. You understand we don't do the trial in the 
House.
    Mr. Barrett. I understand that.
    Chairman Hyde. You understand the trial occurs in the other 
body.
    Mr. Barrett. I understand that.
    Chairman Hyde. What we do is we find whether there's enough 
evidence to warrant submission to the Senate, for them to 
conduct the trial and for them to impose whatever sanction they 
choose by a two-thirds vote. That's the process. And our 
Founding Fathers were very wise to have the accusatory body not 
be the adjudicatory body.
    You may leave the room.
    Chairman Hyde. Yes, Ms. Waters, what is it?
    Ms. Waters. I don't want you to be frightened when I want 
to engage you. I want you to stand up for what you believe in. 
Now let's talk.
    Chairman Hyde. I'm trying. I'm trying.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, I do not want you to use your 
awesome power to send a message to the citizens of this country 
that we're not involved in a most extraordinary effort that 
leads to the impeachment of the President of the United States 
of America. This is the significant part. You are getting the 
ball rolling here.
    Chairman Hyde. I'd like to take back my time. I get the 
gentlelady's message. I'm not saying what we do is 
insignificant. I think it is highly significant and portentous 
and requires great care and great study and great analysis, but 
I am suggesting to the gentlelady we do not conduct the trial. 
We merely decide whether there is enough evidence.
    Now we get on the question of evidence, and I've heard 
repeatedly, especially from the gentleman near the end of the 
first row, that they didn't have a chance to test the 
credibility of any witnesses. Well, we accepted 60,000 pages of 
transcripts, grand jury transcripts, depositions, statements 
under oath, all under oath. We accepted Monica Lewinsky's 
testimony because it was given under a grant of immunity that 
would be declared null and void if she lied. So we were willing 
to accept all of that testimony under oath and if the Democrats 
wanted to question it, why in the world didn't they invite 
these people up to testify under oath and undergo the withering 
cross-examination of several of your lawyers? Why--
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Please, let me finish.
    Mr. Nadler. I thought you were. I apologize.
    Chairman Hyde. I'm on a roll and as soon as I'm through--
why didn't you call them in for deposition? Why didn't you put 
them to the crucible of cross-examination? You had that 
opportunity, but you chose to bring us professors, historians 
and law deans, which is wonderful and entertaining and 
illuminating. But when you say that you didn't have a chance to 
test their credibility, that rings a little hollow.
    Mr. Rothman. Point of personal privilege.
    Chairman Hyde. I'll let you stretch it that far but I 
didn't mention your name.
    Mr. Rothman. Well, you meant me.
    Chairman Hyde. Well, I did mean you.
    Mr. Rothman. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to speak on this 
point of personal privilege. First of all, you keep saying 
60,000 documents. Well, the 60,000 documents were about civil 
deposition and grand jury testimony where nobody was cross-
examined there.
    I would like my point of personal privilege, Mr. Goodlatte.
    Chairman Hyde. We're nearing the end, folks. Let's take a 
deep breath. Go ahead.
    Mr. Rothman. Thank you very much. In my judgment what the 
Majority would have us do is put fairness and due process on 
its head. They want the accused, President Clinton, to prove 
his innocence. What they brought forth to prove the case 
against him are two lawyers, Judge Starr and Mr. Schippers, 
arguing inferences and conclusions from portions of transcripts 
of depositions and grand jury testimony.
    Chairman Hyde. I'm going to have to retrieve my time.
    Mr. Rothman. The Democrats responded with lawyer talk. They 
say that's----
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Rothman, may I regain my time?
    That's really not so. Those are--that testimony has been 
taken. It's under oath under penalty of perjury. I know the 
oath may be a matter of some question with some of us, but we 
think the oath is significant, and we were willing to accept 
that. And if you question it, you had every opportunity to do 
that.
    Now I swing to Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rothman. Mr. Chairman, I would say unreasonably 
accepted, a low burden of proof that didn't constitute----
    Chairman Hyde. That's your opinion.
    The gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your swinging my way.
    Mr. Chairman said he would swing to me.
    I do want to take serious issue with a profound point. I 
really do think we have a series of issues here. We will rejoin 
them later, but I didn't want to let it go undiscussed now.
    I was struck, Mr. Chairman, by your statement that we're 
not here throwing the President out. I must say, to the extent 
that I wasn't clear what the public perception is of what we're 
doing, I am inferring from your disavowal that this is as much 
as any Member of the House can do to get the President out of 
office, that there's some uneasiness about it.
    I have to say that I think it is a grave error 
constitutionally to denigrate what we are doing. Yes, it is 
true that, as a consequence of this, the President will not be 
instantly thrown out of office. It is also true that the only 
justification and basis for this proceeding and the only basis 
on which Members can honestly vote for these articles is the 
conviction that the President ought to be thrown out of office.
    I think there is a tendency that we've seen over the past 
few months to try to lighten up impeachment and to take as 
profound an instrument as can exist in a democratic society, 
the cancellation of an election by people not themselves 
electorate, and it has to be there from time to time, but to 
reduce its impact that way or at least to reduce our part in 
it, that's, I think, one of the most important philosophical 
differences between us.
    Chairman Hyde. I hear the gentleman, and it is a 
respectable point of view, but I thoroughly disagree with it. I 
think you denigrate the role of the Senate, which has the 
important adjudicatory role to weigh the evidence, to study 
what it wants and agree and disagree; and then our Founding 
Fathers made it extraordinarily difficult to eliminate a 
President from office by requiring a two-thirds vote.
    And that's why I have always said, unless this is done 
bipartisanly--and, tragically, there's no bipartisanship here--
but I'm hopeful if, if it gets to the Senate, there would be 
bipartisanship. But, absent that, there will be no----
    Mr. Meehan. God help other presidents, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Schumer. As somebody who doesn't want to denigrate the 
Senate probably more than anybody else on this committee----
    Chairman Hyde. I think it's a sad greeting to you as you 
come over there to a denigrated body.
    Mr. Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me just say--and I appreciate the Chairman yielding.
    Mr. Rogan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. Yes, you may.
    Charles, could you please?
    Mr. Schumer. Yes, my one minute.
    Chairman Hyde. Say what you want to say.
    Mr. Schumer. What I want to say is, I do just want to 
underscore, first, I do think, by the way, if, God forbid, this 
gets to the Senate, it will be bipartisan. There will be a 
bipartisan vote against removing the President, with a small 
number of Republicans voting for it.
    But my point is similar to Mr. Frank's. I was sitting in 
the anteroom there and, as somebody who has such respect for 
you, I was just shocked almost that you would, as we close this 
hearing, say, now, don't worry, folks. We're not getting rid of 
the President right here. When it seems that the Majority in 
all of these hearings and with these articles has endeavored to 
do everything it can to get rid of the President. So because 
you have a few more hurdles to overcome, please, to the public, 
it is perfectly clear, I hope, that should the mechanism, the 
very serious mechanism, used only twice in 200 years mechanism 
that the Chairman and his colleagues seek to unleash, if it 
rolls in the direction they seek, the President will be gone. 
That's what they want. That is indeed what they want.
    Chairman Hyde. Now, Senator, I have been very indulgent. 
We've had a seminar here. I think it's important for the public 
to understand the constitutional provisions of the function of 
the House and the function of the Senate which has been blurred 
over, and that is my point.
    Now, the gentleman from--Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Rogan. Mr. Chairman, I echo the comments of the chair a 
moment ago, when the chair discussed the importance of having 
the public understand this constitutional function. I, too, 
think that is our important role, and I think that is something 
that has been missing over these last days.
    We keep hearing about the sanctity of the election process 
to the Constitution, and I have no quarrel with that. But an 
election is not the only constitutional process that allows a 
President to assume and serve in office.
    The fact that a person is elected to the office of the 
presidency of the United States does not allow them 
automatically to assume that office. There is a prerequisite. 
Even after an election, the Constitution requires that, before 
the elected person may become the President, they must take an 
oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the 
United States. And even after that oath is taken, they still 
are not allowed to remain in office if that oath is violated, 
and the House finds that impeachable offenses have occurred, 
and the Senate acts to convict.
    The same Constitution that gives us the electoral process, 
that gives us the presidential oath, also gives us the process 
for removal of a President when they violate that oath, and it 
gives us the process of replacing that President with another 
popularly elected official, in this case, the Vice President.
    Dr. Larry Arnn has written on this subject, and I'd like to 
read for the record an excerpt of his recent writings on the 
points raised by the minority:
    ``A point has been made that it is a serious matter to 
overturn an election. True enough. But elections have no higher 
standing under our Constitution than the impeachment process. 
Both stem from provisions of the Constitution. The people elect 
the President to do a constitutional job. They act under the 
Constitution when they do it. At the same time, they elect a 
Congress to do a different constitutional job. The President 
swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. So does the 
Congress. Everyone concerned is acting in ways subordinate to 
the Constitution both in elections and in the impeachment 
process.
    If a President is guilty of acts justifying impeachment, 
then he, not the Congress, will have overturned the election. 
He will have acted in ways that betray the purpose of the 
election. He will have acted not as a constitutional 
representative, but as a monarch subversive of or above the 
law.
    If the great powers given the President are abused, then to 
impeach him defends not only the results of the election, but 
that higher thing of which elections are in service, namely, 
the preeminence of the Constitution as the institution under 
which we pursue the security of our rights. We are all 
subordinate to that.''
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman, I have a request for unanimous 
consent.
    Chairman Hyde. Yes, Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. I request unanimous consent to submit into the 
record an article from George magazine entitled, Sidney Strikes 
Again. This is an article about Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal. 
He has a controversial reputation for planting favorable 
Clinton stories in the press, helped the historians--that's the 
400 historians create the ad that recently got some publicity. 
So if I could submit that.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3324.065
    
    Chairman Hyde. I am going to go down the line. Mr. Berman. 
This is for unanimous consent request. What purpose do you seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Berman. To strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. You have already spoken, I am told.
    Mr. Berman. Not on this article. On Article I, I spoke.
    Chairman Hyde. We have it down that you spoke on Article 
III. Those are our records. Do you want to tell me after 
school?
    Mr. Berman. I would like to see clear and convincing 
evidence of that.
    Chairman Hyde. All right. Who else? For what purpose does 
Mr. Berman seek recognition?
    Mr. Berman. To strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. I am sorry----
    Mr. Berman. I am sorry, this is a factual dispute, but I am 
willing to go under oath. I have not spoken on Article III.
    Chairman Hyde. Go ahead. Take your 5 minutes.
    Mr. Berman. But I haven't spoken.
    Chairman Hyde. Well, we have mooted that question. We have 
mooted that.
    Mr. Berman. All right.
    Chairman Hyde. You may go as though you have not spoken.
    Mr. Berman. The Chairman said it like he was giving me a 
second 5 minutes. I just wanted to make sure we understand.
    My only point here is I think if the Chairman had said 
people understand by the result of the action we are taking 
today the President will not be removed from office, but I and 
all the others who are voting for these articles of impeachment 
want the President removed from office, are voting for a 
resolution which says that these articles warrant impeachment 
and trial and removal from office and a bar to office in the 
future, that that would have been a more accurate statement.
    I think we should get away from the notion that our 
decision should be based on some kind of prosecutorial probable 
cause, that we are just kicking it over to the Senate for a 
trial. I have heard a number of my colleagues on the other side 
say very sincerely that they do not consider their role as that 
of a grand jury, that they are applying the standard of clear 
and convincing evidence, and they believe that it justifies the 
impeachment, the conviction, the removal from office. That is 
what the resolution says, and I think that is the accurate 
conclusion to conclude from people's support of these articles 
of impeachment.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman. Who else is seeking 
recognition? Mr. Scott. For what purpose does the gentleman 
seek recognition?
    Mr. Scott. I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order 
for 2 minutes.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was astounded by some 
of what was said about our role. First of all, Mr. Chairman, 
the gentleman from New Jersey wasn't the only one that has been 
insisting on fact witnesses. We could not call fact witnesses 
because we did not know the allegations and the allegations 
that we knew were not impeachable. But the fact is that the 
record reflects that a motion was defeated on a party line vote 
that would have provided for fact witnesses to be called after 
the allegations had been ascertained. That motion was defeated 
on a party line vote.
    And look at the evidence we have got. We think it is 
``under oath,'' but the ``under oath'' only reflects answers to 
questions selected by prosecutors, answers not subject to 
cross-examination nor answers which were subject to any 
refuting by others.
    Mr. Chairman, the rule of law prevents us from doing what 
you are trying to do here by trying to remove the President 
from office. Most of the debate that the Founding Fathers 
participated in in setting the impeachment article in the 
Constitution, most of the debate was how to keep Congressfrom 
doing it. It was not how to get the President out of office. You had 
this provision, it would be too easy, that provision would be too easy. 
They ended up with treason, bribery and other high crimes and 
misdemeanors, a very high standard. In the words of the counsel, it is 
for traitors and felons, and not all felons would even qualify for 
that.
    So, Mr. Chairman, we are removing the President from 
office. The resolution is clear that wherever William Jefferson 
Clinton by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial and 
removal, that is what we are voting on, and people ought to be 
exactly clear of what is going on.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman. The question occurs 
on Article III. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, we are going to have a roll 
call.
    Mr. Conyers. I ask for a record vote.
    Chairman Hyde. The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
    Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCollum votes aye.
    Mr. Gekas.
    Mr. Gekas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas votes aye.
    Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble votes aye.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
    Mr. Canady.
    Mr. Canady. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Canady votes aye.
    Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis votes aye.
    Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte votes aye.
    Mr. Buyer.
    Mr. Buyer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Buyer votes aye.
    Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant.  Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bryant votes aye.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr votes aye.
    Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins votes aye.
    Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson votes aye.
    Mr. Pease.
    Mr. Pease. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pease votes aye.
    Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes aye.
    Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rogan votes aye.
    Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham votes aye.
    Mrs. Bono.
    Mrs. Bono. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bono votes aye.
    Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers votes no.
    Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank votes no.
    Mr. Schumer.
    Mr. Schumer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schumer votes no.
    Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman votes no.
    Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher.  No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher votes no.
    Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler votes no.
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott votes no.
    Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.
    Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters votes no.
    Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan votes no.
    Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt votes no.
    Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler votes no.
    Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rothman votes no.
    Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrett votes no.
    Mr. Hyde.
    Chairman Hyde. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde votes aye.
    Chairman Hyde. The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 21 ayes and 16 noes.
    Chairman Hyde. And the article is agreed to, and the 
committee stands in recess until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.
    [Whereupon, at 9:17 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

                              ----------                              


                      SATURDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1998

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:40 a.m., in Room 
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde 
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Henry J. Hyde, F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., Bill McCollum, George W. Gekas, Howard 
Coble, Lamar S. Smith, Elton Gallegly, Charles T. Canady, Bob 
Inglis, Bob Goodlatte, Stephen E. Buyer, Ed Bryant, Steve 
Chabot, Bob Barr, William L. Jenkins, Asa Hutchinson, Edward A. 
Pease, Christopher B. Cannon, James E. Rogan, Lindsey O. 
Graham, Mary Bono, John Conyers, Jr., Barney Frank, Charles E. 
Schumer, Howard L. Berman, Rick Boucher, Jerrold Nadler, Robert 
C. Scott, Melvin L. Watt, Zoe Lofgren, Sheila Jackson Lee, 
Maxine Waters, Martin T. Meehan, William D. Delahunt, Robert 
Wexler, Steven R. Rothman, and Thomas M. Barrett.
    Majority Staff Present: Thomas E. Mooney, Sr., general 
counsel-chief of staff; Jon W. Dudas, deputy general counsel-
staff director; Diana L. Schacht, deputy staff director-chief 
counsel; Daniel M. Freeman, parliamentarian-counsel; Joseph H. 
Gibson, chief counsel; Peter Levinson, counsel; Rick Filkins, 
counsel; Sharee M. Freeman, counsel; John F. Mautz, IV, 
counsel; William Moschella, counsel; Stephen Pinkos, counsel; 
Judy Wolvertan, staff assistant; Sheila F. Klein, executive 
assistant to general counsel-chief of staff; Annelie Weber, 
executive assistant to deputy general counsel-staff director; 
Samuel F. Stratman, press secretary; Rebecca S. Ward, officer 
manager; James B. Farr, financial clerk; Lynn Alcock, calendar 
clerk; Elizabeth Singleton, legislative correspondent; Sharon 
L. Hammersla, computer systems coordinator; Michele Manon, 
administrative assistant; Joseph McDonald, publications clerk; 
Shawn Friesen, staff assistant/clerk; Robert Jones, staff 
assistant; Ann Jemison, receptionist; Michael Connolly, 
communications assistant; Michelle Morgan, press secretary; and 
Patricia Katyoka, research assistant.
    Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law Staff 
Present: Ray Smietanka, chief counsel; Jim Harper, counsel; 
Susan Jensen-Conklin, counsel; and Audray L. Clement, staff 
assistant.
    Subcommittee on the Constitution Staff Present: John H. 
Ladd, chief counsel; Cathleen A. Cleaver, counsel; and Susana 
Gutierrez, clerk, research assistant.
    Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property Staff 
Present: Mitch Glazier, chief counsel; Blaine S. Merritt, 
counsel; Vince Garlock, counsel; Debra K. Laman; and Eunice 
Goldring, staff assistant.
    Subcommittee on Crime Staff Present: Paul J. McNulty, 
director of communications-chief counsel; Glenn R. Schmitt, 
counsel; Daniel J. Bryant, counsel; Nicole R. Nason, counsel; 
and Veronica Eligan, staff assistant.
    Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims Staff Present: 
George M. Fishman, chief counsel; Laura Baxter, counsel; Jim Y. 
Wilon, counsel; Cynthia Blackston, clerk; and Judy Knott, staff 
assistant.
    Majority Investigative Staff Present: David P. Schippers, 
chief investigative counsel; Susan Bogart, investigative 
counsel; Thomas M. Schippers, investigative counsel; Jeffrey 
Pavletic, investigative counsel; Charles F. Marino, counsel; 
John C. Kocoras, counsel; Diana L. Woznicki, investigator; 
Peter J. Wacks, investigator; Albert F. Tracy, investigator; 
Berle S. Littmann, investigator; Stephen P. Lynch, professional 
staff member; Nancy Ruggero-Tracy, office manager/coordinator; 
and Patrick O'Sullivan, staff assistant.
    Minority Staff Present: Julian Epstein, minority chief 
counsel-staff director; Perry Apelbaum, minority general 
counsel; Samara T. Ryder counsel; Brian P. Woolfolk, counsel; 
Henry Moniz, counsel; Robert Raben, minority counsel; Stephanie 
Peters, counsel; David Lachmann, counsel; Anita Johnson, 
executive assistant to minority chief counsel-staff director, 
and Dawn Burton, minority clerk.
    Minority Investigative Staff Present: Abbe D. Lowell, 
minority chief investigative counsel; Lis W. Wiehl, 
investigative counsel; Deborah L. Rhodes, investigative 
counsel; Kevin M. Simpson, investigative counsel; Stephen F. 
Reich, investigative counsel; Sampak P. Garg, investigative 
counsel; and Maria Reddick, minority clerk.
    Chairman Hyde. The committee will come to order.
    Good morning. A quorum being present and pursuant to 
notice, the committee will reconvene to complete consideration 
of a resolution exhibiting articles of impeachment. We will 
consider Article IV and, time permitting, we will consider a 
censure resolution after completing the articles of impeachment 
issue.
    Are there any amendments to Article IV?
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Gekas.
    Mr. Gekas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk which I hope the clerk will read.
    Chairman Hyde. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to House resolution blank, 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 the following:
    ``Authority of the legislative branch and the truth-seeking 
purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding, in that, as 
President, William Jefferson Clinton refused and failed to 
respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully 
made perjurious, false and misleading sworn statements in 
response to certain written requests for admission propounded 
to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the 
House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States. 
William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond 
and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, 
assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the 
exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the 
Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited 
contempt for the inquiry.''
    Page 10, line 18, strike ``In all of this'' and insert ``In 
doing this.''
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
    Mr. Gekas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The intent of this amendment is to delete paragraphs 1, 2 
and 3 from Article IV, and leave for our consideration--if this 
amendment be adopted, leave for our consideration the paragraph 
entitled 4, which has to do with the 81 questions. This foray 
on my part is focused on the question of executive privilege.
    The question of executive privilege has mixtures within it 
of separation-of-powers issues, of comity, C-O-M-I-T-Y, types 
of issues, balance and fairness; all the things that have 
swarmed around the consideration of the impeachment inquiry, 
and beyond.
    I have always valued the separation of powers and 
particularly with respect to executive privilege. I believe 
that we should very gently probe around the edges ofexecutive 
privilege no matter what we do as Members of Congress, and to accord 
the President of the United States that extraordinary way of conducting 
the business of the executive and, within certain parameters and 
boundaries, of course, to allow that executive branch to function 
within its own sphere.
    In the case at hand, we note that the assertion by the 
President of executive privilege, although he did it 
excessively and he can easily be criticized for perhaps the 
underlying purposes that we believe, many of us, prompted the 
assertion of the executive privilege; nevertheless, in doing 
so, he was simply uttering a privilege that was accorded to him 
and is accorded to him.
    I don't believe that the evidence that has been presented 
to us, nor the contents of the referral, give us the ability to 
second-guess the rationale behind the President or what was in 
his mind in asserting that executive privilege. We may have a 
good idea, and those of us who have become suspicious about 
some of the actions of the President would have a right to 
enhance those suspicions. Nevertheless, we ought to give, in my 
judgment and the judgment of many, the benefit of the doubt in 
the assertion of executive privilege.
    On top of that, we ought to recognize that there are two 
settings for the assertion of the executive privilege which 
come into play and which have come into play during this 
inquiry and the one that preceded us in 1974 against President 
Nixon, and that is the executive privilege that is asserted 
during a criminal investigation or a grand jury investigation, 
and the one asserted directly against Congress when the 
Congress makes certain requests or demands of the President of 
the United States. In either case, it seems to me that we ought 
to give the benefit of the doubt to the President.
    We also are buttressed in our thinking for asking for the 
deletion of the executive privilege section the testimony of 
the counsel for the President. In our questions and in his--and 
the answers thereto, plus his narrative, he was sure and 
certain in pointing out that in most of the executive privilege 
assertions by the President, he was advised by counsel. That 
ought to be taken into consideration by us.
    Secondly, in the cases that wound up in court, the 
executive privilege itself, the right to assert it, was 
sanctified and adopted by the court, permitted by the court, 
but it had to yield only when the court also decided that the 
case made by the Independent Counsel that the needs of the 
grand jury investigation superseded the privilege of the 
executive, then and only then, said counsel and the facts and 
the record do support that, then and only then would the 
executive privilege be surmounted.
    So putting all of this together----
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman be granted 5 additional minutes to complete his 
presentation.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Gekas. I thank the gentleman.
    There is another historic reason we should do this. We 
should be, even though we are, in the exercise of the 
impeachment power, reemphasizing the power of the Congress and 
the legislative branch, we ought to, while we are doing that, 
set down in history as well that we revere the office of the 
presidency and that we want future Presidents not to have to 
reinspect the record of these proceedings to determine whether 
or not they have the right to exert executive privilege. We 
want to sanctify today that we believe that future Presidents 
will be able, in looking back at these proceedings, recognize 
that their executive power--although impeached on the one hand, 
that the power of future elected chief executives to assert 
executive privilege shall not be curtailed.
    My colleagues on the Republican side have joined me over 
the period of time since I announced my intent to do this, and 
we have agreed to include in the removal from the text 
paragraphs 1 and 2 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, on what we intend to do in these 
impeachment proceedings, we offer this amendment. We feel just 
as strongly about leaving in number 4 as we do about deleting 
1, 2, and 3.
    With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 
Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in support of this 
amendment. I think that this is the appropriate thing to do. I 
think that no one should take from the decision to delete these 
three sections of the article our severe approbation about the 
actions of the President in regard to these sections. I believe 
that the allegations contained in them are all true.
    I believe the President of the United States did lie to the 
American people. I do believe that the President lied to 
Members of his Cabinet and others, and I think that he hoped 
that in doing so, they would carry forth his lies; and I think 
that is wrong as well.
    I do believe that the President has improperly exercised 
executive privilege. But I also don't believe that any of these 
three items are impeachable offenses, and as a result, I will 
support this amendment.
    With regard to the executive privilege, I believe that the 
President has improperly used executive privilege here. I do, 
however, think that the arguments set forth by his counsel, Mr. 
Ruff, bear some merit in his contention that the President was, 
in exercising executive privilege, attempting to narrow the 
scope of the requests for information submitted to him by the 
Independent Counsel, and that only after the judge, in 
reviewing that executive privilege request, ruled in that 
fashion did the scope of the request meet the terms. If there 
was public and private information, if there was information 
subject to executive privilege protection and information not 
subject to executive privilege protection taking place at the 
same meetings in the same documents, I think the President is 
entitled to exercise that.
    Secondly, while I think it is abused in this case, I think 
it is not at all uncommon for attorneys to exercise executive 
privilege on behalf of their clients. I think that was done in 
this case in several instances incorrectly, but I think the 
appropriate measure for that are sanctions by the court and not 
impeachment.
    I do, however, think that this committee should be 
outspoken in its condemnation of the misuse of executive 
privilege, because in some instances that executive privilege 
power has been exercised wrongly with the Congress in other 
regards, and it is important that we not allow a continuing 
erosion of the abuse of the executive privilege power.
    However, I think that the committee and the article are 
better served by removing these three provisions and going 
forward with what I think is clearly impeachable and 
reprehensible conduct, and that is the President's willful 
misrepresentation of the facts with regard to the answers to 
the President's--the President's answers to the 81 questions 
submitted by Mr. Hyde on behalf of the committee. Those answers 
were submitted under oath; a number of those answers are, in my 
opinion, lies and should be accepted by the committee as 
grounds for impeachment.
    I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
    Mr. Buyer. I do have a question for you. I also listened to 
Mr. Ruff. The President, though, seems to be letting the office 
of counsel sign these executive privileges for him. Would it be 
your assertion that not only now, but in particular, in the 
future that if a President of the United States is going to 
exert executive privilege, that it should be done so upon his 
own signature?
    Mr. Goodlatte. I think that is a special privilege reserved 
for the President of the United States, and the President of 
the United States, as with the signing of legislation submitted 
to him by the Congress, should sign directly those privileges. 
I agree with the gentleman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from New York, Mr. Schumer.
    Mr. Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have always felt that Article IV, the abuse of power 
parts of these articles of impeachment, was the greatest reach 
of all when there are lots of high reaches going on, or long 
reaches going on. The most absurd thing in this entire bill, in 
this entire bill of impeachment is to say that when the 
President speaks to the public or his Cabinet, quote, ``for the 
purposes of deceiving the people of the United States in order 
to continue concealing his misconduct,'' that that should be an 
article of impeachment. I think you could go down the list of 
every President of the United States from George Washington to 
the present and there would--if that article is significant 
enough for impeachment--if that reaches what many of us on this 
side of the aisle consider a high bar of impeachment, but I am 
afraid the majority does not consider it a very high bar--then 
you could find people of goodwill and total honesty feel that 
every President should be impeached under that article, every 
single one. And just go back and read the newspapers or read 
the histories and the Whigs may have thought that something 
Thomas Jefferson thought was totally honest was misleading to 
the public.
    So to me, if you want an archetype of what is wrong with 
this whole proceeding, you look at that article.
    Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, to his credit, has 
knocked out that article and the others like it in his 
amendment. I will address maybe the articles themselves when we 
go on to debate those. But he moves it from, not from the 
sublime to the ridiculous, from the very ridiculous to simply 
the ridiculous.
    This committee submitted 81 questions to the President. He 
knocks that part out, the part I mentioned. The committee 
submitted 81 questions to 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 
politically damaging to the President. But to say that the 
President's answers, not reaching a level of perjury, because 
that is not alleged here, should be grounds--is perjury 
alleged? Excuse me. Okay.
    Then to say that it is perjurious, to say that what the 
other side considers false statements, as the President seeks 
to defend himself before 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 not 
grounds for impeachment. I find it amazing.
    Then I would go back to the argument that the gentleman 
from New York and I made yesterday. What specifics? Which of 
the 81 questions rise to the level of impeachment? Do all of 
them? Do some of them? Does one of them? Is it a misplaced 
modifier or a comma that is out of place, or is it the whole 
article or something in between?
    The President has a right to know it. The House, when it 
votes 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 to know it. And again, there is just a lot of 
poorly drawn-together verbiage here saying, we want that man 
out.
    So I guess I have a question for the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania. Since he doesn't move to knock out all of Article 
IV, which I think he should, even given his other strongly held 
beliefs, which I respect, I would like to ask him, which of the 
81 questions are perjurious, false, and misleading and which 
are not? And if you just say, well, it is some of them, you are 
degrading this process; you are degrading, in my judgment, what 
the Founding Fathers put together when they put that 
magnificent document, the Constitution, together.
    This is not, I repeat, this is not a game. This is serious 
stuff, the most serious stuff that this committee has grappled 
with in the 16 years I have been a member of it; and to simply 
say--just to conclude my sentence, to simply say it is 
something in there that bothers us is not enough.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair yields himself 5 minutes.
    I want to make it very clear what we are doing here with 
this amendment. We are deleting the allegation in Article IV 
that the President made false and misleading public statements 
for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States. 
Not that we deny or doubt that 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 so many others that 
he made that were false and misleading under oath, we choose to 
emphasize the statements, the false statements made under oath, 
and to delete the others.
    Mr. Schumer. Would the gentleman yield for one question?
    Chairman Hyde. Yes.
    Mr. Schumer. Because I am--I mean, what I would ask the 
gentleman, in all due respect--and I have such tremendous 
respect for him and his fairness; I am glad you are deleting 
that. I have been making a point of that, many of us have, for 
a while. How the heck did it get put in to begin with?
    Chairman Hyde. Well, that's another topic for another 
seminar, but----
    Mr. Schumer. I will eagerly enroll in that class, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Very good.
    The other thing we are deleting are false and misleading 
statements made to White House aides, where the President lined 
up his Cabinet and said things to them, and they went out on 
the hustings and repeated them, which were patently untrue. We 
are taking that out; and the executive privilege assertions, we 
are taking that out. So that the only thing left in Article IV 
are false and misleading answers to the 81 questions. And the 
reason they are staying in is the answers were made under oath, 
and it is the significance of the oath that compels us to keep 
them in.
    Now, the gentleman asked which ones we are talking about 
and complaining of, and I will tell him now. The President did 
not respond completely or truthfully to requests for admission 
number 19. The President did not respond completely or 
truthfully to requests for admission 20. The President did not 
respond completely or truthfully to requests for admission 24. 
The President did not respond completely or truthfully to 
requests for admission numbers 26 and 27; also, number 34, 
number 42, number 43, numbers 52 and 53. Those are the ones we 
complain of, and we can amplify them if you wish, but for your 
information and in the interests of specificity, that is what 
we are talking about.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Nadler has another parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. Nadler. But which is the perjury?
    Chairman Hyde. Well, we maintain the statements were all 
false and misleading. Whether they were perjurious or not we 
don't feel is entirely relevant, because if they were false and 
misleading and made under oath, then they are actionable.
    I yield back the balance----
    Mr. Schumer. Will the Chairman yield for just a question?
    Chairman Hyde. I will yield for a question.
    Mr. Schumer. Now that this is just related to perjurious, 
false and misleading statements, why isn't this part of 
Article--I guess it would be Article I or II? Why is it a 
separate article? Now that the, quote, abuse of power parts of 
the amendment have been taken out that the President used 
government and abused his power, I don't think this would be 
called an abuse of power, even if one ascribed to the viewpoint 
of the gentleman.
    Chairman Hyde. Well, you can have that opinion, but this 
article stands as an assault on the Congress because of the 
false and misleading answers the President gave to Congress 
under oath. That is why it stands alone as an article. You 
could draft it differently, but it comes out the same.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman has 5 minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. First of all, let me point out that in answer 
to my last question, the Chairman said that various statements 
or answers, the President didn't respond completely or 
truthfully. There is a difference between completely and 
truthfully. If he didn't respond completely, that is not a lie 
under oath, it is not perjury. If he didn't respond truthfully, 
that would be a lie under oath or perjury, and so when we get 
to the main article and offer this amendment, I hope by then 
the Republican staff and the Chairman will be prepared to 
answer with specificity what the allegedly untruthful 
statements were for which this article of impeachment--not the 
incomplete, but the untruthful, because there is a very big 
difference there, and obviously we have to judge it.
    Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
showing some respect for the rule of law by recognizing that 
the use of a legal privilege is not illegal or impeachable by 
itself, a legal privilege, executive privilege. It is a legal 
privilege, is not illegal or impeachable by itself by 
introducing this amendment.
    Members of Congress have an absolute privilege contained in 
the speech and debate clause which protects the work of every 
Member of this committee from lawsuits and criminal prosecution 
stemming from the performance of our official duties. I am, 
however, very concerned at the cavalier attitude this committee 
has taken throughout this proceeding toward legal privileges, 
including executive privilege, the attorney-client privilege, 
which this committee, by a partisan vote, elected to disregard 
last week, or 2 weeks ago.
    Even the new language offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania still leaves in and still considers an impeachable 
offense the fact that the President didn't answer the 
Majority's 81 questions to the Majority's satisfaction, 
including such insulting and silly questions which boil down 
to, does the President admit or deny that he is the President. 
Which legal privileges will this committee attack next? The 
clergy-penitent privilege, the spousal privilege? This 
committee has opened a dangerous door, and----
    Chairman Hyde. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes, I will.
    Chairman Hyde. We have stricken that count. We are not 
attacking the assertion of privilege. Why are you consuming our 
time debating something that is not an issue?
    Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my time, the committee has stricken 
these counts, but the committee specifically voted down 
limitations--or rather voted down respecting the attorney-
client privilege in some of the subpoenas we issued 2 weeks 
ago.
    Mr. Frank. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes.
    Mr. Frank. I would just remind the Chairman, I know that 
the votes are never in doubt here, and the Chairman knows 
exactly what we are going to do, but we haven't done it yet. I 
think we ought to observe the proprieties. The Chairman just 
announced that we have stricken this. I would remind him that 
the formality of a vote of the committee, formality although it 
is, still has not occurred.
    Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman.
    Reclaiming my time, this committee has opened a few 
dangerous doors, and this amendment, while commendable in its 
purpose, does not fix the problem. The damage is not fixed, it 
is done, and we are still in this article even with the 
amendment alleging that the President, without being specific, 
perjured himself in answering the questions.
    I would also point out, although this doesn't affect the 
amendment, that the article that is still in here that the 
President allegedly didn't answer these questions that we 
propounded to him, these questions, as far as I am concerned, 
were illegitimate to start with. The President should haveand 
would have 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 out 
of his own mouth.
    They were an attempt to shift the burden of proof from the 
accusers having to prove guilt to shift the burden of proof to 
the accused having to prove innocence, and I don't think they 
should have been sent because I think they were improper, and I 
don't think there was anything perjurious or misleading or 
incomplete in the answers in any event. But the questions 
themselves were part of the committee's turning the entire 
process on its head and asking the President to prove his 
innocence rather than asking the accusers to bear a burden of 
proof of guilt.
    With that, I again commend the gentleman for his amendment, 
which I support, for changing the absolutely indefensible to 
the still absolutely indefensible, but on fewer grounds.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 
Coble.
    I wish the gentleman would yield very briefly to me?
    Mr. Coble. I will.
    Chairman Hyde. I just want to say to my friend from New 
York, if I could get my friend's attention, you talked about 
the President shouldn't even have answered these. Really, I 
think there is a duty for the President to cooperate with a 
committee of inquiry on articles of impeachment. We could have 
asked him to come in and testify. We thought we would submit 
written interrogatories, admit or deny, perfectly proper. You 
may disagree with the formulation of them, but the submission 
of them was perfectly proper, and everybody has a duty to 
cooperate, helping us get the information.
    So I think you protesteth too much.
    The gentleman from North Carolina.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I will be as brief as I can. 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 were trying to get rid 
of the President and being vengeful. We were accused of 
vengeance earlier in the week, and that is when I said folks 
can meet me in the parking lot. It is just unfortunate I have 
had several calls inviting me to the parking lot, but one 83-
year-old woman in Texas who said she was frail, said she would 
stand with me, so at least that is the good news.
    But we are not being vengeful. There is no lynch mob 
mentality over here, and for the benefit of the gentleman who 
said that last night, I have had knots in my gut all week 
because of this. I approached this, my friends, with a very 
heavy heart, and I will have knots in my gut next week when we 
cast votes. I don't take it lightly. I don't take it lightly at 
all. It is a hard chore for all of us, on that side as well as 
on this side.
    Many times they talk about polls, resisting the polls, 
ignoring the polls. I compare the knots in my gut this week 
with the knots I had in my gut when we addressed the Persian 
Gulf War. We dispatched men and women to address a problem that 
was not of their own making, and that was a heavy vote for me 
as well. But I did not accuse one of my colleagues who voted 
against that resolution for ignoring the polls. The polls, you 
will recall, were overwhelmingly in favor of our going to war.
    But I equate these two, and I do indeed approach both of 
them with a heavy heart, and I resent the fact that anyone on 
this committee would accuse a lynch mob mentality of taking 
hold on this side of this hearing room. It clearly is not true. 
We are doing it evenhandedly.
    My friend from Pennsylvania, I think, has taken another 
step to indicate ultimate fairness, and by the way, I support 
the gentleman's amendment. But I felt--or I would be remiss if 
I didn'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 an apology. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, I spent the last 2 years as the 
Ranking Member on the subcommittee chaired by the gentleman 
from North Carolina. I know him to be a man of conviction and 
integrity, and I am glad that he set the record straight, and I 
am glad not simply because he is entitled to reaffirm his 
integrity, but because, Mr. Chairman, frankly, I think his 
remarks stand in thoughtful contrast to your own remarks late 
last night.
    I believe that part of what has been happening, in fact, is 
an effort 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 to the Senate.
    There has been an extraordinary constitutional wrench. 
Impeachment, the most solemn duty of the House of 
Representatives after declaring war; impeachment, which is the 
absolutely essential first step for cancelling an election and 
throwing an elected President out of office; a resolution which 
says, in fact, that Bill Clinton has done bad things and should 
be thrown out of office, this is not sending to the Senate a 
questionnaire. This is a statement the President should be 
thrown out.
    So the gentleman from North Carolina's reference to the 
tension he feels is entirely appropriate. This is as much as 
anybody can do in this room to kick the President out and undo 
the last election. And to suggest otherwise, to suggest that 
this is merely some beginning of a process that is unclear, I 
think that degrades the constitutional process.
    We have had people say, oh, you can't censure the President 
and think it is meaningful because there will be no 
consequence. Well, what you are doing when you downgrade 
impeachment this way is, in fact, to make it into exactly what 
you say you are decrying, because there have been arguments 
made, and we know this, for political purposes to get votes on 
the floor; don't worry, we are going to impeach him, but it is 
not going to pass the Senate. Well, an impeachment in the House 
that doesn't pass the Senate has no more actual force than the 
censure you have decried, and in fact, the censure is a more 
rational way to censure. But that is why I was glad to hear the 
gentleman from North Carolina underline the gravity of this 
act.
    The gentleman from North Carolina is entirely right. We are 
not here simply serving as grand jurors to the Senate. We are 
not simply framing an issue for the Senate to deal with. We are 
not expressing no views on this and letting the Senate try it. 
We are beginning the process of throwing the President out of 
office. We are beginning the process of undoing the last 
election because Members in the Majorityfeel that the 
President's transgressions were so grave as to be one of those rare 
exceptions when you cancel the democratic outcome and say, no, you 
can't have it. And to try to downgrade that is a terrible horror.
    I think what is happening is the gentleman says people are 
ignoring the polls. No, people aren't ignoring the polls; they 
are trying to frame this issue to conform to the polls. There 
is clearly a desire to impeach the President, and what has 
become clear is that the public, infuriatingly to many on that 
side, infuriatingly to the media, the public simply hasn't 
changed its position that impeachment is wrong, and 
particularly that the President should not be thrown out.
    So what we have people now trying to do is to have their 
cake and eat it, too; to impeach the President and begin the 
process of expelling him while denying that that is what they 
are doing, because there are clearly Members in this body who 
have communicated that their voters, the people who voted for 
Bill Clinton, don't want them to throw Bill Clinton out. So 
what we have now is an orchestrated argument to say to them, 
well, don't worry, tell them that you just voted that way, but 
it is really not going to happen. In effect, what we are having 
people say is, we are going through the anguish the gentleman 
from North Carolina mentioned, we are grunting and groaning and 
fighting, but don't worry, the outcome is fixed.
    Mr. Chairman, I do not think it serves the Constitution, 
maybe it is the influence of Jesse Ventura, to treat 
impeachment as if it was professional wrestling, to tell people 
that all of this energy and all of this stress and all of this 
Sturm und Drang, in fact, don't worry about it, because we all 
know in the end it is not going to go anywhere.
    I think the gravity and anguish expressed by my friend from 
North Carolina is a far more appropriate description of what we 
are doing than an effort to try to make light of this and to 
act is if it is simply a way to express displeasure with Bill 
Clinton. If people want to do that, as many of us do, there is 
a way to do it. Twisting impeachment out of shape, and changing 
the meaning of what we do, and voting for a resolution, and 
then claiming you don't believe in the resolution because the 
resolution does not say, hey, Senate what do you think, the 
resolution says kick him out, that is a grave error.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Would the gentleman yield to me briefly?
    Mr. Smith. Of course I will, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. I am just unwilling to let Mr. Frank define 
the argument as he has, because I think he is absolutely wrong. 
I just want to agree with Barbara Jordan who made the point 
that the House accuses and the Senate judges.
    Now, I do not disagree with the significance of what we do. 
I don't want it bent out of shape. I think it is highly 
significant. It is the most significant thing we do, short of a 
declaration of war. But I also want to emphasize that ours is 
but a partial role in the drama of impeachment. The trial, 
which has been safeguarded by our Founding Fathers to require a 
two-thirds vote, is held in the other body, and it is our 
function under the Constitution and, as significant and solemn 
as it is, to decide if there is enough information, enough 
evidence, to warrant a trial in the Senate. That is the 
constitutional requirement, and that is what we are doing. In 
no way do we diminish or demean the significance, the 
weightiness of what we are doing. We are not twisting it out of 
shape. But you, sir, when you imply that we are kicking him out 
of office, go too far. That is not what the Constitution 
provides.
    I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield, the 
gentleman from Texas?
    Mr. Smith. I am sorry. I would prefer that the gentleman 
use time given to him by his colleagues because my time is 
being used up. I would like to follow up on the point that the 
Chairman has just made and augment it by saying this: that the 
individual to whom he referred, Barbara Jordan, then a 
Congresswoman from Texas and a Democratic member of the 
Judiciary Committee in 1974, was one of the most respected 
members of that committee at that time. And I want to read her 
exact words, because I think the views that she represented 
then represented the vast majority of the members of the 
Judiciary Committee at that time, and so far as I know have not 
been refuted by anyone on the Judiciary Committee this year.
    Barbara Jordan stated, quote: ``It is wrong, I suggest, it 
is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to 
assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment 
means that that member must be convinced that the President 
should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn't say 
that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check 
in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon 
the encroachment of the executive. In establishing the division 
between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the 
Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse, and to the 
other the right to judge, the framers of the Constitution were 
very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the 
same person.'' End quote.
    Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to go on and comment on the 
motion that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has made and say 
that I agree with his amendment, particularly as it relates to 
paragraph 3 of this article. I will have to say that the reason 
I think that the assertion of the various executive privileges 
by the President does not reach the level of impeachment in 
this instance is because the President, quite frankly, was 
acting just like a lawyer. He was, in fact, acting to delay, to 
stonewall, to postpone any way he could, what I think was a 
legitimate investigation of his activities. Nevertheless, as I 
said, I don't think it rises to the impeachment level.
    However, just as the President's being a lawyer in this 
instance is a mitigating factor, I think it is an aggravating 
factor when we consider the other articles of impeachment 
against the President; and I 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 and civilized and even 
democratic society. He knew, more than most, theimportance of 
saying an oath that required him to tell the whole truth and nothing 
but the truth.
    But the President, of course, was not just anybody. He had 
been a law professor in Arkansas; he had been an Attorney 
General of that State; and as President, he is the chief law 
enforcement officer of the United States. So in these other 
instances, in these other articles, and in the case of 
paragraph 4 of this very article, the fact that the President 
was a lawyer and knew better and was trained to know better, I 
think is an aggravating factor.
    Mr. Gekas. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be 
accorded another 1 minute.
    Mr. Smith. I appreciate the gentleman's offer. I don't 
think I need it. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman and Members, this does to some 
people begin to take on the appearance of a coup, and I am 
getting the calls into my office about that. It is frightening, 
it is staggering. This is not in a developing country. We are 
talking about a polite, paper-exchanging, voting process 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 is a 
perception that is coming into me from my constituents.
    We need to really think about where this is going, and I 
think that we have hit on a sensitive nerve when those who 
think that impeachment is just our narrow slot and that it is 
given a lateral pass over to the other body, and if two-thirds 
can make the grade, then he gets it, and if they don't, he 
won't. I think when we say that we are to remove him from 
office, that is as important a part as any in this process. I 
would think that censure may begin to look better and better to 
more and more Members of Congress.
    I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Frank. I thank the gentleman. I think we have seen some 
implicit bad history here. If my colleagues are to be believed, 
the trial of Andrew Johnson was a mere bump that had no real 
impact on history, because all that happened was the House sent 
it to the Senate and the Senate ultimately acquitted him.
    I disagree with those who say--and that includes Barbara 
Jordan who was a very able representative--who say that you 
ought to do something as solemn and as potentially disruptive 
to this country's ability to do business as impeachment if you 
don't think the President should be thrown out of office. Let 
me say, maybe I am wrong. It is not my impression that there is 
at this point a member on the other side who doesn't think the 
President should be thrown out of office. I have certainly 
gotten the impression from listening to them that the President 
ought to be thrown out of office. I think what we have are 
people who want to respond either personally or to some 
political impulse or for whatever reason, they want to throw 
the President out of office, but they don't want to own up to 
the political consequences of taking that position.
    It is true, by ourselves we can't throw him out of office. 
But you know what? As the House of Representatives by 
ourselves, we can't do anything. We can't pass a law. Nothing 
done in this House alone is final. When we are debating major 
legislation do we say oh, by the way, American people, don't 
take this one as if it is really an important thing; it is up 
to the Senate. We always need the concurrence of the Senate. 
The Senate can sometimes do things without us, like ratify a 
treaty or confirm someone, but nothing we do goes without the 
Senate.
    I have to say that I am struck at the incongruity, and I 
have to again allude to the gentleman from North Carolina. Why 
does he have knots in his stomach? Just because he is sending 
this over to the Senate to decide? He has knots in his stomach, 
as he courageously articulated, because he understands what we 
are doing. He understands that you are trying to undo the 
election. You are entitled to do that. You are entitled to say 
that Bill Clinton's transgressions, in your mind, are so bad 
that he should be thrown out of office.
    I don't think lying about a consensual sexual affair ought 
to do that. It does not seem to me that members are entitled to 
do everything within their constitutional power to impeach the 
President, to press for it, to lobby for votes, to do 
everything possible, and then disclaim responsibility for it.
    And the notion that we are simply here passing this along 
to the Senate is not good constitutional theory, it is not good 
law, it is not good political science. It may just be a good 
lobbying strategy for the floor. It may be that there are 
Members who are unwilling to vote for this unless they can tell 
their constituents, well, don't take it too seriously, it isn't 
really going to happen. But I think that is a very grave 
misstatement of what the stakes are in this issue.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, to me, the shell game continues 
from last evening, at a slightly higher level, but not much. So 
we are still in the same quandary.
    I worry about this House of Representatives that cannot 
find enough Members to come to the midground of censure if they 
cannot turn this impeachment process away entirely.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Ranking 
Member be given an additional 2 minutes, so that I might ask 
him to yield to me.
    Chairman Hyde. Well, is there any objection? Hearing none, 
the gentleman from Michigan is recognized.
    Mr. Conyers. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman. I think it is quite 
comforting of my colleague from Texas to have cited 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 and his high ministers to somehow be called into 
account. It is designed to bridle the executive if he engages 
in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest 
into public men. The framers can find in the Congress the 
power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a 
delicate balance between a President swollen with power and 
grown tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the 
executive. The nature of impeachment is a narrowly channeled 
exception to the separation of powers maxim. The Federal 
Convention of 1787 said that. It is limited to high crimes and 
misdemeanors and discounted and opposes the term 
`maladministration.' It is said to be used only for great 
misdemeanors.''
    And I believe that Ms. Jordan understood the difference, 
and would, of 1974 and 1998.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I am really very disturbed 
at some of the debate that I have just heard. The gentleman 
from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, seems to state that these 
proceedings are somewhat akin to a coup, and that is anything 
but the case. The framers of the Constitution put the 
impeachment clauses into that document as a way of looking into 
the conduct of members of the executive and the judicial 
branches. There can be a legitimate difference of opinion in 
whether the President has engaged in impeachable activity, but 
I think that every member of this committee, Democrat and 
Republican alike, has approached this very grave responsibility 
with the thoughtfulness and the seriousness that the framers of 
the Constitution intended to have take place when allegations 
like this arise.
    Impeachment is not removal. The Senate is given the 
responsibility under the Constitution of making the 
determination on whether an official is to be removed from 
office, after a full trial where both the House managers and 
the defense are able to call all of the witnesses they want and 
to make their arguments to the Senate. So what we are doing 
here is making a determination that the offenses that the 
President is accused of are serious enough to warrant a trial 
in the Senate on that issue.
    Now, should the Senate decide to remove the President from 
office--we are a long ways away from that--Mr. Gore will become 
President. Mr. Gore is a man of very similar views to Mr. 
Clinton, and the President and the Vice President have bragged 
about how well they get along and how much they agree. So there 
is not going to be an abrupt change in the policies that the 
President of the United States advances, whether that President 
be Mr. Clinton or the President be Mr. Gore. And I think the 
same thing could have been said back 24 years ago when Richard 
Nixon ended up getting himself in trouble. The policies that 
Gerald Ford advanced were not dissimilar to those that Richard 
Nixon advanced. There wasn't an abrupt change in control of the 
Oval Office. The President and the Vice President are intended 
to work together.
    So I think that merely by utilizing the processes that the 
Constitution sets forth is the proper move. It is something 
that certainly should be used, but used sparingly, and I think 
that here, at least those of us who have supported articles of 
impeachment, think that there is evidence to indicate that 
President Clinton abused his office and committed high crimes 
and misdemeanors.
    Now, I do want to talk about the amendment which is the 
pending question with the committee. The fact that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania has introduced an amendment, which 
I support, to delete 3 of the 4 charges of abuse of power, that 
is, of wrongly advancing executive privilege, lying to the 
public, and lying to his Cabinet and staff, shows that those of 
us on this side of the aisle are approaching this matter with 
thoughtfulness. I have concluded personally that there is no 
evidence to sustain a charge that the President has committed 
impeachable activity in these three particular areas. I do 
think he has in the fourth, but that is not the question yet 
until we dispose of the amendment.
    So certainly what we are doing now shows that the Majority 
party, the Republican Party on this committee, is prepared to 
meet the White House halfway, and to show that when we don't 
think that there is evidence to sustain a charge of impeachment 
in the three areas I have mentioned, we are prepared to amend 
the draft articles of impeachment to delete them.
    Now I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant, 
who has asked me to yield to him.
    Mr. Bryant. I thank my friend from Wisconsin. I, too, want 
to just comment quickly about the analogy of a coup, a 
political coup. This is the orderly process of the Constitution 
at work, not military troops running about the streets, not a 
different regime seizing power. As my friend from Wisconsin 
said, we move the Vice President there, and in the interest of 
time, I will elaborate on this later, and I yield back.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman 
from Wisconsin described what many of us think is going on in 
this particular amendment, setting up a strawman in order to 
tear it down. It must have been a very, very interesting caucus 
that the Majority had to conclude that articles which they 
spent a great deal of time formulating all of a sudden were 
defective in substantial part and needed to be changed through 
an amendment. It is an orchestrated dance to create an illusion 
of reasonability that I don't think people should fall for.
    Mr. Gekas. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman 
from California yield? There is a kind of an aspersion there 
that I think has to be clarified. Kind of.
    Mr. Berman. It is not an aspersion, it is a commentary an 
analysis. Of course I yield.
    Mr. Gekas. The gentleman from California should know that 
the first utterance I made in this proceeding when it began a 
couple of months ago was my dissatisfaction----
    Mr. Berman. Absolutely.
    Mr. Gekas. Well, then how----
    Mr. Berman. Absolutely. And to reclaim my time, what about 
the gentleman's utterance, which made so much sense when he 
first uttered it, all of a sudden took hold on your colleagues 
on that side to get them all to join and remove something?
    Mr. Gekas. It is my persuasive powers.
    Mr. Berman. Well, they are slow-building, but effective 
when they finally take hold.
    The two points I would like to make on this time, though, 
are first just a point of clarification for us. The language in 
the Gekas amendment, as I understand it, is more or less the 
same language in paragraph 4 of Article IV; isn't that correct?
    Mr. Gekas. That is correct.
    Mr. Berman. And so, in effect, this amendment is really, 
even though it asserts a lot of wordage, is essentially just an 
amendment to strike paragraphs 1, 2, and 3; is that correct?
    Mr. Gekas. If the gentleman would yield, that is correct. 
That is not an aspersion.
    Mr. Berman. No, no, there was no aspersions ever meant to 
be cast at you.
    So we are not voting to add some additionallanguage, we 
would be voting to delete it. I thank the gentleman, and I am going to 
support his amendment.
    Just one final point I want to make, though. Yes, the 
action of this committee, and if it is the same, the action on 
the House floor, does not remove the President from office. But 
as much respect as I have for Barbara Jordan or whatever words 
of Barbara Jordan the Majority chooses to utilize in some cases 
and disregard in others, the fact is the language of this 
proposal trumps anything else. You had the ability to cast it 
any way you wanted to. You alleged that if these things 
happened, these are the conclusions we should draw from it, and 
therefore the President should be removed from office.
    Everyone who votes for this, votes to remove the President 
from office. Things may come up later in a Senate trial that 
cause people to change their minds, but at this particular 
point in time, it is a vote to remove the President from 
office.
    Mr. Barrett. I want to echo that point, and then I may ask 
for an additional minute to do so.
    The Constitution gives the House of Representatives one 
function in this process, to impeach the President of the 
United States. The document before us tells us what we are 
voting on. Wherefor, William Jefferson Clinton, by such 
conduct, warrants impeachment. If we were fulfilling our role, 
there would be a period there.
    The Constitution gives the Senate three functions. It gives 
the Senate the power to have the trial, to decide whether to 
remove him from office, and to decide whether he should be able 
ever to hold office again. These articles of impeachment say 
that the conduct warrants three different decisions that the 
Senate can make. It warrants trial. It warrants removal from 
office. That is what these articles say. And most amazingly, 
these articles of impeachment go beyond the articles of 
impeachment of Richard Nixon because that is where the articles 
of impeachment for Richard Nixon end. We go a step further here 
and say that this conduct warrants disqualification to hold and 
enjoy an office of honor, trust or profit under the United 
States. That is another decision that the Senate makes.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum.
    Would the gentleman yield to me briefly?
    Mr. McCollum. I would be delighted to yield.
    Chairman Hyde. I would just like to point out to my 
constitutional friends that the language in the articles before 
us cannot trump the Constitution. It can't add nor can it 
detract from the constitutional powers that are reserved to the 
House and reserved to the Senate. So much as we might use 
precatory language or any kind of language, the Constitution 
still is overall and transcendent and will determine.
    I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think what we are discussing today is exceedingly 
important, and we have to understand that indeed the Senate 
does try this if we send it over there--they could choose not 
to; I believe they would. I think we have to assume, once we 
send it out of the House, he may be impeached, but there is no 
guarantee of that.
    Those on this side who voted for the articles of 
impeachment, I am quite sure, and they must be quite sure that 
in their minds there is at least clear and convincing evidence 
that the President committed impeachable offenses for which the 
Senate has the power and should be given the opportunity to 
remove.
    I have studied the Constitution, and I am convinced if the 
Senate convicted the President, they would not have to remove 
him. And if they did not chose to remove him, they could still 
punish him in one other way and that is to disable him from 
holding further offices in the future, such as John Quincy 
Adams.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield? Did the gentleman say 
that the Senate could convict and not remove?
    Mr. McCollum. That is exactly what I said.
    Reclaiming my time, I did say that the Senate could convict 
and not remove. There is nothing mandatory in the 
constitutional language that says that.
    Now, however, saying all of that, I want to come back to 
the issue at hand. The amendment before us strikes three of 
these articles, and I don't think that they are three 
insignificant portions of this article, three paragraphs of 
this article. The first one is about the President lying to the 
public. Now, I don't think that we should go forward and 
impeach the President for his speech before the American public 
telling us lies, but I want you to know that in the Watergate 
hearings, the conclusion was to do exactly that. So we are 
doing something less than what was done with Richard Nixon.
    With regard to executive privilege, I don't think that 
there is any question that the President abused executive 
privilege here, because it can only be used to protect official 
functions. And in case after case, from Bruce Lindsey all of 
the way through, the witnesses who were called before the grand 
jury who were White House aides were not asserting executive 
privilege to protect the government's official business; they 
were asserting it in order to protect and keep private matters 
that concerned the personal conduct of the President in the 
matters we have been discussing here.
    However, I am not going to object. We are going to go 
forward with this, and we shouldn't get into that; that doesn't 
need to be an article of impeachment. The other matters that 
are here are far graver than that--the perjury, the obstruction 
of justice and the things that we have voted upon.
    But in the Nixon Watergate proceedings there was an article 
of impeachment for abusing executive privilege. So we should 
understand that we are moving in a way and 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 
that we are going to delete from this by the motion of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, in terms of what the President did 
here, it is clear that on or around the 21st of January, after 
giving his deposition, he told a lot of very stretched stories 
to his staff, to his aides, to the people around him. And I 
know some can say that he just did it--he told bigger whoppers, 
as I said yesterday evening, than he did in thetestimony 
officially where he perjured himself, and I am quite sure that he 
expected them to go out and repeat them, and they did in many cases; 
and as the gentleman from South Carolina pointed out, to Monica 
Lewinsky. There was a tactic that appeared at one point that they were 
going to cast aspersions upon her, and then they retreated from that.
    We are deleting all of those, and I agree with that, and so 
we are left with an abuse of power by the President of the 
United States with respect to the provisions of what he did and 
said and lied to us, I think, in answering the admissions. And 
some have said on the other side that there is nothing to these 
admissions that rises to the level of anything impeachable--and 
I am about to have my time run out.
    I would like two additional minutes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection.
    Mr. McCollum. Thank you. With respect to--one I am very 
concerned about is with respect to the request for admission 
34. The President was asked to admit or deny if he had any 
knowledge that any facts or assertions contained in the 
affidavit executed by Monica Lewinsky were not true.
    The President said, ``I was asked at my deposition''--these 
are in answers to the admission--``in January about two 
paragraphs of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit. With respect to the 
paragraph 6, I explained the extent to which I was able to test 
the accuracy. With respect to the paragraph 8, I stated in my 
deposition that it was true.''
    And then he goes on to say, ``I sought to explain the basis 
for the answer. I believe at the time she filled out this 
affidavit, if she believed that the definition of sexual 
relationship was two people having intercourse, then this is 
accurate.''
    Well, we have debated the whole portion of her affidavit 
where she says, ``I never had a sexual relationship with the 
President. He did not propose that we have a sexual 
relationship.''
    I think most of us understand that debate. I don't believe 
that it is true. I think it is a perjurious affidavit on that 
point. But, even if you don't agree with that, the President, 
in his answers to admissions, also said the affidavit in 
paragraph 8 was true, where Monica Lewinsky said, ``The 
occasions where I saw the President after I left my employment 
at the White House in April 1996 were official receptions, 
formal functions or events related to the U.S. Department of 
Defense where I was working at the time. There were other 
people present on those occasions.''
    The fact of the matter is that this was absolutely 
perjurious. The President knew this and Monica Lewinsky knew 
that. The President knew that when he answered that affidavit--
and he has committed another perjurious act by doing so, in 
this case to Congress--it is serious and grave, and it is 
appropriate that it be cited as part of an article of 
impeachment for abuse of power.
    I encourage the adoption of the amendment by Mr. Gekas and 
adoption of Article IV as amended.
    Mr. Schumer. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the 
gentleman be given 2 additional minutes so I might ask him a 
question.
    Mr. McCollum. If it is to respond to----
    Mr. Schumer. Thank you.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Schumer. Thank you.
    There are two points that leap at my credulity, number one, 
that the Senate could impeach the President, go through the 
trial and then vote to vote for these articles but not remove 
him from office.
    My first question to the gentleman is: What penalty, if 
any, does he feel would occur? I don't see any that is 
constitutionally mandated, and then we are saying that this 
should be a show trial. It is in line with what the chairman 
said last night, ``Well, the Senate doesn't have to vote to 
convict him.''
    Both of those statements reveal that even on the majority 
side people are saying, ``Well, wait a minute, let's understand 
the magnitude of what we are doing here.'' So I would ask the 
gentleman what other penalties he would have in mind.
    The second point is, he said, ``Just like in Watergate, 
there was an abuse of power charge.'' I have never heard that 
type of argument win in a courtroom. Yes, there was abuse of 
power, using the IRS, using the CIA and other organizations of 
government to go after individuals that President Nixon didn't 
like. How can the gentleman compare--just because it says abuse 
of power, how can he compare the abuse of power charges in 
Watergate to this abuse of power charge, which is simply, 
again, perjurious testimony about an----
    Mr. McCollum. If I may reclaim my time and ask unanimous 
consent for 1 additional minute.
    Chairman Hyde. I will grant the additional minute if Mr. 
Schumer will answer a question from me.
    Mr. Schumer. Yes.
    Chairman Hyde. When are you going to get sworn in in the 
other body?
    Mr. Schumer. Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, when we come to a 
conclusion that the Senate will not have to spend its first 6 
months doing the same thing that we are doing here.
    Chairman Hyde. That answer will be stricken from the 
record.
    You may have an additional minute.
    Mr. McCollum. Thank you.
    Article I, section 3, of the Constitution in regards to 
impeachment reads, ``Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not 
extend further than to removal from office and disqualification 
to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under 
the United States.'' Shall not extend further than, I think 
that is very clear, you don't have to go that far. So the 
reality is that they can convict.
    Mr. Schumer. If the gentleman would yield, what penalty 
does he have in mind?
    Mr. McCollum. There doesn't have to be a penalty other than 
conviction or there could simply be the impeachment and no 
trial in the Senate if the Senate didn't choose to.
    Now, if I might continue one last point, with regard to the 
executive privilege question, there certainly is an abuse of 
power here, I think, very clearly with respect to the answers 
to these admissions; and however you want to frame it, as the 
chairman said earlier, we could have done it as another perjury 
article if we wanted to, perjury to Congress, but I think it is 
an abuse of power. It is perfectly appropriate to label it 
that.
    That is what we are left with in this article. And having 
gone through the one example that I gave you, there are other 
examples that he did lie in his answers to us. He did mislead 
us, and he did commit perjury.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. Thank you. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to address the 
notion that the House accuses and the Senate convicts and say 
that the House's power to impeach a sitting President of the 
United States is not a free pass. There is a burden of proof 
that has to be met, and there will be significant negative 
consequences to our constitutional form of government if 
impeachment occurs under the wrong circumstances and without 
just cause.
    The House cannot just impeach a President because the 
majority party in Congress decides that they want to change a 
vote of the people. There has to be proof by clear and 
convincing evidence that treason, bribery, or other high crimes 
and misdemeanors have occurred.
    Boy, my time went really fast. I hope that the clock will 
be fixed.
    Chairman Hyde. I think we probably had it on 2 minutes. 
Forgive me. We will give you some more time.
    Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    So it is not a free pass; they have to prove high crimes 
and misdemeanors. And we discussed at length in the last 
several days why, in my opinion and in the opinion of most 
Americans, no clear and convincing evidence has been produced 
to convict this President and send this matter for trial in the 
Senate.
    But when you say we are just impeaching and we will go for 
trial in the Senate, some people say, ``What is so bad about 
that?'' We will find out. Do you remember President Andrew 
Johnson, whom the House impeached, and the Senate did not find 
guilty? There was an effect on the presidency of the United 
States for decades after that.
    Now, you know, some of my colleagues on the Republican side 
of the aisle said, if we just impeach him in the House, that 
will send a message to future Presidents that you cannot behave 
in such a way as they feel is wrongful. I think the President's 
behavior is wrongful and should be censured for the things that 
we know that he did, and he admitted to, but there will be a 
devastating effect on the next President of the United States 
and the President after that and the President after that.
    When the people of the United States elect a President, if 
the Republican majority gets its way in this committee and in 
the House of Representatives, the next President and the 
President after that and the President after that are going to 
be looking over their shoulder every time they make a 
controversial decision if they are a member of a different 
party than the majority party in the Congress. They are going 
to wonder if they veto a bill that the majority in the Congress 
doesn't like, is the majority of Congress going to invest $40 
million in an investigation and try to come up with something 
so that they can impeach them so that the majority of the 
Judiciary Committee can say, well, we will just see if it gets 
conviction in the Senate. It will have a devastating, chilling 
effect on the next President of the United States. History 
tells us that with what happened with President Andrew Johnson, 
and that will be a terrible thing.
    The Founders of our Constitution rejected using impeachment 
for failure to live up to good behavior or narrow 
administration. They set the bar for impeachment by the House 
very high. It has not been met.
    The people of America must let their Representatives know 
there is a danger to our Republic and to the future holders of 
the office of the presidency if the House impeaches the 
President, even if they say that it is just to pass it on for a 
trial.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Rogan. Would the Chair recognize me for a unanimous 
consent request?
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Rogan. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute 
so I may propose a question to my friend from New Jersey.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Rogan. I would ask my friend from New Jersey about his 
comments a moment ago. He just told the committee, as well as 
the American people, that some of his friends on the Republican 
side have taken the position that it is appropriate to vote for 
impeachment just because it sends a message. It would be quite 
an indictment against a member to suggest that members of my 
party in Congress are minimizing their constitutional role.
    Ms. Waters. They are.
    Mr. Rogan. Would the gentleman be kind enough to identify 
by name those Republicans who have taken that position?
    Mr. Rothman. You know, there have been so many, it is hard 
to remember who told me that, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogan. I would request as much time for the gentleman 
as necessary so my friend can identify them.
    Mr. Rothman. I will give you a complete answer.
    There have been many, many people who have said to me, 
``You know, Steve, why don't you just have an impeachment?'' 
They are members on the other side of the aisle, and it has 
occurred behind the scenes, off the road, in the cloakrooms, 
where they said, ``Well, we are going to move this on. I feel 
strongly about it.''
    I do not denigrate the motives of any member on the other 
side of the aisle in making their votes. I never have, I never 
will. I believe you make your judgments based on your opinion 
as to what is the right thing to do.
    I just feel your opinion about what the right thing to do 
is fundamentally wrong and a great danger to our country, but I 
do not denigrate your belief that it is the right thing to do. 
But that does not stop us from the need to prevent something 
terrible from happening.
    Mr. Rogan. I reclaim my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The Chair would very much like to get to a 
vote on the amendment. We have discussed everything from 
aardvark to Zimbabwe without concentrating on the amendment.
    I will get to you, Ms. Jackson Lee, but I must move to the 
Republican side now, and so Mr. Canady is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Canady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I assume that it 
wouldn't be out of order to express my support for the 
amendment. Most of the discussion that we have had hasn't 
directly related to the amendment, but I would at least like to 
say that I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania has offered an 
amendment that should be adopted by the committee and one which 
I will support.
    I do want to respond to some of the statements that have 
been made this morning concerning the issue before us.
    Now, the point was just made if we move forward and impeach 
the President, that future Presidents will be looking over 
their shoulder. This will have some sort of chilling effect on 
the institution of the presidency.
    Well, I will say that I believe the only--there is an 
element of truth in that. I believe that if we move forward 
with this impeachment, future Presidents who engage in a course 
of conduct designed to obstruct justice, who lie repeatedly 
under oath, will be looking over their shoulder. And I would 
like for them to be looking over their shoulder; they should 
take pause before they think about engaging in such conduct.
    It has also been argued that it was unfair for us to even 
ask the President any questions in this inquiry, and that we 
are somehow guilty of misconduct because we dared to ask the 
President questions about his misconduct. We are accused of 
somehow being out of line because we expected and required that 
the President answer our questions in a truthful manner.
    Now, Mr. Schumer has said the President answered the 
questions as he saw fit. I agree with the gentleman from New 
York. The President did answer the questions as he saw fit. He 
answered not only our questions as he saw fit, he answered the 
questions in the deposition in January as he saw fit. He 
answered the questions before the grand jury as he saw fit. The 
problem is this: He saw fit to lie. He saw fit to lie in the 
deposition. He saw fit to lie before the grand jury. He saw fit 
to lie finally in his answers to our questions.
    Now, that is the serious matter that is before us, and that 
is a matter from which we cannot turn away as though it is 
something trivial. It is not trivial. It is serious. And it 
shows an amazing lack of respect not only for the truth, but 
for the system of justice and ultimately for this inquiry.
    Now, when the President answered the questions that we 
propounded to him, he was not responding as a private citizen, 
and that is why I think having a separate article that focuses 
on his false answers to the questions propounded to him in this 
inquiry make sense. When he answered those questions, he 
answered as President of the United States. And he did so in a 
way that evidenced his continuing lack of respect for the 
truth, lack of respect for the dignity of his office and lack 
of respect for the oath that he took when he swore to tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
    Mr. Schumer. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Canady. The gentleman from New York has probably had 
more time this morning than any other member of the committee.
    I simply believe that we have a responsibility to focus on 
the facts that are before us. And when I saw the President's 
answers to these questions, quite frankly I was astounded. I 
have to tell you I was also astounded when I saw the 
President's statement yesterday.
    After all this, we still cannot get an honest acceptance of 
responsibility for breaking the law, for lying under oath. I am 
not saying that would make the matter go away even if the 
President admitted that. I think it has gone too far for that. 
I don't think that you just accept an apology for such a course 
of conduct.
    But at this point the President still cannot reconcile 
himself to the law and to the truth. I think that is a factor 
which cannot be denied in the circumstances that are before us.
    And let me say in response to some of the other points that 
have been made, I wouldn't vote to impeach the President unless 
I felt there was evidence sufficient to convict him in the 
Senate. I think that is the proper way to deal with this. We 
are dealing with a course of conduct here which is serious. The 
ultimate judgment is not ours, and I think the chairman is 
quite right in pointing out that the ultimate judgment is with 
the Senate.
    And the gentleman from New York, the Senator-elect, has 
been chosen by the people of New York, and he will play a role 
in making that decision, and he is entitled to that. But we 
have a responsibility to carry out here, and I intend to do it.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Although I find great interest in the amendment and will 
study it further, I couldn't help but listen to my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle on this moment.
    The President left this morning for the Mideast, and I wish 
him Godspeed. But he should realize that tomorrow's headlines, 
if they are truthful, will announce his removal from office. 
And with all of the coloration that that is not the case, I 
think it is important to note that it is clearly stated in the 
articles of impeachment. The language is there.
    And the basis for the removal is one that should be 
restated, for we are continually--and that is Republicans and 
Democrats--citing the Watergate model. Statesmen and 
stateswomen, they were, but the facts of Watergate were so 
obviously and conspicuously different that we do a disservice 
to the citation, the quotation, the remembrance of those 
members because they were remembering horrific acts: the use of 
the CIA to violate the FBI; the coordination of members of 
Cabinet sitting in rooms talking about, how do we get these 
people. And the tawdry facts today, the getting of President 
Clinton, the leaving of the office of special counsel by Linda 
Tripp and going to the counsel for Paula Jones; Paula Jones's 
own husband saying, We are going to get the President of the 
United States; the hiring of a public relations specialist for 
Paula Jones to set out on a campaign to make this more than 
this was, a tawdry, adulterous affair.
    We now sit to remove this President. We now sit to tell our 
children, our grandchildren that there is no redemption. And I 
am offended when my colleagues across the aisle talk about the 
chief executive of this United States. He is still that, and 
when he comes before the people of the United States of America 
and offers his apology, how dare you--how dare you suggest that 
he is diminished, he is using another line?
    And there are Americans that have said that, as I am sure 
that they have been encouraged by those who could not wait to 
comment on how insignificant it is for the President of the 
most powerful nation in the world to come before the American 
people and acknowledge that he has been called deceitful, that 
he has misled the American people and that he should be 
censured.
    And so let it not be mistaken, we vote today, as we 
conclude, to take the private acts, sexual accusations and 
indiscretions, violations and complete wounding of one'sfamily 
and this nation--however, added to by 22 hours of illegal taping, 
coordination with a civil case, dismissed--and we now say that we want 
to remove the President of the United States. And then to add insult to 
injury--although I had, by the grace of the chairman, and I thank him, 
admitted into evidence the Constitution, although I had spoken weeks 
and weeks ago about the need to be guided by the Fifth Amendment, that 
is, notice and due process.
    When the President responds, duly guided by his lawyers, to 
interrogatories, as any other citizen would have the privilege 
of doing, we take those documents and suggest that we now can 
create another violation by suggesting in his interrogatories 
using the Fifth Amendment, the right of due process, the right 
to respond to one's accuser, and make it now an article where 
he is accused of violating perjury, obstructing justice, 
because he answered our interrogatories.
    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 think we have a case against the chief accuser to 
have left his prosecutorial role and moved to be the witness in 
chief, the fact witness, when all Mr. Starr could offer us was 
nothing but hearsay. Hearsay. And these articles, Mr. Chairman, 
are premised upon the hearsay of a witness who had no firsthand 
knowledge.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlelady----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Tomorrow's headlines should say the truth. 
We are voting to remove the President. In our hearts, we must 
ask, we must raise up our conscience and ask, are we prepared 
today to vote to remove the President of the United States of 
America, for no constitutional forbidding, if you will, takes 
that vote away from us today.
    And, Mr. Coble, I know that we all are full of ``knots,'' 
but let it be, if you will, connecting that you are--are not--
you are not just voting to move something forward. You are 
voting to remove the President of the United States, and I hope 
to God that you are fully convinced that this President should 
be removed on these tawdry and what I consider very 
insignificant facts.
    [Closing remarks of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
         Closing Statement of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee
                              introduction
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Conyers, fellow colleagues on both the 
Democratic and Republican side of the aisle, I come here today, at this 
point in history, not with partisanship, not with a ``liberal'' label 
or a ``Democratic'' label, because that battle has been fought these 
last few weeks, and no one will emerge as a winner. However, there will 
be several losers: our constituents, America and our Constitution.
    I come here not annoyed with my Republican friends, but with a 
heavy heart. I come bearing feelings of somberness and sadness. I'm sad 
not only because the House is considering Articles of Impeachment 
against a popular President; but because I recognize it is occurring 
without clear and convincing evidence nor are we using the standard 
outlined by the framers of our Constitution: [T]he President shall be 
removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, 
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. It's the Constitution 
that
    Ironically, this is a sad moment yet an historical one. It is sad 
because Congress has exercised its discretion to draft Articles of 
Impeachment which is almost equal to if not greater than its power to 
declare war. In 1691, Solicitor General Somers told the British 
Parliament that ``the power of impeachment ought to be, like Goliath's 
sword, kept in the temple, and not used but on great occasions.'' At 
the time of the Constitution's construction, the framers were concerned 
with assuring individual freedom and avoiding governmental tyranny.
    It is historical because the House Judiciary Committee is doing 
something that has only been done twice before in our nation's history: 
Drafting Articles of Impeachment against the President of the United 
States. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution grants the House of 
Representatives the sole Power of Impeachment. While Article I, section 
3, authorizes the Senate to try all impeachments. Hence, the 
Legislative branch is charged with checking the Executive branch.
    At the very outset, let me take this opportunity to apologize to 
the Nation for being party to these proceeds which have absorbed the 
time and energies of this Congress, deprived the country of the 
legislative service that moves our Nation forward in these critical 
times.
    It is my hope, as I am sure it is the hope of millions of my fellow 
Americans, across the Nation, that we will be able to bring this matter 
to a closure with dispatch, and get on with the business of moving this 
country into meeting the challenges of the twenty-first century.
    Our challenge today is not to damage the Constitution, but to 
uphold its principles; it is the Constitution that matters! The private 
acts of William Jefferson Clinton, no matter how reprehensible, these 
acts do not rise to an impeachable level because these acts were not 
attempts to subvert the government. With that understanding I along 
with other democrats will introduce a joint censure resolution of 
censure. ``It is expedient that a wicked man be punished, as that a 
sick man be cured by a physician, for all chastisement is a kind of 
medicine.'' What kind of medicine is needed to heal our Nation and set 
the record straight for our children.
    At a time when men and women passionately cry out for one moral 
standard to be applied to all, and show themselves relentless in their 
insistence on the most severe punishment, we might well give 
consideration to the truth contained in the words of Shakespeare, the 
first taken from Richard III, and the second from Hamlet. ``Not to 
relent is beastly, savage, and devilish'', and ``What if the cursed 
hand were thicker than itself with they brother's blood? Is there not 
rain enough in the sweet heavens, to wash it white as snow?''
    I would not have anyone draw the conclusion, that I implied that we 
should condone the irregular behavior of our chief executive reported 
by the media, or that I would recommend this as a model for the youth 
of America. On the contrary, I join with millions of other Americans in 
condemning the alleged behavior, but for the healing of the nation, let 
us promote censure, not impeachment.
    In the Gathering Storm, Winston Churchilll recommended special 
kinds of behavior under special conditions: In war resolution, in 
defeat defiance, in victory magnanimity, and in peace goodwill.
    Because we are men and women of good will, always wanting the best 
for our nation, when the dust of rhetoric and stage performance has 
settled, we should be able to sit down and reason together, for 
together we possess the qualities of men and women called for by Josiah 
Holland when he said:

          God gives us men and women . . . A time for this demands
          Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands
          Men and women whom the lust of office cannot kill
          Men and women whom the spoils of office cannot buy
          Tall men and women who live above the fog
          In public duty and private thinking.

    We are morally bound to make our disapproval known, but we can best 
do it through censure . . . an act which would help us maintain our 
integrity, and to ensure that Lincoln's dream of the future will remain 
a constant reality, that we will continue to live in a nation where 
there is ``government of the people, by the people, and for the 
people.''
    Where do we go from here?
    Have the accusations of perjury against the President been proven? 
No.
    Have the accusations of obstruction of justice against the 
President been proven? No.
    Have the accusations of [abuse of power] against the President been 
proven? No.
    By the response to the above questions--it is obvious that these 
Articles of Impeachment are not warranted, nor are they demanded by 
what this committee has before [it]. As Solicitor General Somers told 
the British Parliament in 1691, ``the power of impeachment ought to be, 
like Goliath's sword, kept in the temple, and not used but on great 
occasions.''
    Impeachment is final and non-appealable. In this instance, it would 
thwart the will of the American people. It would then have the 
overtones of partisanship at its lowest level. Mr. Chairman, nowhere in 
our early history as the Constitution was being drafted do we find any 
commands to impeach the highest officeholder of this nation on a mere 
whim. So [on] what are the members of this committee basing this grave 
move towards impeachment?
    What we have here are not facts, established by a court of law by a 
legally constituted jury that has handed down a guilty verdict. All we 
have are mere allegations, brought to the judiciary committee by what 
appears to be an overzealous independent counsel.
    In more understandable language, Jim Cole, an [?] active Washington 
public integrity lawyer, said it best:

          It comes down to what the person said, what they understood 
        themselves to be saying and what they understood the question 
        to be.
          In Committee yesterday, I raised the following question: 
        Abuse of power requires the use of power. Did President 
        Clinton, in any way, ask any of the Members of his Cabinet, to 
        use the powers of their office to help cover up his affair with 
        Monica Lewinsky?

His answer, in part was:
          ``No, Congresswoman . . . the President had already . . . 
        misled the American people in public statements. It's a little 
        difficult to contemplate a setting in which persons who listen 
        to him make those public statements go out and say `I believe 
        the President' and then he finds himself being accused of 
        misusing his power. . . . It struck me when I read [Starr's 
        allegations of abuse of power involving the President's 
        Cabinet], especially when considered against the backdrop of 
        events of 1974, as an odd proposition.

    The American People know perjury, obstruction of justice when they 
see it, and they certainly know when a President has abused his power, 
caused his Cabinet officers to use the powers of their office in a 
conspiracy to cover up anything --if an article of abuse of power was 
not even drafted in the Iran-Contra matter, then how can we even 
consider such under the facts today? How can we even begin to consider 
the statements of the President to his wife about an affair that he had 
been having an abuse of power? That is what the Independent Counsel and 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have you believe. It 
is preposterous, and it short-changes the intelligence and 
perceptiveness of the American people.
    Now let me briefly note the process in which we have engaged in 
since the referral was brought to Congress on September 11, 1998. There 
have been, including today, only ten meetings or hearings by this 
Committee that would decide the fate of this nation. There have been no 
fact witnesses brought forth by the Republicans, who under our well-
understood system of justice, bear the heavy burden of proving that an 
impeachable offense has indeed been committed. And we have seen the 
person holding the same role as Leon Jaworski in 1974 remove his hat of 
objectivity and move from being an impartial presenter of facts to 
being an advocate for the president's impeachment. Even worse, we have 
literally seen the prosecutor in this matter step away from his 
position as an officer of justice, and step into the role of the 
witness-in-chief against the President of the United States--and this 
occurred to the horror of Mr. Starr's own ethics advisor, Sam Dash--who 
resigned because of it. Leon Jaworski would never, never, have done 
such a thing--not only because it perverts the role of the Office of 
Independent Counsel, but also because it violates the Rules of 
Professional Conduct that all lawyers and judges must live by.
    I believe we must find the courage [to rise] above the political 
fray--such as the courage Daniel Webster found in his March 7, 1850 
speech to the United States Senate on holding this floundering nation 
together doomed to divide over slavery. Mr. Webster's actions unfolded 
as follows as he rose to the floor of the Senate:

          ``Mr. President,'' he began, ``I wish to speak today, not as 
        a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American 
        and a Member of the Senate of the United States. * * * I speak 
        today for the preservation of the Union.
          Hear me for my cause.''

    The Senate's main concern, he insisted, was neither to promote 
slavery nor to abolish it, but to preserve the United States of 
America. And with telling logic and remarkable foresight, he bitterly 
attacked the idea of ``peaceable secession'':

          Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that 
        miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without 
        convulsion! Who is so foolish * * * as to expect to see any 
        such thing? * * * Instead of speaking of the possibility or 
        utility of secession, instead of dwelling in those caverns of 
        darkness, * * * let us enjoy the fresh air of liberty and 
        union. * * * Let us make our generation one of the strongest 
        and brightest links in that golden chain which is destined, I 
        fondly believe, to grapple the people of all the states to this 
        Constitution for ages to come.

    There was no applause. Daniel Webster did not succeed. ``Webster 
did more than any other man in the whole country, and at a greater 
hazard of personal popularity, to stem and roll back the torrent of 
sectionalism which in 1850 threatened to overthrow the pillars of the 
Constitution and the Union.'' However, with such courage does come 
nullification--

          ``I know of no deed in American history done by a son of New 
        England to which I can compare this, but the act of Benedict 
        Arnold.'' ``Webster,'' said Horace Mann, ``is a fallen star! 
        Lucifer descending from Heaven!'' Longfellow asked the world: 
        ``Is that possible? Is this the titan who hurled mountains at 
        Hayne years ago?'' And Emerson proclaimed that ``Every drop of 
        blood in a man's veins has eyes that look downward.''

    However, his final words [were]--I shall stand by the Union with 
absolute disregard of personal consequences!
                      independent counsel statute
    This is the first time under the Independent Counsel Statute that a 
President has been investigated. If for no other reason, it is 
imperative that this committee's legacy validate the lofty aims of the 
Independent Counsel Statute. It was enacted to provide a mechanism that 
would avoid the inherent or structural conflicts which could arise when 
the Attorney General is required to supervise an investigation of an 
Executive branch official. Unfortunately, since the re-authorization of 
the Independent Counsel Statute, it has been employed by some to engage 
in witch-hunts; fishing expeditions and scatter-gun approaches 
searching for evidence of a crime. This noble idea has been twisted by 
knaves to create a partisan weapon. A primary example is the Michael 
Espy investigation. In that case, Independent Counsel Smaltz spent over 
ten million dollars to investigate Mr. Espy receipt of $33,000 in 
gifts. Given the results of this case it is evident that the 
Independent Counsel statute needs to be examined if it is to remain a 
viable procedure for future investigations of Congress and the 
Executive branch.
                        articles of impeachment
    The Committee's majority has introduced four Articles of 
Impeachment against the President alleging the following charges: two 
counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. Allow me 
to explain why I believe the Starr Referral, the linchpin of the 
Articles of Impeachment, does not provide credible and sufficient 
evidence to support the Majority's mistaken decision. Now, let us 
examine Articles I and II to determine if they are supported by 
credible evidence.
    The federal perjury statute requires:
    (1) the declarant must take an oath to testify truthfully;
    (2) the declarant willful false statement must be contrary to the 
oath;
    (3) the declarant must believe the statement is false; and
    (4) there must be a nexus between the statement and a material fact 
in the matter pending before the tribunal. Therefore, under 18 U.S.C. 
1621 the declarant must willfully offer testimony that the declarant 
believes is false before an individual can be convicted of perjury.
    During the Watergate hearings, Mr. St. Clair, President Nixon's 
attorney, stated ``a President cannot be impeached by piling inference 
upon inference.''
    Mr. Schippers, Chief Investigative Counsel for the House Judiciary 
Committee, stated:

          Monica Lewinsky's credibility may be subject to some 
        skepticism. At an appropriate state of the proceedings, that 
        credibility will, of necessity, be assessed together with 
        credibility of all witnesses in the light of all the other 
        evidence. Ms. Lewinsky admitted to having lied on occasion to 
        Linda Tripp and to having executed and caused to be filed a 
        false affidavit in the Paula Jones case.

    Ms. Lewinsky stated that her contact with the President did not 
constitute ``sex'' and reaffirmed that position even after she received 
immunity for the Office of the Independent Counsel. In a conversation 
taped record by Ms. Tripp, Ms. Lewinsky explained that she ``didn't 
have sex'' with President because ``having sex is having intercourse.'' 
It is important to remember that Ms. Lewinsky did not know that her 
conversations were being taped. Therefore, she too believed that her 
contact with the President was not sex.
                comparison watergate and starr referral
    In 1974, this Rodino Committee drafted three Articles of 
Impeachment against President Nixon. Article II charged Richard Nixon 
with ``Using the powers of the office of President of the United 
States, in violation of his constitutional duty . . . abuse of power. 
He has repeatedly engaged in conduct impairing the due and proper 
administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or 
contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and 
the purposes of these agencies. This conduct has included one or more 
of the following:
    (1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and 
agents, endeavored to obtain from the I.R.S., in violation of the 
constitutional rights of citizens.
    (2) He misused the FBI, the Secret Service, and other executive 
personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of 
citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to 
conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for 
purposes unrelated to national security.
    (3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and 
agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of 
citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret 
investigative unit within the office of the President, financed with 
money derived from campaign contributions.
    (4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully 
executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know . . . of 
the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the DNC and the cover-up 
thereof.
    (5) In disregard of the rule of law, he knowing misused the 
executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, 
including FBI, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate 
Special Prosecution force, of the Department of Justice, and the 
C.I.A., in violation of his constitutional duty.
    The Starr Referral purports to outlined ``substantial and credible 
information that President Clinton's actions since January 17, 1998, 
regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky have been inconsistent 
with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the 
laws.'' The Referral considers the following acts an abuse of the 
President's Constitutional duty:
    (1) On January 21, 1998, the President misled the American People 
and congress regarding the truth of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
    (2) The First lady, the cabinet, the president's staff, and the 
President's associates relied on and publicly emphasized the 
President's denial.
    (3) The President repeatedly and unlawfully invoked the executive 
privilege to conceal evidence of his personal misconduct from the grand 
jury.
    (4) The President refused six invitations to testify to the grand 
jury, thereby delaying expeditious resolution of this matter, and then 
refused to answer relevant questions before the grand jury when he 
testified in August 1998.
    (5) The President misled the American people and the Congress in 
his public statement on August 17, 1988, when he stated that his 
answers at his civil deposition in January had been ``legally 
accurate.''
    The Office of the Independent Counsel couches his abuse of power 
charge by suggesting that President asserted Executive privilege 
without a basis in law. On page 156 of the Referral the following 
``facts'' outlined:

          On March 24, while the President was traveling in Africa, he 
        was asked about the assertion of Executive Privilege. The 
        President responded, ``You should ask someone who knows.'' He 
        also stated, ``I haven't discussed that with the lawyers. I 
        don't know.''

This language was taken out of context. Here is the proper context for 
this statement:

          Q: Mr. President, we haven't yet had the opportunity to ask 
        you about your decision to invoke executive privilege, sir. Why 
        shouldn't the American people see that as an effort to hide 
        something from them?
          The President: Look, that's a question that's being asked and 
        answered back home by the people who are responsible to do 
        that. I don't believe I should be discussing that here.
          Q: Could you at least tell us why you think the First Lady 
        might be covered by that privilege, why her conversation might 
        fall under that?
          The President: All I know is--I saw an article about it in 
        the paper today. I haven't discussed it with the lawyers. I 
        don't know. You should ask someone who does?

    Hence, placed in the proper context it is clear that the President 
was not asked about the assertion of Executive Privilege but about the 
very narrow issue of the privilege and its application to the First 
Lady.
    Under what standard is this an abuse of power? Certainly not the 
Watergate standard. These Articles of impeachment are vastly and 
starkly different. You must have use of power to have abuse of power. 
The President did not instruct cabinet officials to use their office to 
deceive the public.
                               conclusion
    We have heard from the greatest legal and constitutional scholars 
of our time who have come before this committee to opine on the weighty 
subject on Impeachment. Professor Michael Gerhardt came before us and 
stated that, ``Most if not all impeachments made by the House and 
convictions made by the Senate have followed or approximated the 
paradigm of an impeachment--the abuse of official power of privilege.'' 
Lastly, it was our former colleague Congressman Wayne Owens who served 
as a Member of the Judiciary Committee during the Watergate proceedings 
who said, ``if you vote to impeach a president because he had an 
improper sexual affair, then avoided full disclosure by using narrow 
legal definitions, even then affirming that testimony before a grand 
jury, if you impeach on that narrow base of personal-not official 
misconduct--you do untold damage to the Constitution. . . and to the 
stability of future presidents.''
    Mr. Chairman, my fellow colleagues if this committee, this House, 
votes to impeach this President solely based on these allegations then 
there will be no winners here, only losers. The losers will be OUR 
CONSTITUENTS, THE NATION AS A WHOLE . . . THE INSTITUTION OF THE 
AMERICAN PRESIDENCY . . . NOT THE PRESIDENT . . . BUT THE PRESIDENCY . 
. . BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY THE CONSTITUTION WOULD LOSE . . . BECAUSE IT 
WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBVERTED . . . MISUSED . . . AND DIMINISHED BECAUSE OF 
PARTISAN POLITICS. THIS WAS NOT THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS.

    Chairman Hyde. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The gentlelady from Texas just mentioned the horrific facts 
of Watergate. Isn't it true that we have horrific facts here?
    We have got the chief law enforcement officer of the United 
States, who perjured himself not once, but repeatedly, not just 
in a civil deposition, but before a grand jury. Perjury is more 
heavily punished than bribery. It is horrific to me that the 
President would even continue that as late as 4:00 yesterday.
    As late as 4:00 yesterday the man cannot bring himself to 
tell the truth. He continues to lie. He continues to deceive 
the American people. I think it is horrific. I think it is 
horrific that the man is leaving now for a trip where, who 
knows what he can say and who can count on what he says. I 
think it is horrific.
    These are horrific facts, that the man cannot tell the 
truth. He couldn't tell the truth yesterday. He couldn't tell 
the truth before a grand jury. He couldn't tell the truth in a 
civil deposition and he couldn't tell the truth when he 
submitted answers to questions to this committee.
    When will he tell the truth? When he is finally before the 
bar in the Senate? Maybe. Is that when he tells the truth?
    The gentlelady suggested that there is no redemption here. 
There is redemption with consequences. And in this proceeding 
earlier, I believe it may have been the chairman who eloquently 
pointed this out--if not him, someone else--that a perfect 
picture of that is Pope John Paul confronting his assailant, 
went to forgive him and offer forgiveness and hope, but left 
him in jail. He made no effort to have him released from jail. 
And there his assailant continues to remain.
    Now, that is the appropriate picture of redemption. 
Redemption, yes, forgiveness, yes, but with consequences. The 
President can't ask us for not cheap grace, worthless grace, 
absolutely worthless grace to not even admit his wrongdoing, 
and expect that--even if he did admit wrongdoing, expect that 
there would be no consequences. There are consequences to 
wrongdoing.
    And I would also point out that the attack on the truth-
seekers continues. And that is particularly shameful that in 
the midst of this series of events where clearly the President 
of the United States is guilty of perjury--folks on that side 
are even admitting it now--that the minority counsel, when he 
sat before us, I think pretty clearly admitted it awhile back, 
the man has lied. But instead of admitting that, as we all 
should and even his defenders should, all of them, not just 
some of them, they go on a continued attack against the truth-
seeker.
    So we continue to hear attacks here against Ken Starr, for 
example, as if he were on trial. As if he were the one who 
dreamed up these tawdry facts. It is not his fault for bringing 
up tawdry facts than for some prosecutor having to bring up 
tawdry facts in a courtroom about a rape matter, for example, 
and horrible details. But the defendant in the action can't be 
heard later to complain to the court, why do we have to delve 
into these things? Well, if the defendant hadn't committed the 
acts, there wouldn't be a tawdry scene.
    So the defendant in this matter, William JeffersonClinton, 
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 in the U.S. Senate, 
and there there are consequences for wrongdoing, and that is what the 
President is unable to accept and what his defenders are unable to 
accept. There are consequences for violating the rule of law.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. McCollum [presiding]. The gentlelady from California, 
Ms. Waters, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members.
    I am absolutely amazed at the liberal and loose 
interpretation of the Constitution that I am hearing from 
conservatives. Usually progressives are accused of loose 
interpretation and usually conservatives are considered to have 
strict interpretation of the Constitution and the law. But 
sitting in this committee, I have witnessed the loosest 
interpretation of the Constitution as my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have dealt with the meaning of ``high 
crimes and misdemeanors.''
    Now, if that is not bad enough, I am now finding out from 
the Chair of this committee that what we are doing here in 
voting out these articles of impeachment really does not have 
much to do with whether or not we really mean it and whether or 
not we are really involved in the ultimate impeachment of the 
President. I think my grandmother would call that throwing a 
rock and hiding your hand, almost as if you really don't want 
to be identified with the ultimate impeachment if that should 
happen.
    I am amazed at these interpretations, and to add insult to 
injury, Mr. McCollum said that we could go through this entire 
process, vote out articles of impeachment from the Judiciary 
Committee, send it to the floor; and if it is voted out on the 
floor, go through the trial in the Senate and not remove the 
President from office--that the Constitution, he said, says you 
should extend no further than.
    Well, what does that really mean? Rather than the loose 
interpretation that he is giving it, to have you believe that 
somehow it means that you can stop short of, you can punish, 
you can do something other than, which is nowhere indicated in 
the Constitution of the United States. I think it really means 
that you can't give him the death penalty or you can't send him 
to prison rather than the interpretation that Mr. McCollum was 
giving.
    Mr. Barrett. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Waters. I am awfully concerned that the young people 
who are listening to us, who are learning about the 
Constitution of the United States of America, are going to be 
very confused. I don't know what the teachers of America are 
going to do as they watch all of these truth-telling members of 
the Judiciary Committee interpret the Constitution of the 
United States.
    Mr. Barrett. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Waters. Yes, I would yield to my colleague.
    Mr. Barrett. I heard the gentleman from Florida's comments, 
too, so I have Article II, section 4, of the Constitution which 
reads, ``The President, Vice President and all civil officers 
of the United States, shall be removed from office on 
impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other 
high crimes and misdemeanors.'' I see no discretion in the word 
``shall.''
    Ms. Waters. I thank you very much. I am absolutely sure of 
that. I learned that in the eighth grade. But let me just say, 
I do feel that the Chair of this committee should have stopped 
this committee at the point that Mr. McCollum gave that 
interpretation, so at least we could have a reasonable debate, 
so that the distortion would not stand in this committee. I 
think it is awfully unfortunate.
    I would like to direct a question to Mr. Canady, who has 
called the President a liar about a hundred times this morning.
    Which answer to the 81 questions do you think is deserving 
of impeachment, that you are so upset about, Mr. Canady? I 
would like you quickly to point to just one.
    Mr. Canady. The chairman gave a list earlier.
    Ms. Waters. I want you to give one. If you cannot do it, I 
take back my time.
    Mr. Canady. I am not going to engage in this if you won't 
let me answer.
    Ms. Waters. Reclaiming my time, if it takes you that much 
time to think about it, then you don't know it. I thought you 
had something that you were so sure about that you could just 
tell us in a short moment here what it is in the 81 questions, 
the so-called ``lie'' that is so upsetting, that is so 
worrisome, that meets the test of the Constitution that you 
would want to impeach the President about.
    And let me just conclude my remarks by saying, I wish I was 
as pure and as moral and as honest as some of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle who keep referring to the President 
as the greatest liar, the biggest liar they have ever seen, 
they have ever met. I hope that we can all work on ourselves 
and do a little bit better and be a little bit more forthcoming 
in the work that we do, so that in fact we can feel comfortable 
enough to claim the kind of honesty that they are denying to 
the President.
    Mr. McCollum. The gentlelady's time has expired. The 
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Barr. I would like to pause a little bit here and--
despite arguments by particular individuals on the other side 
that are fast, furious and glib, as if the faster you say 
something, the louder you say it, the more times you repeat it, 
by golly, it makes it so.
    The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the 
Constitution was written very calmly, deliberatively and 
solemnly, thank goodness. And I think it is time for 
Constitution 101 for America.
    Article I, section 2, paragraph 5, Article I being that 
article of the Constitution that describes the powers of the 
Congress, says that the House has the sole power of 
impeachment. Article I, section 3, paragraph 6--we are still in 
Article I, still dealing with the powers of the Congress--
states that the Senate shall have the sole power to try all 
impeachments.
    Article II, section 4--Article II being the section that 
describes the powers and other matters relating to the 
executive branch, that is, the President--says that the 
President shall be removed on impeachment for, and conviction 
of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
    Now, let's parse that. The word ``and''--while the 
President undoubtedly would have great difficulty determining 
and deciphering what the word ``and'' means, we don't or at 
least we should not. It says that the President shall be 
removed on impeachment for and conviction of. The 
``and''bridges two ideas, two things that must happen before the 
President is removed.
    Now, parents out there listening today know exactly what I 
am talking about. Children out there listening today know 
exactly what I am talking about. If a parent tells a child you 
can go out and play if you clean your room and wash your hands, 
the child knows what that means. They must do both things; and 
if they fail to do both things, then the consequence will not 
happen. So it is in the Constitution.
    Every word in our Constitution is there for a purpose. 
Every word was deliberated at great length; not fast, not 
glibbly, but at great length, very deliberatively, very 
solemnly.
    For the other side to maintain by saying it fast, furiously 
and repetitively, that a vote in the House to impeach removes 
the President, is to do precisely what the President does and 
that is to give the wrong, reverse meaning to words. They may 
want to operate in the same parallel universe that the 
President operates when it comes to the use of the English 
language, but we ought not let America be deceived by this 
sophistry. When the House votes pursuant to its sole power to 
impeach, that does not, cannot and never will remove a 
President from office. It cannot. The only way a President can 
be removed from office----
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Barr [continuing]. Impeachment by the House, and, A-N-
D, conviction in the Senate.
    It is preposterous to maintain that a vote in the House, 
carrying out our sole and exclusive duty to impeach, removes 
the President. It does not--does not and never will.
    We are here today exercising our sole responsibility, and 
we are trying to do it in a manner that lends credibility to 
this document. No matter how many times the other side may 
raise their voice, pound on the table, talk too fast for those 
us from the South to understand what they are saying, the fact 
of the Constitution remains, impeachment is not removal from 
office. Impeachment is not removal from office. Impeachment is 
not removal from office.
    Impeachment is the process laid out in the Constitution 
whereby the House determines that actions by the President 
should be decided by the Senate in a trial, the parameters of 
which are clearly also laid out in the Constitution, whether or 
not he should be removed. Now, to adopt the position of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts that we should not do our 
constitutional duty here unless we know for a certainty that 
the Senate will, would be akin to saying, no prosecutor can 
seek an indictment unless he or she knows that the petit jury 
will convict, or that Congress, the House of Representatives, 
should not pass or consider a bill unless the Senate has done 
so first.
    Their argument is just that ludicrous. America, do not be 
deceived.
    This is the Constitution. Its words, and thankfully we did 
not ask the President to determine or decipher Article II, 
section 2, or Article I, section 2, or Article I, section 3, 
paragraph 6, because we would have had endless arguments over 
what the words ``sole power'' mean or the word ``and''--
``impeachment for and conviction of.''
    I believe that we do here, at least on this side of the 
aisle, understand what the Constitution says. That is why we 
keep it in our drawers so every once in awhile we can take it 
out and look at it and make sure that the words are still 
there, which is something that we have to do frequently in 
light of the arguments made by the other side.
    Ms. McCollum. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Barr. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Florida.
    Mr. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Barr.
    I would like to set the record straight. I looked at 
Article I, section 3, which does say that you can't go higher 
than certain punishments; and didn't look at Article II, 
section 4, which says if the President is convicted he must be 
removed from office if he is indeed convicted.
    But I think the fact remains what Mr. Barr says is very 
accurate. When we impeach, we impeach. It also requires 
conviction for removal from office, but removal is automatic, 
and I do stand corrected.
    Ms. Waters. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Barr. What the other side is trying to do, they are not 
really misinterpreting the Constitution. They are making an 
incorrect argument, trying to reach out beyond this dais here 
to convince other members that the Constitution means something 
that it doesn't. They are trying to give solace to those 
members who are grappling with this momentous question and this 
momentous decision. They are reaching out to them and saying, 
don't worry, if you vote to impeach, you will be removing and 
you don't want to do that. That is what they are trying to do.
    Mr. Frank. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Barr. It is a very disingenuous argument, and it ought 
not be allowed to stand.
    I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
    Mr. Frank. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would 
ask to have an additional minute.
    He has misstated what I said. No one here has said if you 
vote for this, you are removing the President. What we have 
said is that an indispensable step in removing the President is 
voting for this. The gentleman made our point; he read the 
Constitution.
    Mr. Barr. Reclaiming my time. So I am quoting the gentleman 
from Massachusetts correctly, and I would hope my colleagues 
not on this committee would hear this, that a vote to impeach 
is not a vote to remove the President.
    Mr. Frank. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Barr. Yes.
    Mr. Frank. He said what the Constitution says, that there 
are two equally important, indispensable steps to removing the 
President. We can take one and the Senate takes the other. 
Until we act, the Senate cannot act. So we hold the keys to 
that door.
    I do disagree with his suggestion that an ethical 
prosecutor or a responsible member should vote for this if you 
did not think that it is justified that there be conviction. I 
am not saying that you have to predict the jury, but a 
prosecutor who indicts if he doesn't think there should be a 
conviction is wrong, and a member who votes for conviction not 
thinking that the President ought to be removed is wrong.
    The gentleman from Georgia read the Constitution correctly. 
There are two equally important, indispensable steps to 
removing the President. We can take one of them, the Senate the 
other. This is the indispensable step that we and we alone can 
take, leading to the removal of thePresident if the Senate then 
takes its step. Members who do not think that the President should be 
removed should not take that inevitable step that only we can take.
    Mr. Barr. I am reclaiming my time and remind those present 
here that they have heard something very historic today: Barney 
Frank and Bob Barr agree on something.
    Chairman Hyde. Just a moment. I don't think that was the 
historical aspect of that; I think it was Mr. Frank speaking 
slowly.
    Mr. Barr. A fact that I appreciate very much, coming from 
Georgia.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Hyde. Who seeks recognition? Are we ready for the 
vote on----
    Ms. Waters. No, we are not ready.
    Chairman Hyde. I didn't catch that, Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. No, we are not ready for the vote. We have work 
to do to help teach our members on the other side of the aisle 
what the Constitution really says, and we can't skip over this.
    Chairman Hyde. Oh, well, thanks so much.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    On the prior point, I think it is clear that we should not 
vote an article of impeachment unless we believe that the 
President ought to be impeached and removed from office for the 
reasons already stated, but also for this: once the House of 
Representatives votes articles of impeachment, the next job 
that they have to do is appoint managers. The House acts as the 
prosecutor and the Senate acts as the jury, and the Chief 
Justice acts as the judge, the presiding officer. So if we 
don't think that we have the evidence to go prosecute this case 
to get a conviction in the Senate, we should not be voting to 
move forward.
    I also want to talk a little bit about what we are doing 
here. I think in some ways we are bringing this Nation together 
today in the Judiciary Committee, together in opposition to 
what we are doing. I think each day we meet to discuss this 
impeachment, more people are waking up to the fact that it is 
actually going on and most people do not want us to do it. 
Today's Washington Times reports that, ``in voting to send the 
impeachment of President Clinton to the full House for a vote, 
the GOP has bucked the polls, the press, the conventional 
wisdom and the November 3rd election results,'' and I think 
that is something that we need to take seriously.
    I know that my obligation to my oath does not mean I can 
set aside my conscience, but it also doesn't mean that I can't 
take a look at what the people of this country want us to do.
    I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the 
record the letter that you sent to me, Mr. Chairman, on 
September 21st, along with a very interesting article from Duke 
Law School that you cited favorably; and I would like to quote 
from that article that you sent to me and recommended that I 
read.
    On pages 1044 and 1045, the article says, ``The public's 
opinion in impeachment matters. It is so that what we do may be 
legitimate and perceived by the public we represent as being 
legitimate,'' and ``The legitimacy of a democratic government 
must be established in the minds of the people. Thus, for a 
transfer of presidential powers to be accomplished by removal 
in the face of impeachment, the legitimacy of the new 
administration can only be assured by public recognition that 
the previous mandate has clearly expired.''
    The same article, on page 1029, states that ``The 
impeachment process, while fundamentally political, was 
designed to protect the foundation of the state itself and not 
to create a sanction for misjudgment or to settle disputes over 
policy or to substitute for the criminal law.''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.092

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.094

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.095

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.096

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.097

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.098

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.099

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.100

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.101

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.102

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.103

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.104

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.105

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.106

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.107

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.108

    You know, I have listened to great extent about the 
amendment that is before us, and I want to differ a little bit 
from some of my colleagues on the underlying thesis that the 
failure of the executive 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 1974 impeachment inquiry 
President Nixon's failure to provide information to the House 
was a ground for impeachment, and I think that is necessary and 
legitimate because otherwise the power of the House can never 
be utilized. But I would say it is only necessary and 
legitimate if the underlying impeachment effort itself is 
legitimate.
    This process is illegitimate. It has not yet come up with 
grounds that meet high standards in the Constitution, and I 
will tell you this: On page 12, one of the questions listed by 
the chairman, question 42, ``Whether or not there were 
additional gifts from the Black Dog'' cannot possibly be 
grounds for removal of the President of the United States.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I give the gentlelady an 
additional 2 minutes.
    Chairman Hyde. You yield her an additional 2 minutes?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I wanted to ask her a question.
    Chairman Hyde. If the gentlelady seeks additional time.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would seek an additional 2 minutes and 
yield.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. As the gentlelady has so noted, she hadthe 
honor of serving as a staff person during that period. Might I ask the 
gentlelady, because we have had this dispute between the nexus of 
impeachment and removal. And comparable to a prosecutor believing in 
the indictment and ultimately that the person would be convicted, isn't 
there at least a nexus between the act of impeachment, as we need to 
guide our colleagues on Thursday, and the fact that we believe, or 
whoever votes for impeachment would believe, that the President might 
be removed, if there is some nexus there?
    Ms. Lofgren. Reclaiming my time, there is more than a 
nexus. There is no reason for the House to proceed at all if 
there is not a belief that the clear language within the 
resolution, the articles of impeachment, should not in fact be 
found true by the Senate. Because after the adoption of 
articles of impeachment, the appointment of managers to 
prosecute the case must come forward. All of the evidence that 
will be considered by the Senate is to be presented by the 
House, as the prosecutors, to the jury, the Senate.
    And so I find it rather unbelievable that having come this 
far, having adopted three articles and about to adopt a fourth, 
that some would suggested that what we are really doing is not 
anything. In fact, Mr. Barr is right, we are not removing the 
President, we are taking the first step to remove the 
President, and we will remove the President if we appoint 
managers and the Senate convicts.
    We should not put the country through this trauma if we do 
not believe that the President should be removed. And as I said 
before, the idea that the President should be removed for the 
reasons outlined to date are in fact preposterous.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlelady from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. I have made my case 
on this issue.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. I thank the chairman and I wanted to come 
back to the motion in question. I support the substitute 
offered by Mr. Gekas, and want to address that for a moment.
    I would have had trouble supporting Article IV without this 
amendment deleting paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. I say that not to 
diminish the significance or the substantiality of the evidence 
with regard to these three areas.
    One of those claims is that the President deceived and lied 
to the American public. I think this is extraordinarily serious 
anytime it happens. Obviously, there is no question that it did 
happen. It is wrong, but I do not believe that should be 
included in this article of impeachment on abuse of office.
    The second part is that the President frivolously asserted 
executive privilege. I believe that he did do that. I believe 
it was a delay tactic. I don't believe that it was proper. I 
believe it was abuse of responsibility in the investigation, 
and I think it is wrong.
    Countervailing of that, the President did drop the 
assertion after a period of time, and the witnesses eventually 
testified. And so for those reasons, even though I believe it 
was abuse, I don't believe that it should be included in this 
article of impeachment.
    Third, the article alleges lying to aides, I believe this 
too is extraordinarily relevant and significant in terms of 
proving intent and a pattern of conduct on behalf of the 
President supporting obstruction of justice and the other false 
statements that are recited in the other articles. And so, even 
though I am delighted that they are being deleted, I don't 
think that we should diminish the significance of them.
    Now, I want to refer to three of the President's responses 
to Congress in the 81 questions. One of them is question number 
20, and you have to precede this with what was testified to in 
the deposition of Paula Jones. The question of the President 
was, Did she tell you that she had been served with a subpoena 
in this case? The answer was no. He responds, ``No. I don't 
know if she had been.''
    It is a very clear statement. The question by Congress to 
the President was, ``Do you admit or deny that you gave false 
and misleading testimony under oath when you stated during the 
deposition of the Jones case that you did not know if Monica 
Lewinsky had been subpoenaed to testify in that case?'' A very 
simple question calling for a simple answer.
    Here is the President's answer: ``It is evident from my 
testimony on pages 69 to 70 of the deposition that I did know 
on January 17, 1998, that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed in 
the Jones v. Clinton case.'' Ms. Jones' lawyer's question, 
``Did you talk to Mr. Lindsey about what action, if any, should 
be taken as a result of her being served with a subpoena?'' and 
``my response, `No,' reflected my understanding that Ms. 
Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. That testimony was not false and 
misleading.''
    The answer has to be studied. It is a simple question, but 
the answer is so convoluted, and I believe it is in fact false 
and misleading.
    I would also refer to question number 26, ``Do you admit or 
deny on or about December 28, 1997, you discussed with Betty 
Currie gifts previously given by you to Monica Lewinsky?''
    His answer, ``I do not recall any conversation with Ms. 
Currie on or about December 28, 1997, about gifts I had 
previously given to Ms. Lewinsky. I never told Ms. Currie to 
take possession of gifts I had given to Ms. Lewinsky; I 
understand Ms. Currie has stated that Ms. Lewinsky called Ms. 
Currie to ask her to hold a box.''
    I believe that is a false, an intentionally false, answer 
that the President provided. Monica Lewinsky's testimony 
substantiates that. The telephone records substantiate what 
Monica Lewinsky says. But also, it is unreasonable that Betty 
Currie, an employee of the President of the United States, 
would go and retrieve gifts that are under a subpoena in a 
lawsuit affecting her boss, in which he is a defendant, without 
the President authorizing the retrieval of those gifts.
    I believe that is a false statement. Then you go on to 
question number 42, and you have to lay the foundation for this 
as well. The question that was asked to the President in the 
deposition of the Paula Jones case was, ``Have you ever given 
any gifts to Monica Lewinsky?'' His answer: ``I don't recall. 
Do you know what they were?''
    Now, the question from Congress was, ``Do you admit or deny 
that when asked on January 17, 1998, in your deposition in the 
case of Jones v. Clinton if you had ever given gifts to Monica 
Lewinsky, you stated that you did not recall, even though you 
actually had knowledge of giving her gifts in addition to gifts 
from the Black Dog?'' His answer, which I believe is false is 
as follows. ``In my grand jury testimony, I was asked about 
this same statement. I explained that my full response was I 
don't recall. `Do you know what they were?' By that answer, I 
did not mean to suggest that I did not recall giving gifts; 
rather, I meant that I did not recall what the gifts were, and 
I asked for reminders.''
    I believe that is a false statement going back to his 
original question in the deposition, which was, have you ever 
given any gifts to Monica Lewinsky; his answer, ``I don't 
recall.''
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Nadler. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be 
given 2 additional minutes to answer a question.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Hutchinson. Certainly.
    Mr. Nadler. It is a question, or will be a question. Yes, 
you just said that----
    Mr. Hutchinson. Do you need to take 2 minutes for this 
question?
    Mr. Nadler. That is not my purpose. You just said--the 
President, rather, said, by that answer ``I did not mean to 
suggest that I did not recall giving gifts. Rather, I meant 
that I did not recall what the gifts were, and I asked for 
reminders.''
    You just quoted that, and you said you believed that that 
was a perjurious statement. So you are saying that the 
President's characterization of his state of mind was a false 
statement. My question is, how do you know that? What is the 
evidence for your statement that his characterization of his 
state of mind was false?
    Mr. Hutchinson. My statement is that I believe the answer 
to question number 42 is false and misleading. Whenever the 
question is asked whether he admits or denies whether he had 
given any gifts to Monica Lewinsky, he stated he did not 
recall, even though he actually had knowledge of giving her 
gifts. In his answer, he says, ``I did not mean to suggest that 
I did not recall giving gifts; rather, I meant that I did not 
recall what the gifts were.''
    That answer, I believe, is a false statement, because the 
question is very clear. He is a very brilliant person. When the 
question is, ``Have you ever given any gifts to Monica 
Lewinsky?'' his answer is, I don't recall. That is responsive 
to----
    Mr. Nadler. No, his answer is, no, I don't recall, do you 
know what they were, which seems to imply he knows gifts were 
given, but he doesn't recall which ones they are referring to.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Well, if you want to accept the twisted, 
confusing answer of the President as being truthful, then you 
certainly have the right, but I believe if you presented this 
to a jury of common-sense people in America, perhaps outside 
the Beltway, as Mr. Coble referenced, I think they would 
understand very clearly that the President of the United States 
is not being truthful and responsive and respectful to the 
Congress of the United States.
    Chairman Hyde. Are we ready for the question?
    Ms. Waters. No, Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent 
request.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlewoman will state her unanimous 
consent request.
    Ms. Waters. I am requesting that Mr. Delahunt be allowed to 
orally put on the record one more time the conclusive evidence 
of the telephone call and the time of it so that my colleagues 
can stop distorting the record about that telephone call on Ms. 
Betty Currie's bill.
    Chairman Hyde. Well, Mr. Delahunt has already spoken to 
that issue, and----
    Ms. Waters. No, my colleagues don't know that, because he 
just incorrectly, unless he was lying, said that--said that 
there was evidence based on the telephone record that the 
President had lied. Now, either he knows better, or he needs to 
be reminded.
    Chairman Hyde. Well, frankly, I would rather recognize Mr. 
Meehan. But if Mr. Delahunt wants the time----
    Mr. Delahunt. I will defer to Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Meehan. Mr. Chairman, we can really see now we are 
headed in a direction that I think started yesterday, Mr. 
Chairman, as we closed, with your comments, basically saying to 
the American people, we want you all to know impeachment is not 
the removal of the President. And then listening to some of my 
Republican colleagues here, they seem to all be rushing to say 
the same thing. Even Mr. Barr, who has to be as aggressive as 
anyone in terms of wanting to get rid of this President, went 
out of his way to say impeachment doesn't mean the President is 
removed.
    Mr. McCollum, although he has corrected the record, even 
made the statement that even if the Senate were to convict, it 
doesn't mean the President is going to be removed. Now since 
Mr. McCollum has come forward and said, well, okay, I stand 
corrected on that.
    But I think it was Wednesday, and sometimes newspaper 
articles don't have it right, but Mr. McCollum can correct it 
if it isn't right, but the other day in the New York Times Mr. 
McCollum said, ``Impeachment would satisfy those who believe 
the President should be branded and given the scarlet letter.''
    Now, I don't know if that is accurate or not, but I know 
that on Face the Nation earlier, Mr. McCollum also said, 
``Impeachment would be the ultimatecensure, the ultimate 
scarlet letter.''
    Mr. McCollum. If the gentleman would yield, I did say that, 
and I do believe that would be true whether he were convicted 
in the Senate or not.
    Mr. Meehan. I appreciate that, and I think that is an 
important point to make. Apparently the Republicans, many of 
them on this committee, view impeachment as the ultimate 
censure, the ultimate scarlet letter. Let's brand the 
President. Even the maker of this motion Mr. Gekas also said 
recently if the committee reports out a resolution for 
impeachment and fails to pass the House floor, I believe he 
still has been censured.
    Ladies and gentlemen, this is not about branding the 
President or a scarlet letter to the President. You are going 
to have an opportunity to censure the President. It is coming 
up in the Democratic proposal that would be offered after you 
vote to impeach the President--that is, to send over to the 
Senate removal from office. You will have an opportunity to 
vote for censure. Let's see if you really want to vote for 
censure.
    But these Members try to have the American people believe 
that impeachment somehow isn't impeachment. It just doesn't 
wash. It doesn't fly. Nobody is buying it. If you want to 
punish the President, or brand the President, or scarlet 
letters or stamp them on his forehead, censure is the way to do 
that.
    I talk to people in Massachusetts, Republicans, Democrats, 
Independents. They say why are they doing this? Why push it 
this way? It is clear the President should be punished, 
censured, get it over with. They just lost five seats in the 
House when they were supposed to pick up 25. It is because of 
the way impeachment was handled. Why are they doing this? 
Sixty-five to seventy percent of the 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 
up Watergate as if somehow lying about clearly consensual sex 
is the same as paying $100,000 cash to keep those guys quiet 
that did the break-in, or abusing the CIA, or abusing the FBI, 
or abusing the IRS to go after your political enemies. But 
somehow they are on equal footing.
    Nobody believes that. But I heard Mr. McCollum say, well, 
we have an obstruction of justice charge just like Watergate. 
It is just like Watergate. You guys had an obstruction of 
justice charge. We have one. Abuse of power. Well, there was 
abuse of power in Watergate, so we have an abuse of power. That 
is what we are doing, what you did in Watergate. False 
statements. This is just like Watergate.
    Nixon was accused of false statements. We threw in perjury.
    Is that what this is all about? Watergate? Is this get-even 
time? You want to punish the President, you want to brand him, 
you want to censure him. We are going to have an opportunity to 
do that. But in the interests of the Constitution of the United 
States, let's do it constitutionally. Let's censure him when we 
bring up censure after this impeachment article. We can brand 
the President that way.
    Mr. McCollum. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Meehan. I yield.
    Mr. McCollum. I simply believe this is not comparable to 
Watergate. I never suggested it was.
    Mr. Meehan. Taking back my time, I was simply pointing out 
that you made the statement, there is obstruction of justice in 
this case, just like Watergate. You had an abuse of power 
article in Watergate. Well, we have one. Well, we have perjury. 
You had a false statement in Watergate. We are just doing the 
same thing.
    It is not the same thing. No one in America believes it is 
the same thing. This isn't abuse of the CIA, this isn't looking 
up IRS records. This isn't about abusing the head of the FBI 
and saying, we are going to call over to the FBI, we are going 
to get those records, we are going to investigate Ted Kennedy, 
George McGovern and anybody else we can. This is not what this 
is about.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Meehan. I would request 1 more minute. Perhaps Mr. 
McCollum has another point.
    Chairman Hyde. If you wish, if Mr. McCollum wishes.
    Mr. McCollum. If you could, I would like to respond. Thank 
you very much.
    I simply want to say I think the Watergate model is like 
David Broder discussed yesterday. It is a model. It was very 
serious. You don't have to reach the same level that Richard 
Nixon or Watergate did to find impeachable offenses, but we do 
have some similarities. That is what I pointed out.
    I believe there are similarities, but I don't think we 
should diminish the importance of what we are doing today or 
the crimes I think the President has committed by suggesting it 
doesn't rise to the level of Watergate.
    Mr. Meehan. Reclaiming my time, I would just say you are 
going to have an opportunity for the scarlet letter, for the 
branding of the President, for the ultimate censure of the 
President, when we vote for censure. But vote for the censure; 
if that is what you want to do, if you want to punish the 
President for his behavior, as we do, vote for the censure.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. I agree with some of what my 
Democratic colleagues have said here this morning. I can only 
speak for myself. But I would not have voted for articles of 
impeachment if I had not been convinced after thoroughly 
reviewing all of the evidence here in this committee that the 
President deserves to be removed from office. But this talk of 
a coup, this terminology that we are turning over a national 
election, is just not true.
    As Mr. Rogan, my colleague from California, so accurately 
stated last night, the President took an oath of office after 
he was elected, and he stated, and I quote, ``I do solemnly 
swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of 
the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, 
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' 
That is what he swore to do, to defend the Constitution of the 
United States.
    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 whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help him God. And 
then he turned around and he lied and he perjured himself, and 
when he did that, when he broke that second oath, he broke the 
first oath, the oath that he took to this country. And that is 
why we are here today. That is why this President is facing 
impeachment.
    And, remember, he is the chief law enforcement officer of 
this country, the chief law enforcement officer. Although the 
article of impeachment that we are considering right now 
relates to the 81 questions he answered, and the very first 
question that he was asked in these--legally they are called 
requests for admissions--the very first question he was asked 
is, do you admit or deny you are the chief law enforcement 
officer of the United States of America. Yes or no would be 
probably the appropriate answer one would expect. That is not 
the answer we got.
    Here is the answer the Congress got. I will read it fast 
because it is pretty long: ``The President is frequently 
referred to as the chief law enforcement officer. Although 
nothing in the Constitution specifically designates the 
President as such, Article II, Section 1 of the United States 
Constitution states that `the executive power shall be vested 
in a President of the United States,' and the law enforcement 
function is a component of the executive power.
    Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution 
states in part that the President shall `take care that the 
laws be faithfully executed.' Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 
of the Constitution vests the entire executive branch of the 
government, which includes the United States Department of 
Justice, in the President. He authorizes through the Attorney 
General all prosecutions brought on behalf of the people of the 
United States in carrying out his constitutional duty 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 are the actual impeachable offenses. This does 
go to show a little bit why, in his own defense attorney's 
terminology the other day, he described the President's answers 
oftentimes as maddening. I find that answer maddening; not 
impeachable, but maddening.
    Now, we should not understate the importance of what this 
committee is doing by passing articles of impeachment. I agree 
with that. This moves the possible removal of a President from 
office from this committee to the full House where a vote is 
likely to take place next week, and if that vote is in the 
affirmative, then it will go to the Senate for a trial, and it 
takes two-thirds of the Senators to actually remove a President 
from office.
    But let's not overstate what we are doing, as we have heard 
a number of times here this morning from some of my Democratic 
colleagues on the committee. I would strongly encourage my 
colleagues over there to stop using this inflammatory language, 
like coup and coup d'etat, which brings to mind visions of 
blood flowing in the streets. For 220 years we have been a 
Nation of laws, buttressed by a sacred Constitution, a 
Constitution which I believe, sadly, that this President has 
violated. And as unpleasant as this matter is that we are 
facing and this Nation is facing right now, we are a very 
strong Nation, and we will overcome these unfortunate 
circumstances. I have the utmost faith in this country, 
although, unfortunately, I have lost a tremendous amount of 
faith in this particular President.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Scott, the gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, the matter before us is the 
amendment, technically the amendment at this point, and it is a 
difficult vote, because voting for this amendment to strike one 
or two of the elements out of this article suggests that this 
last one has some kind of additional substance that the others 
didn't have. I don't want to give that impression when I vote 
to strike out the others, that I agree with this last one.
    Mr. Chairman, we are talking about these questions that you 
say ``we'' sent. Mr. Chairman, I didn't know the questions were 
being sent until I found out they had been sent by the news 
media. I found out when the deadline for the response was when 
I got that in the media. So I don't want anyone to think I had 
anything to do with these questions.
    The gentleman from Ohio read the first question and answer 
and suggested how insulted he was with the answer.
    Mr. Chairman, who is the chief law enforcement officer of 
Washington, D.C.? Is it the mayor? Is it the chief of police? 
Is the prosecutor? I introduced into evidence a newspaper 
article from last Sunday that identified the second highest 
ranking law enforcement official in the State of Delaware and 
identified the Chief Deputy Attorney General, suggesting it 
wasn't the Governor, but the Attorney General was the chief law 
enforcement officer of Delaware. And so we have an answer to 
the question, and you have to answer it precisely, as the 
President did, because you know, and when you send in these 
answers, you are going to be charged with perjury. You know 
that. So you better answer it precisely, and that precise 
answer is just what he gave.
    Really, what difference does it make? What was the 
significance of the question to begin with?
    Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves with this article at the 
end of a process that began with the Starr report, which we 
released without reading it, never calling a fact witness to 
reconcile conflicts in testimony. Instead, we resolved all 
conflicts and took all inferences in a way most damaging to the 
President. If there was a conflict in testimony, therefore, the 
President lied each and every time.
    We even used normally improper theories of evidence. I have 
heard of challenging evidence by finding prior inconsistent 
statements that have been made, but I have never seen any way 
to corroborate testimony by pointing out prior consistent 
statements. I was amazed when the committee called the 
prosecutor as the sole fact witness.
    We have been charged with not asking him questions about 
the facts. We did ask him questions about the facts. He said he 
didn't know anything, firsthand, secondhand, sometimes not even 
thirdhand 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 motion which would have given the Democrats the 
opportunity to call witnesses as soon as the committee decided 
which allegations we were actually going to pursue. That was 
not an unreasonable request, what allegations are we pursuing, 
because Mr. Starr started off with 11, came back with 10. Mr. 
Schippers, the Republican counsel, said maybe 15. The next day 
the Chairman said two or three. As we have been proceeding, the 
scope has expanded into Kathleen Willey, into campaign finance. 
The gentleman from Arkansas listed another statement that he 
thought was perjurious just in the last couple of days. Mr. 
Graham did the same thing. Even after all of the rebuttal had 
taken place, after our counsel had spoken, after Mr. Ruff had 
spoken, the Republican counsel added on some new unnamed 
charges.
    So this impeachment thing has been a moving target. Wejust 
asked for the specific allegations so we could call witnesses. We were 
denied.
    Mr. Chairman, the Democrats began this process by offering 
to work in a bipartisan fashion by suggesting a step-by-step, 
orderly process to evaluate the allegations in a fair, focused 
and deliberate process, but that suggestion was rejected on a 
party line vote.
    So this article of impeachment, which is totally out of 
proportion to whatever President Clinton may have done--let's 
look at when Speaker Gingrich was found to have lied, he was 
not disqualified, he was reelected. Impeachment is totally out 
of proportion, particularly when you consider the added 
statement that the President not only warrants impeachment and 
trial and removal from office, but disqualification to hold or 
enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit in the United 
States. That additional language was not mentioned in the 
Watergate articles of impeachment. So history will suggest that 
we thought what President Clinton did was worse than what 
happened in Watergate.
    These are flimsy allegations, supported by conflicting 
hearsay statements and dubious inferences, and here we find 
that we have to compare--Mr. Chairman, could I have 2 
additional minutes?
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, we need to compare these allegations to what 
is an impeachable offense anyway, and why do we have 
impeachment. We have impeachment to protect against the 
subversion of government. We found in Watergate that half-a-
million-dollar tax fraud was not a subversion of government. We 
only have the authority to remove the President for commission 
of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
    Our experts told us to focus on that word ``other,'' things 
like treason and bribery. So some of us were surprised to hear 
the Republican counsel say that if we don't impeach the 
President, only convicted felons and traitors need to be afraid 
of impeachment. Well, that is what the Constitution says. That 
is what the Constitution says, that you do not have the legal 
authority under the rule of law to try to remove the President 
unless there is treason, bribery, or other high crimes and 
misdemeanors.
    I was also amazed to find at the end of the process we have 
to debate whether or not the conviction in the Senate would 
result in the removal of the President. We kind of had to go 
back and forth. I think we found out that upon conviction, the 
Senate can either remove the President from office, or remove 
him and disqualify him from further offices, but he has to be 
removed.
    So as we vote on this article, we are facing allegations 
which are not impeachable offenses, which are presented to us 
by way of contradictory hearsay and dubious inferences and 
assumptions, and after we have violated fundamental principles 
of fairness and decency in a partisan proceeding, I will vote 
no when this article comes up.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 
Lindsey Graham.
    Mr. Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I certainly respect Mr. Scott's right to vote no based on 
what he feels to be insufficient evidence, unfair proceeding, 
and doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. I just happen to 
disagree with him on all counts.
    I do believe, Mr. Chairman, that there is ample testimony 
from which 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 the committee, which I think was well done. Many 
times he would say, I now call so and so to the stand. And he 
would by illustration get the sworn testimony and refer to it.
    And the idea that the committee has denied the President or 
the Members of the other side a chance to address the factual 
allegations by calling witnesses they believe can help clarify 
matters I reject. I don't believe is true. And it is time to 
move on, I believe, to what the real heart of the matter is 
with Article IV.
    Imagine an oath tree. This is how the President has climbed 
the oath tree. The first time he violated his oath was in a 
litigation matter with a young lady, Paula Jones, a former 
government employee of the State of Arkansas. He chose, in my 
opinion, to lie in his deposition, to her legal detriment, a 
single individual, exercising her constitutional rights to have 
her day in court.
    I agreed with the Democratic friends on the other side that 
because the deposition was dismissed, I would give the 
President the legal benefit of the doubt. However, I do believe 
he gave false testimony.
    The second time that he abused the oath, in my opinion, was 
when he went in front of 23 or so Federal fellow citizens who 
were sitting as a Federal grand jury down the street. I think 
he willfully lied about important matters relating back to Mrs. 
Jones' lawsuit and lied about important matters concerning his 
criminal misconduct to hide the truth. He lied then, Mr. 
Chairman, after he was begged basically by members of both 
parties and prominent Americans, do not go into the grand jury 
and tell another lie. You are risking your Presidency. That 
would be bad. That would be an impeachable offense.
    The third time I believe the President violated his oath, 
the group then he harmed was the Congress of the United States, 
because I believe, Mr. Chairman, that after he lied in the 
deposition in January, after he continued to lie in August at 
the Federal grand jury, the final insult was that the President 
lied to the United States Congress, the House of 
Representatives, the body closest to the people.
    The argument that we don't understand what you are talking 
about I think for lack of a better word is wrong. We know what 
we are all talking about here. They have made an elaborate 
presentation of the President's side of the story about each 
and every matter contained in these questions. They go to the 
heart of the matter, and I would just refer to one, question 
52. ``Do you admit or deny that on January 18th, 1998, at or 
about 5 p.m. you had a meeting with Betty Currie at which you 
made statements similar to any of the following regarding your 
relationship with Ms. Monica Lewinsky: One--this is the 
scenario where he was trying to refresh his memory after the 
deposition because he thought some press reports would be 
coming--you were always there when she was there, right? We 
were never really alone. Two: You could see and hear 
everything. Three--it gets bizarre now, in my opinion--Monica 
came on to me and I never touched her, right? Four: She wanted 
to have sex with me. I couldn't do that.
    The most bizarre of all statements under the idea of 
refreshing memory.''
    Mr. Chairman, I believe that those statements were made as 
Ms. Currie recounts. The President's answer to the 
interrogatory says, ``when I met with Ms. Currie, I believed 
that I asked her certain questions in an effort to get as much 
information as quickly as I could and made certain statements, 
although I do not remember exactly what I said,'' and it goes 
on to say that he was trying to recall or refresh his memory, 
and that when she was going to go to the grand jury, he said, 
``just relax, go in there and tell the truth.''
    I believe that his response, ``I was just talking to her to 
refresh my memory, get as much information as possible,'' is 
absolutely false, not based on any common-sense interpretation 
of what was going on at the time, and that he did, in fact, 
just as recently as a few weeks ago, choose to violate his oath 
again, the fifth time, to the House 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.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been doing two 
things this morning, and I want to try to address both of them, 
because I think two things have been going on.
    I have been trying to listen very carefully to the debate 
in the committee and I have been trying to look very quickly at 
the amendment that was offered by Mr. Gekas to try to decide 
how I feel about that amendment. And I would like to address 
both of those things, because I have been very fascinated by 
the debate that has been taking place here in the committee and 
the effort by some of my colleagues to minimize the importance 
of what we are doing here today and what the House will do and 
what our role in the impeachment process is.
    I think that part of the debate is basically spin control 
that we usually do out in the press gallery, and my perception 
is--and I am not accusing anybody of this, I am just giving you 
my perception--is that it is an attempt by some of my 
colleagues to be in a position to say in April, May, and June 
and July of next year, when things are going on in the Senate 
and the questioning is going on in the Senate 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 have had today, will 
say, well, we didn't have anything to do with that.
    I have seen a lot of this in this committee by the refusal 
to add the kind of specificity which the law requires when you 
allege perjury. That is a legal allegation, and there are some 
legal consequences that go with it when you allege it. The law 
says if you allege it, you have got to specify the specific 
statements that you believe constitute the perjury. And in 
order to do that here, we would have to get into the same kind 
of details that Mr. Starr got into in his referral, which the 
American people don't like, and my colleagues don't want to be 
saddled with that responsibility.
    Now they are spinning this in such a way that when that 
trial takes place in the Senate and that must be done, they can 
say, ``well, oh, no, that is the Senators that are doing that. 
We didn't have anything to do with that.''
    That is an unfortunate spin, because we can't get through 
the door to the Senate unless we send it out of here and give 
them the keys to deal with that.
    That is the first part of what I wanted to say. The second 
part has to do with the amendment that is before the committee, 
because I have been vexing about whether to support it or not, 
and I could do one of three things: I could vote for it, I 
could vote against it, or I could just say ``pass.'' There are 
good valid arguments to do either one of those three things.
    Mr. Gekas. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman be given 
an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.
    Mr. Watt. My time isn't up yet. I appreciate your 
generosity, but at least let me finish.
    Mr. Gekas. There you go.
    Mr. Watt. Now that he used a half a minute of my time, Mr. 
Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for 3 additional 
minutes.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is granted 3 additional 
minutes.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, because I really do want 
to talk about the amendment that is before us, not the spin 
machine that is going on here.
    If I vote for this amendment, and I may, I want to be clear 
that I would be voting for it only because it is less 
ridiculous than the original article that is in the original 
bill that was presented here. So I would be voting for it on 
the less ridiculous theory.
    If I just said ``pass,''--and I guess I have some 
responsibility to vote for things that are less ridiculous. I 
don't endorse them if I do that, I just say they are marginally 
better than what we started off with and I want to improve what 
we are doing.
    If I took a pass and said I just pass, I would be 
acknowledging, as my colleague Mr. Frank has indicated, that if 
you are charged with murder and you have got four bullets, and 
three of them are going to kill you anyway, and you strike 
those three, and the fourth one is going to kill you anyway, 
you are going to be just as dead. So, you know, what difference 
does it make whether we have got four charges, four subcharges, 
or one subcharge here?
    I think this article, the amendment, just summarizes 
everything that was in the first three articles. It doesn't add 
anything. This whole notion that the President assumed to 
himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of 
the House's power is what we do all 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 of it out, you wouldn't have 
anything other than that he committed perjurious, false and 
misleading statements, which is the same thing that we covered 
in Articles I and II that have already been voted for.
    So unless we are going to set some precedent that every 
time the President disagrees with us, he takes upon himself 
some extraordinary function that we in an equal branch disagree 
with him on, I don't understand the article. I mean, I just 
think it is ridiculous. I am still vexing about which one of 
these options to pursue. I guess by the time we get around to 
voting, I will decide. But if I do vote for this, I do want the 
record to understand that it is not because I am endorsing this 
article. It is just because I think it is less ridiculous than 
the original article that we started off with.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Hyde. Thank you, sir. The question occurs on the 
amendment----
    Mr. Wexler. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Rogan. Five minutes.
    Mr. Rogan. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. I am sorry. I automatically yielded you 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Rogan. My deference to the Chair----
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman, it is my memory--and I would be 
happy to seek a unanimous request or unanimous consent request 
that Mr. Rogan be given additional time--but is my memory that 
he has already spoken on this issue.
    Mr. Rogan. That is not correct.
    Chairman Hyde. He has been yielded time, but has never used 
his 5-minute turn. So the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Rogan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The primary purpose for 
our being here today is to debate, discuss, and vote upon a 
pending issue of great constitutional and historical 
significance. But there is a by-product from our debate today. 
It is the opportunity to educate America as to the function of 
what we are doing, and educate America as to what the framers 
intended our function to be.
    Mr. Graham. Excuse me, I hate to interrupt the gentleman 
from California. Would you yield to me for one moment, please?
    Mr. Rogan. I am happy to yield to my colleague.
    Mr. Graham. Mr. Chairman, I have a matter that I feel is 
appropriate to take up at this time in this area of discussion 
about abuse of power, and I would like to inform the committee 
of something I think that is disturbing.
    There is a Member of Congress from Arkansas, Mr. Jay 
Dickey, who I think is trying to search his conscience and vote 
in a manner consistent with the best interests of the Nation. 
Being from the home State of the President, I know that has got 
to be very difficult. This article, I believe, is in today's 
paper, the Arkansas Democratic Gazette. It is entitled 
``Pressure Mounts on Fence-Sitting Dickey.'' I would like to 
read an excerpt.
    ``The White House feels some confidence that despite 
pressure from the Republican leadership, Dickey can be 
persuaded to vote against impeachment. `If Jay Dickey votes to 
impeach the President, it is probably an indication he will not 
run for reelection in 2000,' one White House aide said. `It is 
suicide, and we will make sure it is.' ''
    Mr. Chairman, I think this needs to stop. I understand what 
the article is about, and I understand the general idea of 
abuse of power, now that we are down to the 81 questions, but I 
think it is important to know that this behavior, if true, is 
certainly out of line.
    I yield back to the gentleman from California.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from California 
yield?
    Mr. Rogan. I yield to my colleague for his response.
    Mr. Watt. Well, I am not sure I am going to be able to do 
this on your time. Let me just yield back to you. I think I 
need independent time to respond to Mr. Graham, because I am 
really troubled by the last 2 or 3 days of grandstanding that 
we have gotten out of this, and I am a little--I am getting a 
little perturbed by it.
    Mr. Rogan. I am happy to yield to the gentleman so that he 
may pose a question to the gentleman from South Carolina.
    Mr. Watt. I will get time later. I will take care of it. 
Maybe I will feel differently if I simmer down. I will just 
yield back.
    Chairman Hyde. Does the gentleman from California wish any 
more time?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that his time totally 
be restored.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from California's 5 minutes 
will totally be restored.
    Mr. Rogan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank my friend from 
Virginia. The point I was starting to make is that during the 
course of debate on this particular article, a few 
constitutional issues have arisen that some of my friends on 
the other side now take issue. One issue is the constitutional 
role of the House of Representatives in an impeachment inquiry. 
The second issue is the validity of some members of the 
Majority to point out the beneficial effect of the role of 
impeachment with respect to how that might deter an otherwise 
errant executive in the future. The third issue is whether it 
is appropriate for us to pursue articles of impeachment without 
a guarantee that we would be able to successfully obtain a 
conviction after trial in the Senate.
    Constitutional law Professor Jonathan Turley must have been 
prescient, because just last week, he published an article that 
addressed all three of these issues in a few paragraphs. I 
would like to read them into the record.
    First, with respect to the role of the House, he clearly 
indicated that impeachment and removal are distinct issues 
given to distinct houses of Congress. Impeachment simply means 
the referral of accusations to the Senate, which is given the 
sole authority to try such issues. Thus, the House does not 
convict, but merely accuses. In performing this accusatory 
function, the House plays an important role in deterring 
presidential misconduct.
    That is not a minimization, Mr. Chairman, of the role of 
the House; it is a recognition of the constitutional role of 
the House.
    Far more serious is the suggestion from the minority that 
this House should not address presidential misconduct unless we 
can guarantee the Senate will produce the votes to convict. 
Imagine the absurdity of suggesting that no criminal trial 
could be filed anywhere in the country unless there was a 
sufficient guarantee from the jury pool that they would vote to 
convict the defendant charged with some heinous crime. That is 
ridiculous.
    But Professor Turley put it in even stronger societal 
terms. He said, ``[i]magine 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 as amoral argument to explain why they 
would not prosecute cases involving black victims and white 
killers. Prosecutors simply argued that a jury would not 
convict, and therefore there was no point in bringing a case. 
Yet it was a greater loss to the system not to force the 
question, not to call those responsible to the bar of justice. 
Otherwise, only those felons who are unpopular are brought to 
justice in a system of pure moral relativism.''
    Professor Turley thus addressed his argument from the 
shadow of a dark period of our history that we now celebrate is 
over. I don't want to see us step into the same type of 
constitutional quagmire that some regions in the past were in; 
this was a terrible black mark upon the legal history of our 
country then, and we should not sound retreat now.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I must note that one dear friend of 
mine on the other side spoke with a disparaging tone in his 
voice about a Republican member's motivation, when the 
Republican suggested that the threat of impeachment also is a 
legitimate tool to deter wrongful conduct in a President.
    This minority member's quarrel is not with any member of 
the majority. If he has a quarrel, his quarrel is with James 
Iredell, one of the founders of our country. Framer Iredell 
spoke of the importance of the House impeachment authority as a 
deterrent. He explained that while the President may be a man 
of no principle, the very terror of punishment will perhaps 
deter him. Impeachment, Professor Turley concluded, is the 
process by which presidential misconduct is detected and 
defined within the constitutional system.
    Now, Mr. Chairman, I have become used to seeing quarrels 
raised in this committee with everybody responsible for trying 
to hold the President accountable. Quarrels have been raised 
with Judge Starr, with the Chairman, with individual members of 
this committee, and the Majority party of this committee 
collectively. But this is the first time I have seen the 
minority openly quarrel with the concept of the Constitution 
and the document of the Constitution itself. There is nothing 
pernicious about simply reading from the Constitution and 
stating that which is so, and using the opportunity that we 
have in this great historical debate to educate the public on 
the meaning of the Constitution, as well as our responsibility 
to the Constitution.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired. Does the 
gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition?
    Mr. Delahunt. I seek recognition, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman, I thank 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 he would disagree 
with me when I say that the ethical prosecutor would not bring 
a case unless he was convinced of the likelihood of a 
conviction. I dare say there is nobody on the other side who 
has voted for an article of impeachment who does not believe--
and I think this is the important point to make--who does not 
believe that the President of the United States should be 
removed from office. Not just simply impeached, but be removed 
from office.
    I am confident that every member here is abiding by the 
dictates of his conscience. But I also think it is important 
for the American people to know that when a member of this 
committee votes on an article of impeachment, that he believes 
or she believes it is not simply the standard of probable 
cause, but it is because of a conviction that President Clinton 
should be removed from office. That is what this is about. That 
is what this is about. And I hear no response. But if there is 
any member on the other side that believes that the President 
should not be removed from office, I would like to hear from 
them.
    Mr. Cannon. I would like to associate myself with that 
standard. I believe that is what a Congressman should be doing 
when he votes.
    Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. I think that is the 
point, that these votes are votes by people who think that the 
President of the United States should be removed from office, 
not just simply impeached.
    Mr. Rogan. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Delahunt. I will at a later point.
    Mr. Cannon. Could I make one distinction there?
    Mr. Delahunt. I want to make some other points, and I am 
sure you will 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 many prosecutors would overcharge for leverage 
purposes, to secure some advantage, and then drop some charges. 
And I am sure the gentleman from Pennsylvania is acting in good 
faith; in fact, I know he has. Stop and think of what we were 
about to do before the gentleman's motion.
    We were going to impeach the President of the United States 
for lying to the American people. While we could have done it 
retroactively to Lyndon Johnson in terms of what this House did 
with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which led to a war that 
claimed 54,000 American lives, or we could have impeached 
President Eisenhower when he stood up and lied to the American 
people about the U-2 incident, but we didn't. We exercised 
judgment.
    But what we have got here is an amendment which takes away 
the absurdity of what was originally proposed and tries to make 
it reasonable. This isn't even about abuse of power now, it is 
about perjury, and it doesn't really belong separate and 
standing in a distinct article. If we were really going to be 
fair, we would incorporate this final clause in one of the 
articles dealing with the issue of perjury, either Article I or 
Article II.
    So I will support the gentleman's amendment but, you know, 
here we are, not even on the eve, but the day of the debate, 
and Mr. Gekas has courageously spoken out about this. But 2 
days ago we were presented with an article that was so absurd, 
it would have created an imbalance among the three coordinate 
branches of government. It would have created an assault by 
Congress on the Constitution. It would have created a system of 
constitutional tyranny.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Bryant, would you allow me just a very 
brief moment of personal privilege?
    Mr. Bryant. I certainly will.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I 
thank, first of all, Mr. Bryant, he happens to be my floor 
mate, and I thank you for indulging me. My stomach has settled 
a little bit now with the words of my good friend from South 
Carolina. I wanted to comment very briefly. I know Mr. Dickey. 
I have great respect for him. I think it would do well for all 
of us to just restate during this process that we all will be 
voting our conscience, our heart, and hopefully the facts and 
the Constitution.
    Mr. Rogan. Mr. Chairman, this is not a point of personal 
privilege.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I don't know how much service it might be 
to any of--and I will finish, Mr. Bryant--that we raise these 
issues in the Committee, but I hope that all of us, however we 
talk to Members, will do so in conscience and with our hearts.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Bryant, I have 
restored your 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am reminded of the 
Biblical quote and 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 I think that would be something we could all do a 
better job of in this committee, certainly on the slow to 
speak, we could get this done. We probably should have voted on 
this amendment some time ago, but as you can see, we have 
diverted from the merits of the amendment and talked and talked 
and talked about issues we have beaten to death. But certainly 
that is part of this process, and it is a very serious process.
    But once you peel away all the package and you continue to 
take the papers out and you take out the attacks on Kenneth 
Starr and the unfair process and the attacks on our Chairman 
and the political motivations--which, quite frankly, I have 
never understood why we would want to remove this President to 
put in a popular Vice President to give him an advantage in the 
next election--I really resent that, though, our opposition 
here thinks we are motivated that way.
    I believe sincerely that all members of this committee are 
motivated by principle. We may disagree on what the principle 
is, but I think we are all motivated by principle and not 
politics.
    But when you strip away all this package, all the 
wrappings, and get to the core of it, you still have a 
President who has perjured himself. And the reason this is 
separated into three distinct articles is that he perjured 
himself in the grand jury, number one; he perjured himself in 
answering interrogatories in the deposition in the Paula Jones 
case, number two; and now, number three, he perjured himself in 
his answers to Congress. Those are 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 with this or 
convict or have a trial or whatever, but if the President were 
to testify and raise his right hand in the Senate and swear to 
tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God, 
I just wonder if the Senate would also have to give him an 
admonition: Does that mean you are not going to evade? Does 
that mean you are not going to mislead the Senate? Does that 
mean you are not going to give incomplete answers to the 
Senate?
    It is almost humorous, but it is not. It is that serious. 
You almost have to do that in this situation, and that is the 
core of what we are talking about here. I think our counsel, 
David Schippers, summarized this very well when he spoke the 
other day. He mentioned how we have referred back to this 
income tax case against President Nixon and said, ``We are not 
going to go down that road, that is not impeachable.'' He said, 
what about in future years when Congresses look at alleged 
misconduct 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 off the table 
perjury? Obstruction of justice? It sounds to me like some in 
this room would have us do that, just because it is sex.
    Folks, this is not about sex. We are not charging him with 
adultery or anything like that. We are charging him with making 
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--and then decide to go down that road of consistent, 
persistent perjuries and obstruction of justice.That is what we 
are about. Are we going to turn our head as a Congress and take these 
things off the table for future Congresses and allow a President that 
leeway to get into that conduct, and 20 years from now come back and 
say, you set the precedent in 1998, you can't call me to order for 
perjury, for obstruction of justice? I don't think we are about that, 
and I would urge my colleagues: let's cut our speeches down, let's vote 
on this, support this amendment and move forward.
    Chairman Hyde. The question occurs on the amendment----
    Mr. Wexler. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Do you want 5 minutes?
    Mr. Wexler. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wexler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no doubt that 
history will record today's debate as the great dumb-down 
impeachment debate. And if I understood Mr. Rogan's objection 
earlier, or concern with my friend Mr. Rothman's comments, I 
think in a very genuine and honest fashion, my colleague from 
my home State of Florida, Mr. McCollum, answered Mr. Rogan's 
question honestly, genuinely; that at least in part, and I 
don't want to paraphrase him, but I believe he said it himself, 
in confirming what he has said many times, that impeachment is 
the ultimate censure, the ultimate scarlet letter.
    And what I think many of us on this side of the aisle are 
having such a terrible time with respect to that notion is that 
impeachment is much more than that. Censure is the scarlet 
letter. Impeachment is the removal of the President. And when 
the idea of impeachment being the removal of the President is 
combined with the notion and the predicate of what is now or 
may be Article IV, again my colleague from Florida, Mr. 
McCollum, said that at least one of the answers that is so 
egregious that would justify impeachment that the President 
gave to this Congress was the answer to question No. 34. And 
the essence of the answer to No. 34 that apparently justifies 
impeachment and removal, at least as we see it, impeachment and 
removal, is that the President answered, and his quote was: ``I 
believe at the time she filled out this affidavit''--that is, 
Monica Lewinsky--''if she believed that the definition of 
sexual relationship was two people having intercourse, then 
this is accurate.''
    Now, I understand the other side when they say this isn't 
about sex, it is about perjury, it is about obstruction of 
justice, it is about a 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 the definition of a sexual 
relationship. And what boggles my mind is that we seem to have 
forgotten the beginning of Mr. Lowell's presentation. We all 
saw it. The President was sitting up there on all these 
television sets, and what did we hear at that deposition? We 
heard the President's lawyers arguing with Paula Jones' lawyers 
about this definition, back and forth, back and forth, back and 
forth. And then I think they changed the definition twice, and 
it wasn't Robert Wexler that is now arguing this is confusing, 
it was the presiding judge. She said that she is concerned that 
the President may be confused.
    So then the President went ahead and denied a sexual 
relationship. And that is what we are impeaching the President 
about.
    Well, I hope Dr. Ruth is getting ready, because she will 
undoubtedly be an expert witness at the trial in the Senate. 
But that is what it all comes down to.
    If I could in conclusion just offer not a response, but 
maybe a corollary to Mr. Graham's concern about undue pressure, 
unfair pressure about impeachment. Well, what about a censure 
vote on the floor of the House? What about a censure vote on 
the floor of the House? Why won't the Republican leadership, 
why wouldn't Speaker Gingrich or new to-be Speaker Livingston 
or Mr. Delay, why won't they let us vote on a censure vote in 
the full House? Because it is undue pressure, because they know 
very well that if they allow a censure vote, that will create a 
big dilemma for some Republicans. So when we talk about undue 
pressure, when we talk about voting your conscience, then let's 
talk about the Republican leadership in Congress allowing the 
free will of this Congress to be expressed.
    Don't hide behind parliamentary procedure. Undue pressure? 
Let us vote on the censure, and then maybe, maybe the 
Republicans would have a ground to talk about undue pressure. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogan. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of personal 
privilege.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from California has a point of 
personal privilege.
    Mr. Rogan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    A few minutes ago my friend from Massachusetts in his 
remarks to the committee put forth his interpretation of the 
motivations of the Republican Members' votes on articles of 
impeachment. He then said that if any Republican disagreed with 
that interpretation, they should speak 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. Regrettably, his 
time expired.
    I simply don't want a vacant record left that shows silence 
when the challenge was issued. Speaking for myself, I did take 
issue with his interpretation. I do not know if any of my 
colleagues join me in that, but I just want the record 
toreflect the gentleman's time did expire before anybody had an 
opportunity to engage him further on his point.
    Mr. Watt. Will the gentleman yield? Which friend from 
Massachusetts? We have three of them here.
    Mr. Rogan. Well, they are all my friends. That would be my 
especially dear friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me just point out, I wanted to make a distinction as to 
what Mr. Delahunt had said and suggest that conviction, the 
conviction that every person of conscience in this House 
arrives at when he makes a vote, should be based on things 
other than just personal animosity. I don't think that is any 
reason to vote in this House, but rather should be based on the 
evidence and the weighing of many factors, including the 
gravity of the acts of the President and their effect on our 
system. But I think, at least for me, the standard should be 
that those 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 emotional 
difficulty, the knots in his stomach. I think this is a trying 
time for America, a very difficult time, and yet we are called 
upon to do what I would hope on all sides is the courageous 
thing and that is vote our consciences. I would just make an 
exception that I don't want to go to the parking lot with him, 
because I think he can handle it himself, for whoever might 
take it. I just give you fair warning in advance.
    I would like to speak to the issue of executive privilege 
and why I thought it should be in here. It is a difficult issue 
and one where I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Gekas and 
his view that executive privilege is easily abused. But you 
will recall that this became rather a prominent item over the 
President's denial that he knew anything about the assertion of 
executive privilege in the course of questioning from reporters 
from the Washington Post.
    In fact, President Clinton said--or the article says, 
Clinton, who has yet to acknowledge publicly even that he is 
asserting executive privilege, was pressed by reporters to 
explain why he was trying to block testimony. His voice clipped 
and his expression cold, the President responded as though he 
were a bystander in the controversy rather than its central 
character. All I know is I saw an article about it in the paper 
today, said Clinton, referring to the packet of news clippings 
he gets each morning. I haven't discussed it with the lawyers. 
I don't know. You should ask someone who knows.
    Now, that is important, because what the President was 
doing here was cutting off one of the kinds of things in 
America in our system that keeps him in line, and that is the 
press. He didn't tell the truth. The White House came back, 
through Mr. Ruff, and tried to explain that, saying that, in 
fact, the question, in fact, cast aspersions on Mr. Starr, 
saying that he misquoted and misstated the past. But in fact, 
in paragraph 44 of Mr. Ruff's affidavit, he referred with 
particularity to the First Lady. So that being the distinction, 
that the President had been asked about the First Lady, and yet 
the averment that Mr. Ruff made in his assertion of the 
executive privilege particularly included the First Lady.
    Now, I don't think that executive privilege would be--just 
based on that would be so significant, when you take a look at 
what this White House has done. In the Nixon case executive 
privilege was asserted six times in writing, and I think those 
were the only assertions of executive privilege. In this case, 
that is the case of President Clinton, we have 13 assertions of 
executive privilege 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 what we are dealing with here, that is the 
President lying, in the establishment of a monument in my 
district, the President suggested and suggested and suggested 
executive privilege, and what came down in 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 
against the President is lying under oath. At every turn when 
he was faced with the choice of answering questions honestly or 
deceptively, the President has chosen deception. Even when he 
was faced with the prospect of impeachment, the President chose 
to provide false and deceptive information to the Judiciary 
Committee, demonstrating contempt for the constitutional duty 
of Congress. While lying to the American people and his 
subordinates are extremely serious matters, for the basis of 
impeachment charges against President Clinton, the Majority is 
choosing to set the bar for abuse of power in the articles of 
impeachment as clearly as possible, and focusing that on lying 
to Congress.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to briefly address this amendment itself, and I 
listened carefully when Mr. Watt, among others, spoke on this 
amendment. I view this as choosing between supporting or voting 
for an article that is currently in the draft that I don't 
support, or voting for an article that is not in the draft that 
I don't support. And I am of the notion that rather than 
picking my poison, I am going to vote 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 his comment that deserves discussion, because in some ways 
it goes to the nub of what we are talking about here today.
    He said that he felt, and I don't mean to misstate you, Mr. 
Bryant, so correct me if I do, that we should not be lowering 
the bar, in essence, by saying that perjury and obstruction of 
justice are no longer impeachable offenses. That is pretty much 
what you said. And I would 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 an impeachable 
offense.
    And so my feeling on this all along is that you have to 
look at the underlying offense, first, to determine whether it 
occurred; second, to determine whether it is an offense against 
the State; and if it is not an offense against the State, 
whether it is a crime of such great magnitude that the 
underlying offense so offends one's morality that the person 
should be removed from office.
    So I think we do have to be careful, and I agree withyou, 
we have to be careful what we are doing with this bar, whether we are 
lowering it or whether we are raising it, because I think if we did say 
that perjury per se was an offense, that would mean that you would have 
someone who committed perjury in a very private divorce matter, for 
example, susceptible to impeachment. I am not saying that that is 
right, but that is certainly something that could happen, so you would 
not have an underlying civil rights claim that we have in this case. 
You could say that perjury, as I mentioned before, in a speeding case 
would be an act that deserved impeachment. Again, I don't think that is 
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 Jay Dickey. I know Jay Dickey. He is a good friend 
of mine. He can foul and be fouled as well as anybody I know in 
the basketball gym downstairs, and he can stand up to pressure 
from Democrats and Republicans.
    I have looked at the article, and I want to read another 
section of the article, because it says, it was not the kind of 
arm-twisting that normally marks a legislative battle, Dickey 
said. Rather, it was simply an offer for information. But he 
isn't sure whether he will take the White House up on it. ``I 
will if I can see an application,''. It doesn't sound like a 
man under great duress.
    Earlier in the article, the article also states, the White 
House feels some confidence that despite pressure from the 
Republican leadership, Dickey can be persuaded to vote against 
impeachment. What this means in legislative parlance is that 
Mr. Dickey is in play, and he is getting pressure apparently 
from the White House, although from his own account it is not 
the normal kind of arm-twisting that goes along with 
legislative battle, but pressure from the Republican 
leadership.
    I have been under the impression from statements here today 
that this is solely a vote of conscience.
    Mr. Graham. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Barrett. I will yield in about 15 seconds.
    Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman yield to me, too?
    Mr. Barrett. And if it is solely a vote of conscience, then 
we should tell the leaders from both our parties to go home, 
leave us alone, let us pray and make the decision as our 
conscience dictates.
    I yield to Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. I will associate myself with that last 
statement. Let me read what Mr. Dickey has released in a press 
release. A statement by 4th district--well, it was brought up 
by the gentleman from Wisconsin. I have the article, and I hope 
something will bring us together, and maybe the idea of your 
last statement will bring us together. We all got a job to do, 
and we are going to have to live with what we have to do, and 
leave us alone and let us do it.
    That statement takes--he is referring to the statement in 
the article, that statement----
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman be given 2 additional minutes.
    Mr. Graham. ``When will they learn there are some people 
who don't want to serve according to polls, who don't consider 
their survival more important than the good of the country? 
This threat encourages me to make 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. What I want to do is 
stress to my constituents that this decision should be about 
protecting, respecting, and abiding by the U.S. Constitution 
and respecting others with opposing views. Hear this, White 
House: I am planning on running for reelection in the year 
2000. You are trying to influence my vote with the power of the 
White House. If my decision on impeachment causes you to work 
even harder for my defeat, as you have in the past, then so be 
it. In the end, you may finally tear me away from my 
constituents, but you won't ever tear me away from my 
conscience.''
    I hope we all would associate ourselves with that 
statement.
    Mr. Barrett. If I could reclaim my time, and again, we hear 
the word ``conscience,'' and we are going to hear that word a 
lot more today, because our plea to you is going to be 
continuously that we be allowed to vote our conscience as well. 
Every one of us, believe it or not, and maybe the American 
people don't believe it, but I believe it, every Member of this 
institution has a conscience. No Member of this institution 
should be denied the right to vote their conscience.
    I yield to Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want 
to say on the record that I wanted the record to reflect that I 
was on the verge of making some disparaging remarks about my 
friend Mr. Graham. Mr. Rogan had, in fact, yielded me time to 
do that. And I took a deep breath and took a walk, and decided 
neither to say them publicly, nor privately, and that Mr. 
Graham and I remain friends. And I am happy that I did that.
    Mr. Barrett. I yield to Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. I thank the gentleman. I would just like to say 
that any discussion of pressure being put on Members which 
leaves out the name of Tom DeLay is equivalent to debating 
impeachment without mentioning the name of Monica Lewinsky.
    Chairman Hyde. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Bono.
    Mrs. Bono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would just like to address a question that I heard a long 
time ago in this proceeding. It was posed by Congressman 
Schumer. His question was, ``how did lying to the American 
people get here in the first place?'' Now, granted it has been 
stricken from the article before us, but I want to just read 
from something that I have come across----
    Mr. Schumer. Would the gentlelady yield, because she didn't 
quote me correctly. Lying to the Cabinet, or to the public, not 
under oath, become part of this article.
    Mrs. Bono. Then I stand corrected. But I think that 
nonetheless this is relevant, and I would like to read it. It 
is something former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has 
written. ``President Clinton's defense of a public lie in this 
matter poses a great threat to his Presidency that makes it 
especially difficult for the Nation to move on.''
    What Reich finds so disturbing is not simply the fact of 
President Clinton's public lie, but passionate intensity. Mr. 
Reich wrote, quote, ``In January, the President told America 
with stunning conviction that he had not had a sexual 
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. On August 17th, he looked into 
the eyes of America and said his January statement had been 
misleading. Many who witnessed both performances thought the 
January one more convincing. Hence, Mr.Clinton's second 
problem. If he can so convincingly fake a lie, how can the public 
believe anything else he says, including his current stream of 
apologies? Despite protestations that the Lewinsky affair was his 
private business, the betrayal was indubitably public because the 
denials were so passionately public. He spoke to America with the same 
emotional intensity he has brought to countless public issues. What 
happens to Presidential power when credibility is so blatantly 
forfeited? It inevitably subsides.''
    And that is why lying to the American people was here in 
the first place. I believe that this side has stricken it 
because we strongly feel that the first three articles are just 
so strong that the perjury, the first two on perjury, are so 
strong.
    With that, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Indiana.
    Mr. Buyer. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
    I am going to support the Gekas amendment. I will vote for 
Article IV. The President's response to the 81 request for 
admissions was a continuation of a pattern, I believe, of 
perjury and obstruction of justice.
    When we bring up the issue about the impeachment of former 
Federal judges Mr. Claibourne and Mr. Nixon, what was 
interesting at the time we had a Democrat Majority here that 
sat on the Judiciary Committee, and they brought forward those 
impeachments. They passed the House. We had managers that 
prosecuted them in trial before the Senate. What I find most 
interesting is that these judges were prosecuted, and one 
standard was used: high crimes and misdemeanors. They said one 
standard that applies to the President and Vice President will 
also apply to these Federal judges and other civil officers.
    You see, in the defense of the judge, the defense lawyers 
in the trial in the Senate argued that the Federal judges 
should be treated differently, that they should be treated on 
impeachment for misbehavior, not judged on the same standard 
with the President. The Democrat Majority at the time said no; 
rejected that, and said no, Federal judges and the President 
should be treated by the same standard. Well, I agree. I think 
the Republicans and Democrats at the time in the 1980s on both 
of those cases agreed. I think the Judiciary Committee needs to 
follow the precedent and be consistent, and that is what we are 
trying to do here.
    I also want to express my appreciation to Mr. Coble. Mr. 
Coble expressed some honesty about his own personal conscience, 
about his gut and how it was being turned over. And I don't 
believe anyone should make a mockery about someone describing 
how they personally feel going through this process, because it 
is not easy. So I am going to speak about my conscience.
    You see, I didn't sleep very well last night. So what I did 
about 2 a.m. this morning is I went out and took a jog. Now 
some may say that may not be a smart thing to do in Washington 
at 2 a.m., but I took a jog down the Mall, and as I took the 
jog down the Mall, I first went through the Korean memorial. I 
did that because of my father, and then I thought of Mr. 
Conyers, and I thought of others; I then went over to the 
Vietnam Memorial, and I walked slowly. I thought of my time 
back as a cadet at the Citadel.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Buyer. I move to strike the last word on my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Buyer. The gentleman was a Vietnam veteran and he 
walked up to the blackboard, and his name today is Colonel 
Trez. He was a young major at the time, and he wrote this 
statement on the blackboard and he demanded that these young 
cadets memorize this statement. He said, ``Those who serve 
their country on a distant battlefield see life in a dimension 
that the protected may never know.''
    You see, I worked hard to understand that. It wasn't until 
years later that I understood that myself in my service in the 
Gulf War. I had a very dear friend die. I understand the 
painful tears, and I understand the horrors of war.
    As I jogged back, I stopped at the Washington Monument. The 
Mall is beautiful at night. And then I thought about the World 
War II veterans, Mr. Hyde and others, a unique generation. They 
were truly crusaders. They fought for no bounty of their own. 
They left freedom in their footsteps. And then I thought about 
something I had read in military history. After D-Day they were 
policing up the battlefield and lying upon the battlefield was 
an American soldier who was dead. No one was around to hear his 
last words, so he wrote them on a pad. Can you imagine the 
frustration, knowing you are about to die and there is no one 
around to say your last words to? I don'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 am an individual that not only is principled, but 
also steeped in virtues, and I use those to guide myself 
through the chaos. And then I think about people all across 
America, about America's values and American character, and I 
want to put it in plainspoken words.
    So when I think about America's character and commonsense 
virtues, I think about honesty. What is it? Tell the truth; be 
sincere; don't deceive, mislead or be devious or use trickery; 
don't betray a trust. Don't withhold information in 
relationships of trust. Don't cheat or lie to the detriment of 
others. Nor tolerate such practice.
    On issues of integrity, exhibit the best in yourself. 
Choose the harder right over the easier wrong. Walk your talk. 
Show courage, commitment, and self-discipline.
    On issues of promise-keeping, honor your oath and keep your 
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 and ethical principles to win personal gain, 
and you don't ask a friend to do something wrong.
    On issues of respect, you be courteous and polite. Youjudge 
all people on their merits. You be tolerant and appreciative and 
accepting of individual differences. You don't abuse, demean, or 
mistrust anyone. You don't use, manipulate, exploit, or take advantage 
of others. Don't You respect the right of individuals.
    On the issue of acting responsibly and being accountable, 
the issue is to think before you act; meaning, consider the 
possible consequences on all people from your actions. You 
pursue excellence, you be reliable, be accountable, exercise 
self control. You don't blame others for your mistakes. You set 
a good example for those to look up to you.
    On the issue of fairness, treat all people fairly. Don't 
take unfair 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 the laws, pull their own weight; many do their fair share, 
and they do so while respecting authority.
    I have been disheartened by the facts in this case. It is 
sad to have the occupant of the White House, an office that I 
respect so much, riddled with these allegations, and now I have 
findings of criminal misconduct and unethical behavior. We 
cannot expect to restore the Office of the Presidency by 
leaving a perjurious President in office.
    I yield back my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The question occurs on the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas.
    All those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    Mr. Conyers. A recorded vote is requested.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Michigan requests a 
recorded vote. The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
    Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCollum votes aye.
    Mr. Gekas.
    Mr. Gekas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas votes aye.
    Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble votes aye.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
    Mr. Canady.
    Mr. Canady. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Canady votes aye.
    Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis votes aye.
    Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte votes aye.
    Mr. Buyer.
    Mr. Buyer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Buyer votes aye.
    Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant.  Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bryant votes aye.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr votes aye.
    Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins votes aye.
    Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson votes aye.
    Mr. Pease.
    Mr. Pease. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pease votes aye.
    Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes no.
    Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rogan votes aye.
    Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham votes aye.
    Mrs. Bono.
    Mrs. Bono. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bono votes aye.
    Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers votes aye.
    Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. Present.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank votes present.
    Mr. Schumer.
    Mr. Schumer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schumer votes aye.
    Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman votes aye.
    Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher.  Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher votes aye.
    Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler votes aye.
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott votes aye.
    Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt votes aye.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Present.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes present.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.
    Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters votes no.
    Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Present.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan votes present.
    Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt votes aye.
    Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler votes no.
    Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rothman votes aye.
    Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrett votes no.
    Mr. Hyde.
    Chairman Hyde. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde votes aye.
    Chairman Hyde. The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 29 ayes, 5 noes, and 3 
present.
    Chairman Hyde. And the amendment is agreed to.
    It is the Chair's intention, following the adoption of 
Article IV, to declare a 30-minute luncheon recess before we 
return for the unfinished business.
    So without objection, the previous question is ordered----
    Mr. Schumer. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Schumer. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman----
    Mr. Schumer. It is on the amendment, it is on Article IV.
    Chairman Hyde. All right. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My colleagues, to me, like to many of us, this is a sad 
day, it is a solemn day. The longer I am at these proceedings, 
the more I am convinced of the weakness of the case made by the 
Majority. Last night and today, I think, show that in a telling 
way. Last night our Chairman, who I esteem and have always 
esteemed and will continue to esteem, tried to tell the 
American people, don't worry, we are not yet throwing the 
President out, even if we vote for these articles of 
impeachment. And this morning, before he corrected himself, Mr. 
McCollum said we don't have to have the penalty of throwing the 
President out.
    I think the Majority almost subliminally realizes that the 
punishment doesn't fit the crime. We all agree that the 
President didn't tell the truth. We may disagree about its 
criminality, its consequences. But, our side, and I think most 
Americans, with their commonsense wisdom, believe it doesn't 
rise to the level of impeachment. And the idea that Mr. Hyde 
mentioned and Mr. McCollum mentioned would be as if there were 
two, two commanding officers in a bunker in South Dakota who 
had their fingers on the button of a nuclear weapon. You needed 
both to push the button. We in the House, being the first 
officer, we push the first button and then say the second 
officer doesn't have to push the button, and avoid nuclear 
strike. That is sophistry. It is not becoming of this body, in 
my judgment.
    The second point I would make is this. The amendment to 
Article IV which I just supported--I called that the other day 
the part of Article IV--and this is what Ms. Bono mentioned; 
that in the eyes of some, if the President doesn't tell the 
truth to the public or to his Cabinet--remember, what is truth 
in the eyes of some is not telling the truth in the eyes of 
others, and that is because the world is a world of shades of 
gray--that that would indicate grounds for impeachment.
    Now, fortunately, Mr. Gekas came to the rescue at this last 
minute and removed that from these articles, but I shudder to 
think what led the Majority to put them in the articles of 
impeachment to begin with, and why were they not removed until 
this last minute when that kind of article is just so absurd on 
its face? I called it yesterday ``the theater of the absurd.'' 
We could call today's move renders these articles ``the theater 
of the slightly less absurd,'' but absurd nonetheless. I just 
don't understand how that provision stayed in so long, and it 
makes me wonder, not about the motivation, but about the logic 
and the soundness of argument of the Majority.
    Now, what remains? What remains in Article III--and to 
their credits many, particularly I esteem the gentleman from 
Florida, Mr. Canady, he has been consistent throughout. He has 
said that this is about, in his judgment, lying, perjury under 
oath, and the President should be removed from office. He said 
that at the start, he has said that consistently. I respect him 
for it. I disagree with him, but I respect him. His argument 
has been consistent throughout, it hasn't changed with the 
winds, et cetera. But now, that is all we have. Article III--I 
mean Article IV, once the amendment passes, is about the same 
nexus of facts that Articles I and II are about. All we are 
talking about in this is something serious, but something that 
doesn't rise to the level of impeachment, which is not an 
extramarital relationship. The other side keeps setting up that 
strawman. No one on this side is saying you are impeaching the 
President because of an extramarital relationship. What you are 
impeaching the President for is lying, in your judgment, about 
that extramarital relationship.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Schumer. I would ask for----
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hyde. Who is seeking recognition?
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Delahunt.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Delahunt is asking for recognition. For 
what purpose?
    Mr. Delahunt. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. Well, I am sorry. Would you mind if we go to 
the Republican side? Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to respond. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Schumer. 
He and I have served on this committee a long time. He has been 
my Ranking Member on the crime subcommittee, and I wish him 
well as he goes off to the other body shortly. But I simply 
cannot resist responding to the points he is trying to make 
here about characterizing some of the thoughts that some of us 
have, and me in particular.
    First of all, I believe that the President of the United 
States has committed very grave, serious, and impeachable 
offenses that deserve for him to be removed from office. And I 
think that most of the Members, if not all of the Members, on 
my side believe that he should be removed from office.
    Now, the reality is, the reality is, that however serious 
these are, that apparently the likelihood is that the Senate 
doesn't have enough votes over there to convict, but we don't 
know that until we get there. In fact, this case should be 
tried over there. We should find that out, in my judgment. That 
is my opinion. If we can get him convicted or removed from 
office, by golly, he deserves it.
    However, even if he weren't convicted, my point has been 
all along that impeachment is the ultimate censure. You can't 
just slap somebody on the wrist with some piece of paper we 
file as a resolution which we are going to debate here in a 
little while, and the resolution that we could do and we do 
regularly around this body for any number of things, condemning 
this or condemning that, and suggest that that act alone rises 
to the level of actually giving some kind of response to the 
awful, criminal acts that this President has committed: the 
undermining of the right of Paula Jones to have her day in 
court, the lying to the court, the encouraging of others to 
lie, the hiding of evidence, the encouraging of others to hide 
evidence; the lying before the grand jury ultimately, which is 
even a greater insult to our system of government, and 
committing perjury, 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 that had been 
said and done, the President of the United States 
contemptuously 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 I believe 
it is to the level that the President should be removed from 
office. It is just simply not logical to do otherwise.
    I would also like to quote from Mr. Broder's column 
yesterday in which he says, ``Other defense witnesses tried 
with more success to argue that the allegations against Clinton 
are not nearly as serious as those that led to the recommended 
impeachment of Richard Nixon and are not so consequential as to 
merit the disruption of government a Senate trial might 
entail.''
    The first point is irrefutable, but irrelevant. The House 
is not being asked to judge whether Nixon or Clinton is the 
worst miscreant, but simply whether Clinton's actions in 
themselves merit impeachment. I submit they clearly do, they 
merit removal from office, but at the very least they merit 
impeachment, and if he is not removed from office ultimately, 
which is not our decision, it is the other body's decision, at 
the very least he merits impeachment, impeachment that will go 
down in history as a brand that says, this is the President who 
was impeached for these awful offenses.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on Article IV. The question occurs on Article IV as 
amended.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, there will----
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman mind me striking the last 
word?
    Chairman Hyde. Not a bit. Please, talk away.
    Mr. Watt. Is the Chairman perturbed that we are trying to 
explain our votes and debate the underlying article at this 
point? I can't understand what the Chairman's motivation is.
    Let me just say that I find this article simply to be a 
repeat of Articles I and II, substantially, now that it has 
been amended. I did vote for the amendment, because I thought 
it was absolutely ridiculous to say that the--to the President 
of the United States that he could be impeached 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 is an abuse of power when you exercise a privilege is 
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 expressed yesterday about Articles I and II 
because it uses the term ``perjurious,'' and therefore alleges 
perjury, and there has been absolutely no designation in the 
Gekas amendment or elsewhere of what the perjurious statements 
are. And if we are going to allege a perjury, a legal perjury, 
then I think it is incumbent upon this committee to grant to 
the President of the United States the exact same privileges 
that we would grant to every American citizen in the country. 
He can't be above the law; he can't be below the law. The rule 
of law in our country says that if you charge somebody with 
perjury, you must tell them the statements that they have made 
that constitute that perjury.
    And we have spent the last 3 days now talking about how all 
of us are intent on upholding the rule of law in this country. 
And if we can't accord the rule of law to the President of the 
United States in these impeachment articles and tell him what 
he is going to be tried for if he is convicted--if he is 
impeached for them, then we have accorded the President the 
status of being below the law, which I would submit to you is 
even worse than according him the status of being above the 
law.
    We cannot sit here in the Judiciary Committee of the United 
States House of Representatives and give pious statements about 
how we are upholding the rule of law, and consistently 
disregard what the rule of law says our obligation is. And the 
rule of law says, if you charge somebody with perjury, you are 
obligated to tell them what the perjurious statements are. And 
that is what I think we should insist on as members of this 
committee, and that is what I--that is the very reason I will 
vote against this article just as I voted against the Articles 
I, II and III. I yield back.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we 
have two additional speakers on each side before we move to a 
disposition of the article.
    Chairman Hyde. Is there objection?
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Watt reserves the right to object.
    Mr. Watt. I am reserving the right to object so that I can 
understand why it is that we are being asked to give up the 
committee's right to debate the article to this impeachment, 
which is the most profound responsibility that this committee 
and this Congress could have. Why are we muzzling the members 
of this committee?
    Mr. Conyers. To the member who has just utilized his 5 
minutes, I would suggest that the reason that we are doing it 
is that we have debated the issue, the article, the amendment, 
and adopted the amendment----
    Mr. Watt. Well, let me just reclaim my time and submit to 
the gentleman that what we debated was whether to amend the 
original article. We are now debating the article which is in 
question. There is a difference in those two things.
    Mr. Conyers. I quite agree with my colleague from North 
Carolina.
    Mr. Watt. Well, I am not going to object. I have used my 5 
minutes, you are absolutely right. But I would tell the 
gentleman that I just think we are doing the American public an 
absolute disservice by depriving this committee of the right to 
debate one of the most important issues that has ever come 
before this Congress.
    Mr. Conyers. I don't doubt the gentleman's sincerity and 
conviction.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, point of information.
    Chairman Hyde. Would the gentleman yield for just a second, 
Mr. Conyers, on your unanimous consent request?
    Mr. Conyers. Yes, sir, I do.
    Chairman Hyde. I have some working papers that explain in 
detail which language we allege is perjurious and wrongful and 
misleading.
    Mr. Watt. Is the gentleman responding to my concern?
    Chairman Hyde. Yes. And I will be happy to send this right 
down to you, if you don't mind my scratchings in the margin.
    Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman make them a part of the 
impeachment article?
    Chairman Hyde. No, I will not. I will make them a part of 
the record, and when we file a report, as soon as the law lets 
us, it will contain extensive specificity, something we all 
seem to want. But meanwhile, to answer your urgent question as 
to which specific misstatements and perjurious remarks of the 
President we are counting on, I have this working document that 
I am happy to give you.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.109
    
    Mr. Watt. Is this a consensus of the committee that we are 
working from, or is it--does it explain solely from the 
Chairman's mind?
    Chairman Hyde. No, it is certainly from the bowels of the 
committee, but it may have had its----
    Mr. Watt. Well, Mr. Chairman, I assure you it is not from 
my bowels. This will be the first time I have ever seen it.
    Chairman Hyde. Well, that's right, but you are seeing it, 
and I am happy to give it to you, and I hope it answers some of 
your questions.
    Mr. Watt. Would the Chairman object to my trying to make 
this a part of the impeachment article?
    Chairman Hyde. You mean you want to offer an amendment?
    Mr. Watt. I might.
    Chairman Hyde. Well, you do anything you want, sir. This is 
a democracy.
    Mr. Watt. Well, if we don't have but two more speakers and 
I don't have a chance to look at it, then it is going to be 
pretty difficult for me to have that option, because it will be 
gone.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, it is my appreciation that on 
this side there is a request for two more of my colleagues to 
speak, and that is why--three now.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I don't want, unless provoked--I 
would object to the unanimous consent request. I think if there 
are only two, then there will only be two. But I would object 
to the unanimous consent.
    Chairman Hyde. Objection is heard, and the committee will 
stand in recess for an hour for lunch.
    [Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 2:30 p.m., this same day.]
    Chairman Hyde. The committee will come to order.
    Is there further discussion on Article IV?
    If not, the question occurs on Article IV as amended. All 
those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    A roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
    Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCollum votes aye.
    Mr. Gekas.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble votes aye.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
    Mr. Canady.
    Mr. Canady. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Canady votes aye.
    Mr. Inglis.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte votes aye.
    Mr. Buyer.
    Mr. Buyer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Buyer votes aye.
    Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant.  Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bryant votes aye.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr votes aye.
    Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins votes aye.
    Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson votes aye.
    Mr. Pease.
    Mr. Pease. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pease votes aye.
    Mr. Cannon.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rogan votes aye.
    Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham votes aye.
    Mrs. Bono.
    Mrs. Bono. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bono votes aye.
    Mr. Conyers.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank votes no.
    Mr. Schumer.
    Mr. Schumer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schumer votes no.
    Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman votes no.
    Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher.  No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher votes no.
    Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler votes no.
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott votes no.
    Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.
    Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters votes no.
    Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan votes no.
    Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt votes no.
    Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler votes no.
    Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rothman votes no.
    Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrett votes no.
    Mr. Hyde.
    Chairman Hyde. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde votes aye.
    Mr. Gekas. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Gekas. I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas votes aye.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 
Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis votes aye.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers votes no.
    Chairman Hyde. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 20 ayes and 16 noes.
    Chairman Hyde. And the article is agreed to.
    Now, I ask unanimous consent that the staff be directed to 
make necessary technical and conforming changes to the 
resolution just passed, and pursuant to clause 215 of House 
rule 11, Members will have until Tuesday evening, December 15, 
to file supplemental Minority or additional views. That means 
that Members must file their views with the committee on 
Tuesday evening. Pursuant to the rule the committee will file 
its report between 12:01 a.m. and 1 a.m. Wednesday morning.
    The committee will now proceed to consider a joint 
resolution censuring President Clinton.
    The clerk will report the resolution sponsored by Mr. 
Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher. House Joint Resolution blank----
    Mr. Cannon. How is the gentleman from Utah recorded?
    Chairman Hyde. How is the gentleman from Utah recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Utah is not 
recorded.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman be allowed to vote at this point.
    Chairman Hyde. Hearing no objection, the clerk will 
incorporate Mr. Cannon's vote with the roll call.
    Mr. Cannon. I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon is recorded as an aye.
    Chairman Hyde. And will the clerk report the roll again?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 21 ayes and 16 noes.
    Chairman Hyde. And the article is agreed to.
    Now, the clerk will report the joint resolution.
    The Clerk. House Joint Resolution blank. Joint Resolution 
expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the censure of 
William Jefferson Clinton.
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, that it is the 
sense of Congress that:
    (1) On January 20, 1993, William Jefferson Clinton took the 
oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States 
faithfully to execute the office of President; implicit in that 
oath is the obligation that the President set an example of 
high moral standards and conduct himself in a manner that 
fosters respect for the truth; and William Jefferson Clinton, 
has egregiously failed in this obligation, and through his 
actions violated the trust of the American people, lessened 
their esteem for the office of President, and dishonored the 
office which they have entrusted to him;
    (2)(A) William Jefferson Clinton made false statements 
concerning his reprehensible conduct with a subordinate;
    (B) William Jefferson Clinton wrongly took steps to delay 
discovery of the truth; and
    (C) inasmuch as no person is above the law, William 
Jefferson Clinton remains subject to criminal and civil 
penalties; and
    (3) William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United 
States, by his conduct has brought upon himself, and fully 
deserves, the censure and condemnation of the American people 
and the Congress; and by his signature on this joint 
resolution, acknowledges this censure and condemnation.
    Chairman Hyde. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. Boucher, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Boucher. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Hyde. Ten minutes, I am sorry.
    Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to begin this afternoon by expressing my 
appreciation to you, Chairman Hyde, for making in order for 
consideration by the Judiciary Committee this resolution of 
censure. It is the American public's preferred outcome for the 
committee's investigation, and any process in this committee or 
on the floor that makes a censure alternative unavailable to 
the members would be rejected by the public as unbalanced, 
partisan and unfair.
    You have wisely chosen, Chairman Hyde, to make the censure 
alternative in order; and without regard to the success of 
censure in this committee, I am confident that the same sense 
of evenhandedness, balance and fair play that led you, Chairman 
Hyde, to make the censure debate in order here will also be 
employed by the leadership of the House so that the censure 
alternative will be available to the full House membership next 
week.
    I want to express a word of thanks to the committee's 
Democratic leader Mr. Conyers for the outstanding work that he 
and his fine staff have undertaken throughout this inquiry in 
partnership with the membership on this side of the aisle and 
for the very helpful guidance that he has provided to us as we 
began our work on this censure resolution. I also want to thank 
my colleagues and coauthors of this censure resolution, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett, and the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Jackson-Lee, for their substantial efforts in advancing this 
censure resolution.
    The framers of the Constitution intended that the 
impeachment power be used only when the Nation is seriously 
threatened. In the words of our predecessors on this committee 
in their 1974 Watergate inquiry report, it is only to be used 
for the removal from office of a Chief Executive whose conduct 
is seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form 
and principles of our government or the proper performance of 
the constitutional duties of the Presidential office.
    The facts that are now before this committee which arise 
from a personal relationship and the effort to conceal it 
simply do not rise to that high constitutional standard. While 
the President's conduct was reprehensible, it did not threaten 
the Nation. It did not undermine the constitutional form and 
principles of our government. It did not disable the proper 
performance of the constitutional duties of the Presidential 
office. It does not rise to the standard of impeachment set by 
this committee on a bipartisan basis in 1974.
    But the acts were reprehensible. The President made false 
statements about his relationship with a subordinate. He 
wrongfully took steps to delay the discovery of the truth. He 
has diminished his personal dignity and that of the office of 
the Presidency. He has brought the Presidency into disrepute 
and impaired the image of the President as a role model for 
younger Americans.
    I have a deep disdain for the President's actions. He 
deserves the admonishment and the censure and the rebuke of the 
Congress, and in adopting this resolution of censure, we will 
give voice to the widely held public view that the President 
should not be removed from office, but that heshould be 
admonished by the Congress for his conduct.
    Not only is this the public's preference, but it is the 
right thing to do. Some on the Majority side of this committee 
say that the only way to honor the rule of law and the revered 
American principle that no individual, including the President, 
is above the law is to impeach and remove the President from 
office. Impeachment, however, was never designed as a 
punishment for the misconduct of the individual. It was 
designed to protect the Nation.
    The President can be indicted, tried and punished in the 
criminal courts just as any other citizen for any conduct that 
he has committed while holding the Presidency that is found to 
be of a criminal nature. That is how his punishment can occur. 
His susceptibility to the criminal justice process means that 
the rule of law and the principle that no person, including the 
President, is above the law will be well served.
    Censure is preferable to impeachment for yet another 
reason. The passage by the House of articles of impeachment 
will visit serious consequences upon the Nation. The mere fact 
that the House of Representatives votes for articles of 
impeachment will be felt by this country, and harm will occur. 
The divisions that now exist in our society will harden and 
deepen; a rift and a divide will occur. There will be a 
polarization. The President and the Congress will be diverted 
from the Nation's urgent national agenda while a prolonged 
trial takes place in the Senate. The Supreme Court will be 
immobilized all during that time as the Chief Justice presides 
during the Senate trial. There will be a lowering of the 
standard for future Presidential impeachments with a consequent 
and inherent weakening of the Presidential office. There will 
probably be turmoil in the financial markets with adverse 
effects for the Nation's economy.
    These harms are not necessary. The Senate will not convict. 
It is universally acknowledged that the two-thirds vote 
required for a conviction cannot be achieved in the Senate, so 
we can avoid this damage to the Nation. We can bring closure to 
the process this month, and we can begin the process of healing 
this Nation by adopting this resolution of censure here and 
having it adopted on the floor of the House.
    It is my hope that together we can reach this sensible 
conclusion, which more than any other approach will 
simultaneously acknowledge our long constitutional history and 
place this Nation, the Congress and the Presidency on a path 
toward the restoration of dignity.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back my time.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman. I yield myself 10 
minutes.
    The Constitution contains a single procedure for Congress 
to address the fitness for office of the President of the 
United States--impeachment by the House and subsequent trial by 
the Senate. Article II of the Constitution also specifies the 
necessary consequence of conviction in an impeachment case: 
``The President, the Vice President and all civil Officers 
shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction 
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
    Article I states that ``judgment in Cases of Impeachment 
shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and 
disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust 
or Profit under the United States.'' This provision, however, 
does not authorize Congress to impose legislative punishments 
short of removal. Read together, the impeachment clauses 
require removal upon conviction, but allow the Senate at its 
discretion to impose a single additional penalty, 
disqualification from future office.
    The framers' decision to confine legislative sanctioning of 
executive officials to removal upon impeachment was carefully 
considered. By forcing the House and Senate to act as a 
tribunal and a trial jury rather than merely as a legislative 
body, they infused the process with notions of due process. The 
requirement of removal upon conviction accentuates the 
magnitude of the procedure, encouraging serious deliberation 
among Members of Congress. Most importantly, by refusing to 
include any consequences less serious than removal as outcomes 
of the impeachment process, the framers made impeachment into 
such an awesome power that Congress could not use it to harass 
executive officials or otherwise interfere with operations of 
coordinate branches.
    Some Members and commentators have proposed censure as a 
sanction from analogy to the legislative procedures by which 
Members of each House censure its own Members. I believe that 
analogy fails because the Constitution expressly provides 
plenary of authority to each House of Congress to fashion 
penalties for members of the legislative branch short of 
expulsion, but provides no such authority to discipline 
officers of other branches in the same manner.
    Indeed, Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 states that ``each 
House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its 
Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the Concurrence of 
two-thirds, expel a Member.'' It is pursuant to this explicit 
authority that each House can require one of its Members to go 
to the well of the House and receive the judgment of their 
peers.
    I believe that for the President or any other civil 
officer, this kind of shaming punishment by the Legislature is 
precluded since the impeachment provisions of the Constitution 
permit Congress only to remove an officer of another branch of 
government and disqualify him from office. Such an 
extraconstitutional censure would undermine the separation of 
powers by assuming a power not enumerated in the Constitution.
    I still believe we are a Constitution of enumerated powers 
which limits the actions of the Federal Government. Pursuing 
the course that the House has embarked on pursuant to H.Res. 
581, the committee has adopted articles of impeachment against 
William Jefferson Clinton, and I believe it is tremendously 
important to let the House work its will on the work product of 
this committee pursuant to the House's command. To do anything 
else would be to look the other way instead of confronting our 
collective responsibility under the Constitution.
    Out of a feeling of fairness and deference to Ranking 
Member Conyers and to my other Democratic friends, I have 
agreed to allow the committee consideration of a joint 
resolution of censure, but in no way should my disposition here 
today in committee be confused with my conviction that a so-
called Presidential censure is ultra vires of the Constitution.
    Now, it is very tempting, almost irresistibly tempting to 
demand of my friends specificity. Yesterday you put me through 
22 hoops, some of which I had a lot of trouble climbing 
through, because of ``a dearth of specificity.'' As I look at 
this work product, I can only ask where is the specificity? You 
say he made false statements, what false statements? When, 
where, under what circumstances? Was heunder oath? Where is the 
word ``lie'' in here? I don't see ``lie.'' I see that William Jefferson 
Clinton wrongly took steps to delay discovery of the truth. How did he 
do that? Specificity, Mr. Nadler, specificity.
    Anyway, I won't avail myself of that great temptation, but 
I will ask what effect----
    Mr. Nadler. I am glad you won't, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Yes. I will say what effect.
    Now, Mr. Frank yesterday made a very good statement. He 
talked about censure is not nothing. It is substantial. I think 
it depends on the person who is censured. I think it means 
something to a person of some sensitivity. I think it has 
historical meaning. I don't say that it is a nullity or nothing 
at all, but it also--the only time that I am aware of it having 
any efficacy was against Andrew Jackson, and it is now a bare 
footnote in Mr. Schlesinger's book in The Age of Jackson and 
was revoked the next year by another Congress, but it is 
similar to yelling at a teenager. It purges you of some 
emotional feelings, but I don't know what it really 
accomplishes. And I am concerned that once established, we 
would see a stream of censures against succeeding Presidents 
for policy decisions and what have you.
    The Constitution doesn't require us to fill in the blanks. 
There are no blanks. And what do we censure him for? As I read 
this, it is getting into sexual misconduct, and that is none of 
Congress' business. I insist, it is none of Congress' business. 
Those are private and ought to be left alone, and the 
resolution does not adequately address the serious questions of 
perjury and lying under oath which are the gravamen, to this 
Member, of the impeachment.
    So I reserve--I will yield to Mr. Sensenbrenner since I 
have some time left.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me echo the comments that the gentleman from Illinois, 
Mr. Hyde, has made expressing his grave reservations about the 
constitutionality and efficacy of the censure resolution that 
has been proposed in good faith by the gentleman from Virginia 
and others.
    Let me say it is of questionable constitutionality, and it 
is bad precedent, and it doesn't do what it proposes to do.
    I have done some reading from the minutes of the 
Constitutional Convention, and one of the themes that the 39 
delegates to the Constitutional Convention repeated time and 
time again is that they did not want American Government to be 
like the British Parliament. They felt that many of the causes 
of the American revolution were a result of a parliamentary 
dictatorship where the three functions of government--
executive, legislative and judicial--were all combined into a 
single institution, the British Parliament; and that is why 
they devised the elaborate system of checks and balances which 
have ensured that no institution or branch of government or 
single individual in the United States of America has ever 
become or will become too powerful.
    The initial draft of the Constitution that the delegates 
considered had the removal function in the Supreme Court. The 
delegates decided that that would make the removal of the 
President and other civil officials too much of a legal issue.
    Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I will 
take my 5 minutes now.
    Chairman Hyde. Very well. My time has expired, and the 
gentleman is recognize for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. They were concerned about having the 
legal function be too legal. That is why they adopted in the 
Constitution the impeachment procedure that we have been 
debating for the last week where the House would have the sole 
power of impeachment, and the Senate would try the case and 
remove any official that has been impeached, deliberately 
making this a very difficult procedure and one that is isolated 
from instantaneous political whims.
    One of the proposals during the Constitutional Convention 
was to have the President be suspended from office between the 
time the House voted articles of impeachment and the time the 
Senate tried and decided that case. They decided that that 
would run directly counter to the doctrine of separation of 
powers in an independent executive because a majority of the 
House of Representatives, by voting articles of impeachment, 
could effectively kick the President out of office. Therefore, 
that was not in the final Constitution that was submitted to 
the States for ratification.
    Every time the Congress has attempted to censure the 
President, it has backfired, and it has backfired because it is 
something that can be done instantaneously, and it is something 
that is subject to change should the political winds change.
    The Chairman has dealt with the censure of Andrew Jackson 
for directing his Secretary of the Treasury to withdraw 
government funds from the Bank of the United States, an action 
that was expunged from the record of the Senate after the next 
election caused Jackson's party to get a majority in the 
Senate.
    The same thing can happen here. That is why Congresses 
repeatedly have declined to censure Presidents. If we set the 
precedent of censuring the President over allegations of 
misconduct, then we can do it for a President vetoing a budget 
bill of the Congress of another party, a President vetoing a 
bill that bans partial birth abortions, or anything else that 
is emotional. We should stay away from setting this precedent, 
as tempting as it may be.
    Finally, the censure resolution that has been offered by 
the gentleman from Virginia does not address the essential 
misconduct that has been alleged against the President of the 
United States. I listen quite eagerly to everything my friend 
from Massachusetts says, and yesterday during the debate Mr. 
Frank said that the censure resolution relates to the 
statements that the President made at the press conference and 
not to the grand jury; that means, if this resolution is 
adopted the way it has been submitted, shaking your finger at 
the camera and telling the American public a lie is worthy of 
condemnation and censure by the Congress, but violating one's 
oath to the grand jury or in other types of judicial 
proceedings is not.
    Mr. Chairman, that is ridiculous. I think it comes close to 
insulting the intelligence of the American public. What we are 
talking about here are serious legal violations by President 
Clinton, and your censure resolution does not address those in 
the slightest. I think it misses the point. It misses the mark, 
and it tells the American public that it is more serious to lie 
on television than to lie after you have raised your right hand 
and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 
the truth, and I hope it is overwhelmingly rejected, and yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We have voted on strict party lines to approve four 
articles of impeachment against the President of the United 
States. In light of what we have done, I have become very 
concerned about a stream of impeachment resolutions brought 
before this Congress.
    In my view, what we have done has been reckless and 
irresponsible. Impeachment is not a punishment to be imposed on 
Presidents who fall short of our expectations. It is a last 
resort, an ultimate sanction to be used only when a President's 
actions pose a threat to the Republic so great as to compel his 
removal before his term has ended, not as a form of censure.
    And I must disagree with my friend and the gentleman from 
Florida in the statement that impeachment is the ultimate 
censure. It is far more than that. It is the beginning of a 
process to remove the President of the United States. 
Impeachment should be considered only when there is no 
alternative. In this case we had an alternative, and the House 
still does.
    I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing this 
resolution to come to a vote. I have no doubt that you were 
under great pressure not to do so, and I applaud you for 
recognizing that it was the fair and proper thing to do. I can 
only hope that Speaker-elect Livingston will emulate your 
political courage and allow us a vote on the floor as well and 
give the American people an opportunity to hear that debate, 
because this resolution expresses the overwhelming sentiments 
of the American people that the President committed serious 
indiscretions with a subordinate; that in the effort to conceal 
his misdeeds he compounded them, abusing the trust of those 
closest to him and deliberately, cynically lying to the 
American people; that these actions warrant condemnation, but 
not impeachment.
    The resolution does not mince words. It denounces the 
President's behavior sternly and unambiguously in plain, simple 
English. It acknowledges that the President is not above the 
law. Like every citizen, he remains subject to whatever 
penalties a court might impose on him at some future date, and 
we should not lose sight of that fact.
    This language may be too harsh for some, too lenient for 
others, but its purpose should be clear to all. Censure has 
been endorsed by no less a luminary than former President Jerry 
Ford, who called it, and I am quoting, dignified, honest and 
above all cleansing. He added, and I quote, ``At 85, I have no 
personal or political agenda, nor do I have an interest in 
rescuing Bill Clinton, but I do care passionately about 
rescuing the country I love from further turmoil and 
uncertainty.''
    These are the sentiments which most Americans, including 
many prominent Republicans, agree. Yesterday Governor Pataki of 
New York became just the latest to announce his support for 
censure. Yet some insist that a censure of the President would 
be unconstitutional. Why? Because the Constitution doesn't 
mention censure. It is impeachment or nothing, we are told. 
That is absurd. We have ample discretion to do either.
    As two-thirds, two-thirds of the constitutional experts 
called to testify by both Democrats and Republicans agreed, the 
Constitution, in the words of Justice Jackson, is not a suicide 
pact. It doesn't compel us to detonate a nuclear explosion when 
light artillery would do.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired. Does the 
gentleman wish additional time?
    Mr. Delahunt. Two more minutes.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, 2 more minutes.
    Mr. Delahunt. Others oppose censure because they believe it 
is just a slap on the wrist. That is not how Andrew Jackson saw 
it when the Senate censured him in 1884. He was humiliated. 
Eventually the Senate repealed its rebuke, and Jackson's 
proudest possession was the pen used to strike the words ``of 
censure'' from the Senate journal.
    Finally, some have claimed that censure would short-circuit 
the impeachment process. They insist on going forward, but 
assure us that once we have launched our nuclear missile, we 
can rely on the Senate to destroy it before it hits its target, 
saying in effect, I would prefer the President not be removed, 
but I am willing to put the country through the upheaval of a 
Senate trial nonetheless.
    I submit that this is an abdication of a solemn duty which 
cannot be delegated to the Senate or anyone else. If we truly 
believe that the President should not be removed from office, 
we have a better option: Censure him and preserve the 
Constitution.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Before we go any further in this matter and in this debate, 
and before we finally adjourn, I want to take this opportunity 
to express my gratitude and the gratitude of those people I can 
speak for to the staffs of the Democrat and the Republican 
side. We have spent hours, long, weary, agonizing hours, we 
Members, but nothing like the staffs. They have tripled the 
effort that we have made; late nights, hard work, reading until 
their eyes were red, and doing first rate work. America is well 
served and this committee is well-served by talented and 
patriotic staff on both sides, and I would like the committee 
to stay seated and let the staff stand up on both sides and 
give them a hand.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, may I speak out of line for about 
30 seconds?
    Chairman Hyde. I hoped I wasn't starting a trend. Go ahead.
    Mr. Coble. In this air of frivolity and good will, I tried 
this last night, I don't want to be the Grinch, but would I 
offend anybody if I suggest that we adhere to the strict 5-
minute rule as we proceed?
    Let me make a unanimous consent request to that end.
    Chairman Hyde. I get your meaning, and I will be as tough 
as I can be, which isn't all that tough, but I will try. I will 
try.
    The next person, Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I notice that starts 
with me, Mr. Coble. I will attempt to do that.
    Let me respond, first of all, to Mr. Delahunt's last 
comments, because they were directed in part at me.
    I have been saying for quite some time publicly and, of 
course, in these hearings that I believe that the President of 
the United States has committed some very grave offenses. If he 
were guilty of those, if I came to the conclusion by clear and 
convincing evidence that he has done these offenses, these 
perjuries, these obstructions of justice and so forth, in terms 
of undermining the court system and in the Paula Jones case 
before the grand jury, he should be impeached.
    And I have always been saying, equally strongly, that I 
think that if he is impeached, he should be removed from 
office.
    But I have also said that should he not be removed from 
office by the Senate--and that is their judgment, their 
decision, not ours; and I hear people say that there are not 
enough votes. I don't know if there are or are not. I don't 
think we will know that until and unless there is a trial over 
there.
    But if he is not removed from office and we impeach him, 
that is the ultimate form of censure. Now, I think I am right 
about that, and it may be the only constitutional form of 
censure.
    The reality is that if we do what this resolution suggests, 
which comports with a lot of other resolutions Congress passes 
that are nonbinding for this, that or the other reason, we have 
by no means given the kind of stamp of disapproval on this 
President's actions that they deserve. That is first and 
foremost.
    I don't know anything that we could do short of 
impeachment, to do that and removal from office. I mean, he has 
committed some very serious crimes. Perjury, in my judgment, in 
looking at everything, rises to the same level as bribery, 
treason--bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors under 
the Constitution, deserving of impeachment.
    He has eroded by his actions--and if we tolerate it, we are 
eroding along with him--the very system of justice upon which 
this Nation was founded, where people can go to court and are 
expected to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 
truth and get justice, because they do get that kind of 
information.
    But if we are going to look at this seriously as a censure 
resolution, I would suggest there are constitutional problems 
potentially here. Andrew Jackson did not only dislike being 
censured, he said, and I quote, he is perfectly convinced that 
``The discussion and passage of the above-mentioned resolution 
were not only unauthorized by the Constitution, but in many 
respects repugnant to its provisions and subversive of the 
rights secured by it to other coordinate departments.''
    Why did he say that? He said it because in our 
Constitution, there is a prohibition on a bill of attainder. 
That was the original mechanism in which the British parliament 
could punish specific individuals for activities against the 
interests of the Crown. It was a feature of British common law 
that was abominable to the framers of the Constitution.
    A bill of attainder is a law intended to punish a specific 
individual rather than a regulatory or prophylactic law 
intended to protect the public, and the Supreme Court has 
clearly upheld that rule that we can't do that sort of thing. 
Courts, in deciding whether or not a bill of attainder exists, 
look to what was understood as the motivational, functional and 
historical underpinnings of why we do it: whether the 
legislature intended the law to be punitive, whether the law 
reasonably can be said to further nonpunitive purposes, whether 
the punishment was traditionally judged to be prohibited by the 
bill of attainder clause.
    Clearly, in this case, the motivational purposes are 
implicated here. No nonpunitive function for the proposed 
presidential censure resolution exists.
    We had a problem with Megan's Law recently, something I had 
a lot to do with. The court looked at the question of whether 
or not in that law, where we talked about dissemination of 
information to the public about sex offenders, the law might be 
detrimental; and they concluded that it would be detrimental 
and that--since it was punitive.
    But they found that it also had a remedial function in that 
it informed people in a way they might be protected from other 
harm. This doesn't have that prophylactic or remedial function.
    I might remind my colleagues that Justice Stevens in a 
concurring opinion in the Nixon impeachment case said that he 
was condemned there, the statute implicitly condemns him as a 
unreliable custodian of his papers, and he says that 
legislation, and this is a quote, ``which subjects a named 
individual to this humiliating treatment, must raise serious 
questions under the bill of attainder clause.''
    I submit we may have a constitutional problem with this. 
But even if we don't, the resolution has no statement that 
President Clinton lied to the court in the Jones case, let 
alone committed perjury or obstruction of justice; no statement 
he lied to the grand jury, let alone committed perjury; no 
condemnation of his lies to the White House staff, Cabinet or 
to the American people; no recommendation that he resign.
    It is a toothless resolution, which is very common to many 
other resolutions that are nonbinding that we pass. It should 
not be passed as any substitute or by any pretense that it 
rises to the level of condemning the President in a way that 
either is constitutionally sound or in a way that is deserving 
from the conduct he has done against the Constitution and the 
constitutional Government of the United States; and I am 
strongly opposed to it.
    Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman yield for a second?
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Watt. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds 
to ask the gentleman a question.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, 30 seconds.
    Mr. Canady. Objection.
    Chairman Hyde. Objection has been heard.
    The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank you also for allowing this resolution to be heard. You 
did the right thing. This was the right thing, and that is the 
highest compliment I can pay you.
    This country will not accept a partisan solution to this 
matter. It simply won't.
    It is beginning to look more and more like we may have a 
partisan resolution that passes the House of Representatives 
next Thursday, which will impeach President Clinton. But make 
no mistake about it, this country will not accept that. And it 
will show only that we are divided.
    And we certainly are divided on this committee. We are 
divided over whether these actions are impeachable. Some of you 
think they are, some of us think they aren't. And I trust that 
each of us makes that decision relying on our own conscience.
    One thing I have learned, the times I have been unhappy 
being in the minority because I know how a vote is going to go 
and I know how politics come into play, is that I will never 
doubt the conscience of this institution when individuals step 
back from partisan pressures, from political pressures, and try 
to do what is right. I will never, never doubt the conscience 
of the 435 people who serve in this institution.
    What we are trying to do here today is to offer an olive 
branch, plain and simple. We think that after Republicans and 
Democrats alike read this bill, they will agree that this is a 
fair resolution to this matter. And we are doing this because 
even those of us who are opposed to impeaching the President 
recognize that we cannot tell our children that it is okay not 
to tell the truth.
    If you had asked me 6 years ago, 5 years ago, 1 year ago 
whether I would be a coauthor of a measure censuring my 
President, the President of my party, I would say not a chance. 
But I never thought we would come to this, and I have got to 
believe that the members on the other side of the aisle, if 
they think about it, are amazed that four Democrats are 
coauthoring a measure to censure the President of the United 
States.
    We have heard that this is something not permitted by the 
Constitution. I see nothing in the United States Constitution 
that prohibits us from censuring the President. Perhaps the 
framers didn't contemplate it. Perhaps they were fortunate 
enough not to have to worry about a problem like the problem we 
face today, where a President, because of his personal 
behavior, has disgraced himself and disgraced the office. But 
that is what we are dealing with here today.
    I hear the argument that if we adopt this censure, we are 
going to have a stream of censures. But I think back, and I 
think, geez, we just did this 164 years ago. I don't worry 
about that. If we do a censure once every 164 years, I don't 
think that that is a problem. I think that more than anything, 
that recognizes the gravity of what we are trying to do.
    And make no mistake about it, whether we impeach the 
President or whether we censure the President, it will be the 
second time in this Nation's history that we do either. We are 
either going to censure the President for the second time in 
this country's history, or we are going to impeach him.
    Why is this so appealing to us? For me, because it starts 
the healing process that we have seen is so sorely needed in 
this committee and in this Nation. This country, as Mr. Wexler 
has said, does not want to have all Monica all the time, and I 
do think that is what we are getting. I don't think that this 
country wants us to go through a tawdry trial that could last 
months and that will alienate more people from this process. 
And if there is a crisis we have in this country, it is that 
people don't believe in this institution.
    Right now they are looking at this institution with 
disbelief. They are saying, we know what the President did was 
wrong, we know he should be punished. We don't want him to be 
removed from office. But if we do that, that is going to lessen 
the credibility of this institution, and I love this 
institution too much to do that.
    So I ask my colleagues to look at this. I realize it is not 
going to pass in committee, but at the end of the day next 
week, I am hopeful that we can start the healing process and 
get back to the people's business, because that is what they 
want us to do.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gekas. I thank the Chair. I believe that the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, at one point implied, if not 
directly stated, that the scholars of our Nation generally 
support the idea or at least condone or in one way or another 
endorse the concept of a censure. Yet we have a documentation 
here that the letter of Gary McDowell, the Director of the 
Institute for U.S. Studies, University of London, to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts takes the point of view that 
impeachment really is the only constitutional and proper way--
--
    Mr. Delahunt. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gekas. As soon as I finish.
    Proper way to bring about these kinds of condemnations and 
rebukes to the President of the United States.
    The language that I think is important is that the 
temptation to do anything possible to avoid exercising the 
awful constitutional power of impeachment is obviously and 
understandably great, but such a temptation to take the easy 
way out by assuming a power not granted should be shunned.
    This is a scholar who wrote directly to the gentleman. And 
should President Clinton as a result of bad advice or political 
pressure agree to such an unconstitutional punishment as a 
censure, that would be a breach of his constitutional 
obligations, as great as anything else of which he has been 
accused.
    The great office he is privileged to hold deserves his 
protection against any ill-considered censorious assault from 
Congress.
    The reason I stated this is because something has been 
obvious in these entire proceedings upon which I wish to 
comment, and that is, the onslaught of scholars and historians 
that we have had from the beginning of this inquiry has been in 
large measure divided in its impressions, and it's----
    Mr. Delahunt. If the gentleman would yield, I could respond 
to that.
    Mr. Gekas. I will, as soon as I finish.
    Just a bare statement.
    The point I wish to make is with the inundation of 
scholarship and academia and historians that this committee has 
seen since this inquiry began, the most that can be said for it 
is that it has been interesting, as the chairman so often says, 
but more than that, it has been divided. And to take a head 
count or a nose count as to who is in favor of considering 
perjury as an impeachable offense or not, or who considers 
censure as a proper remedy or not, would leave us with the 
final conclusion that it is still up to us to weigh these 
opinions and come to a conclusion that best suits our duty to 
do the best possible carrying-out of our obligation.
    That is the main point of the invocation that we sometimes 
indulge in of the scholars who come to us with their blessings.
    I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Delahunt. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and you 
are correct in your recitation by Professor McDowell. In 
effect, the point that I was making is that we did have 19 
scholars that testified before this committee, nine of whom 
were put forth by the Republicans, nine of whom were 
Democratic-selected scholars. One happened to be a shared 
appointment, and that was Professor Gerhardt.
    I am going to ask unanimous consent to include in the 
record the responses I received from the constitutional 
scholars, who did testify before the committee regarding 
censure, in my letter to Chairman Hyde summarizing their 
conclusions; and it is a clear majority, more than two-thirds, 
that are clear and unequivocal about the constitutionality of 
censure as appropriate in circumstances such as this.
    Chairman Hyde. Does the gentleman make such an unanimous 
consent request?
    Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.124
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.125
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.126
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.127
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.128
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.129
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.130
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.131
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.132
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.133
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.134
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.135
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.136
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.137
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.138
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.139
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.140
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.141
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.142
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.143
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.144
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.145
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.146
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.147
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.148
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.149
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.151
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.152
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.153
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.154
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.155
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.156
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.157
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.158
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.159
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.160
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.161
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.162
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.163
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.164
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.165
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.166
    
    Mr. Gekas. Reclaiming my time, I was going to repeat the 
chairman's possible request for specifics, but you proved my 
point. I say to the gentleman that I think he endorses my point 
that the scholarly community is divided on this and every other 
issue that we will ever have to consider. They are divided. 
That is fine.
    Mr. Delahunt. No, they are not divided. That is the point.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. General order.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Massachusetts does not 
have the time. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has 
expired.
    Who seeks recognition? The Chair recognizes Ms. Jackson-Lee 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
thank Mr. Conyers as well. Both of you have contributed to the 
real and important opportunity to hear this censure resolution.
    I join my colleagues who have coauthored this and would not 
have imagined that in 1998 would be part of censuring and 
drafting a resolution such as this to condemn a sitting 
President of the United States of America.
    The President's conduct was wrong. Impeachment, however, is 
final and nonappealable. And, frankly, it as well deals with 
issues of great and dangerous offense against the Constitution. 
It deals with undermining the state.
    But impeachment is also decisive. It crosses the political 
divide, it raises the anguish and anger of America. And I take 
issue with my colleagues who might note that it is 
unconstitutional, it cannot be done. It is not a bill of 
attainder, as under Article I, section 9, it does not restrict 
the liberty and property of the President.
    But does that in any way diminish its impact? I would say 
not.
    So I would like to just for a moment take up the challenge 
that our late and respected member of this committee would 
always say, and I am reminded of his words, Mr. Bono, ``Stop 
the legalese.'' And I want to do that right now. For this is an 
anguished time for all of us, and it is at this very moment, in 
this very esteemed room, that I would like to look at the back 
of the room and see the doors swing open and groups of 
Americans pour into this room, coming from all walks of life, 
maybe Shaker Heights in Ohio, or Harlem in New York; maybe 5th 
ward in the 18th Congressional District of Texas; maybe some 
parts in Arizona where Native Americans dwell. And I would like 
for us to listen to them. For they have now challenged us to 
break this impasse. They have now risen to the point of saying: 
Censure this President, rebuke him for his wrong and horrible 
and intimidating conduct. He has hurt his wife, his daughter, 
his family of Americans. Listen to us. Let us be heard.
    Oh, yes, there might be one or two who would squeeze in 
from my district and waive their fists and say impeach. Impeach 
that man.
    And then there are others who say, how dare you offer such 
a resolution? You know what we sent you to Congress for. Vote 
with the President. Stick with him all the way to the end.
    Well, this now is a time for uncommon courage. It is a time 
for champions of justice. It is a time, really, to really 
understand what those who go and defend our Nation are all 
about.
    My grandmother sent three sons to World War II. When I was 
growing up, I could not join the United States military. But in 
talking to those men and women who now are in the U.S. 
military, and talking to those men who served their time, they 
tell me that they did not go into war or police actions or join 
the service to restrict our freedom, but they joined it to give 
us freedom, to do what is right for this Nation.
    Censure is right for this Nation. It causes us to rise 
above the political divide, and it is not unconstitutional. 
There is no prohibition in the Constitution, and it is right 
for us to send this motion to the floor of the House.
    I don't know if it will pass. I remain an optimist about 
the people on this committee. But I do say to the leadership, 
Mr. Gingrich, wherever you are, and Mr. Livingston, wherever 
you are, you would do a disservice to the American people that 
I imagine would like to come through this room right now and 
make their plea. Vote to heal this Nation, vote to ensure that 
we have a country that accepts its world position.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. And, of course, accepts the freedom that 
we have.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    [Statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.001
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.002
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.003
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.004
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.005
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.006
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.007
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.008
    
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 
Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and my colleagues. The 
Constitution provides only one process and remedy for a 
President who violates his oath of office, and censure is not 
that remedy in my opinion. I yield back my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened 
carefully this morning, frankly with some incredulity at some 
of the comments being made, although no doubt sincerely made, 
that somehow if Congress expresses the opinion that the 
President has done the wrong thing and deserves our 
condemnation, that we will cause a terrible problem for the 
Constitution. And I find it hard to accept those assertions 
when we are moving forward on only the third presidential 
impeachment articles in the history of the Nation, on a basis 
that almost half the committee feels are invalid and a clear 
majority of the country feels are invalid. We are moving 
forward on a partisan basis, and that will do damage to our 
country.
    I look at what a trial in the Senate will focus on, and I 
will just note that one of the things that we will necessarily 
have to receive is direct testimony on--as found on page 148 of 
Mr. Starr's report, which was incorporated yesterday in the 
articles--whether or not Ms. Lewinsky's grand jury testimony on 
the question of whether the President touched Ms. Lewinsky's 
breasts or genitalia during their sexual activity is true. We 
will have to hear from her, and we will have to hear from the 
President on that in the U.S. Senate.
    I don't think that these are harmless things. I think that 
the opportunity to censure the President is something that 
ought to be seriously considered.
    Now, I have heard that there is concern that this is 
unconstitutional, and I don't think that that is valid. I 
actually did a little search. We have had over 2,000 
resolutions introduced in the 105th Congress expressing the 
sense of Congress, and I would note that some of them actually 
condemn civil officers who, if the arguments are to be made and 
adhered to today, could only be subject to impeachment.
    For example, H. Con. Res. 183, Representative Graham is one 
of the cosponsors, relates to the Attorney General, a civil 
officer subject to impeachment. And in the end, in the 
``resolved'' clause, we deplore the refusal of the Attorney 
General, we condemn the Attorney General, we denounce the 
Attorney General, we lament the loss of confidence, we do all 
of this because that is what Representative Graham and others 
believe.
    I don't happen to share that belief, but I recognize their 
lawful ability to express their opinion, to ask Congress to 
express their opinion.
    What I hear from my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle is that in your judgment, this resolution does not go far 
enough. It is insufficient. You have a right to that opinion. I 
don't agree with you, but I recognize you have the right to 
believe that the resolution is insufficiently strong, 
insufficiently tough, insufficiently condemnatory. But I think 
you do not have the right to deny our colleagues on the House 
the opportunity to disagree with you.
    I think that this issue of whether the President should be 
impeached or whether there should be a resolution of censure is 
one that we should not hold just to ourselves in the Judiciary 
Committee. This is a question that needs to be shared with 
every Member, all 435 Members of the House of Representatives.
    I would ask that you consider doing this, and I have asked 
privately several of you to consider this: If you cannot 
approve of this resolution, please vote present on this 
resolution. Let those of us who believe that this resolution is 
the correct thing to do vote for it and move it to the floor. 
Those of you who cannot in good conscience vote for it, notice 
that you are present, as some of us did on Mr. Gekas' 
amendment, and let it move forward so our colleagues may have 
the opportunity to express their sense of condemnation, so that 
we can recognize and respect their opportunity.
    With that, I would hope that we would at least in this 
matter operate in a bipartisan manner and show that much 
respect for our colleagues to allow them to express their 
condemnation.
    Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentlewoman. The gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would 
like to compliment the gentleman from Virginia and his 
colleagues for drafting what I think is a serious and strong 
resolution. This is tough language. It says that the President 
``failed in his obligation to set an example of high moral 
standards,'' that he ``violated the trust of the American 
people,'' that he ``lessened their esteem for the Office of 
President,'' that he ``dishonored the office,'' that he ``made 
false statements,'' that he ``wrongly took steps to delay 
discovery of the truth and remains subject to criminal and 
civil penalties,'' that he ``deserves the censure and 
condemnation ofthe American people and the Congress,'' and that 
``his signature acknowledges this censure and condemnation.''
    But, Mr. Chairman, the same reasons listed in this censure, 
in my judgment, justify an impeachment. There are three other 
reasons to, I think, oppose this censure. The first is that we 
don't know if it is constitutional. The Constitution does not 
specifically mention censure as a sanction appropriate to be 
applied to the President, but it doesn't prohibit it 
specifically either.
    The fact of the matter is, we don't know, and therefore it 
might be unconstitutional and subsequently overturned.
    The second reason is that it might be repealed by future 
Congresses. This is what happened with the previous censure 
back in 1934 when President Andrew Jackson was censured. It 
was, in fact, overturned by the very next Congress.
    The third reason to oppose it, I think, is that it is 
contrary to precedent. When the censure was issued back against 
President Jackson, it was issued by the Senate, not the House. 
That is appropriate because, as we have heard many times today, 
the House impeaches, it accuses or it charges. It is the Senate 
that determines guilt or innocence and applies the sanctions. 
So if and when there ever might be a censure, the Senate is the 
appropriate forum for that.
    The only clear constitutional remedy without any question 
is impeachment and, Mr. Chairman, anything else in my judgment 
would be premature and improper.
    There is an obvious solution, though. I listened to the 
President's statement yesterday, and I feel for him, I feel 
with him, and I agree with him. I can't imagine a worse agony 
than being ashamed in front of your family. But there is a way 
for the President to spend time, more time, with his family, 
hopefully, happier times with his family. There is a way for 
our country to avoid going through this ordeal, though I have 
great faith in the American people and in our country to get 
through it. There is a way to avoid disrupting the Senate's 
schedule, though I don't share the concerns of some of my 
colleagues that that is a major issue. It would give the 
country a fresh start and would give us a period of national 
relief, and it would also leave in office, of course, an 
incumbent Democratic President, and that is for the Democrats 
on this Judiciary Committee, along with Republicans, if that is 
deemed appropriate, to go to the President and ask him to 
resign. I think that that is the obvious solution.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I was going to ask my good friend from 
Texas to just briefly yield to me. His time had not expired.
    Chairman Hyde. His time has been yielded back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Chairman Hyde. Who seeks recognition? Mr. Watt, the 
gentleman from North Carolina--I am sorry, not Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, may I go at this point?
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
    Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, we have two ways to 
attempt to get a censure resolution through this Congress. One 
is to start it off here. The second is to try to get it through 
the Rules Committee of the House to be made in order. And while 
I am pleased that we are at least able to get it up here on the 
floor of the Judiciary Committee, thanks to Henry Hyde, it 
appears that there may not be, let's face it, a single 
Republican on this committee willing to consider the censure 
option, including the Chairman, who allowed us to bring it 
forward. This is in real time.
    So we will practice our arguments today and prepare them 
for a larger presentation. My hope is on the untested Speaker-
elect, Bob Livingston, who will be meeting with the Democratic 
leader of the House of Representatives, Dick Gephardt, that 
will allow us to continue to fashion a way out of here.
    Now, the problem is that if we don't do that, we are going 
to have a great debate on the floor of the House of 
Representatives, and I believe personally that a lot of 
Americans are beginning to find out that the Republican attempt 
to remove this President is not only serious, but it is for 
real, and I think that there is an awareness that is coming 
about that may allow us to prevail with a censure resolution on 
the floor of the House. Because if we don't, ladies and 
gentlemen, we are getting ready to call those wonderful 
citizens of new fame, the Goldbergs, the Tripps, the Lewinskys, 
for the most unimaginable trial in the history of this country 
in the United States Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice 
of the Supreme Court.
    Hear me. I mean, is that a tough call? You would really do 
this to your country? Not to the President. You would do this 
to the history of the Nation?
    I am hopeful enough about the make up of this country to 
believe that there are enough Americans that will come to their 
senses and say, ``This is not a tough call. We have got to do 
censure.''
    Oh, yes, it will be explained, as many times as my friends 
need, that this is perfectly feasible, because it has been done 
a half dozen times. But what on Earth could we be thinking 
about in terms of forcing America through months of testimony 
from Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg, and Monica Lewinsky? Now, 
if you are ready to do that, then we are going to be put 
through perhaps the most tortured experience in American 
history, in years.
    So I am hopeful that our citizenry and our colleagues will 
join us in this very modest effort to find an honorable exit 
from this most embarrassing and difficult situation that we are 
in.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from 
Florida, Mr. Canady.
    Mr. Canady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I again want to 
express my gratitude to you, Mr. Chairman, for the way you have 
conducted these proceedings. We are now coming to the end of a 
very difficult process here in the committee, and you have 
shepherded us through this in a way that has shown dignity and 
grace, and we all owe a debt of gratitude to you for that.
    I want to speak now about this resolution in the light of 
the commitment I made at the outset of these proceedings. I 
said that I would make a judgment in this matter on the basis 
of the facts of the case and the standards of the Constitution, 
and I believe that is what all of us should do.
    Now, about the facts of the case: We have talked about that 
a great deal. We have made statements, and I have made 
statements about the President's conduct, which I have 
concluded more in sorrow than in anger. But the facts point to 
the conclusion that the President has been more concerned with 
maintaining his personal power than with maintaining the 
dignity and the integrity of the high office entrusted to him 
under our Constitution.
    The evidence points to a President who clearly has no 
conception of the meaning of the stability of truth, a 
President who sees truth as the mere plaything of his 
imagination, something to be manipulated from moment to moment, 
to suit his convenience.
    We see evidence in the record before us, indeed 
overwhelming evidence, of a President who by his calculated and 
sustained course of misconduct has directly undermined the 
integrity of his office, a President who has breached his duty 
to take care that the laws be faithfully executed and, indeed, 
a President who has attacked the rule of law.
    Now, we do not sit here today in judgment on the President 
as a man. It is my earnest prayer that as a man, Bill Clinton 
will find reconciliation and peace. I bear him no ill will. But 
we have a responsibility to judge the misconduct of the 
President because that misconduct has involved crimes, crimes 
that are harmful to our system of government.
    Now, in the efforts that have been made to palliate, in the 
efforts to confuse, and all the irrational legalisms, and the 
twisting of the plain meaning of English words, we have seen 
coming from the President's defenders, in all of this, we see 
the foreshadowing of the subversion of respect for the law that 
is inevitable if we fail to impeach this President. These 
efforts find their most concrete expression, indeed they are 
distilled in the resolution that is before us today.
    Now, we should focus in the task ahead of us on what the 
Constitution provides. Mr. Hyde has read the provisions of the 
Constitution. I will not read them again. We have heard them in 
this committee. I simply suggest to the members that we should 
focus on the words of the Constitution, and we will find in the 
Constitution nothing that authorizes the censure of the 
President by the House of Representatives.
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield for a question on 
that point?
    Mr. Canady. I will be happy to yield when I am done, but I 
would appreciate not being interrupted.
    Now, we have a responsibility to follow the Constitution. 
Now, we have heard many suggestions about what will happen if 
this President is impeached. We have heard horror story after 
horror story. But do we have such fear of following the path 
marked out for us by the Constitution that we would take it 
upon ourselves to go down a different path, a path of our own 
choosing? Will we let our faith in the Constitution be put 
aside and overwhelmed by the fears that have been feverishly 
propagated by the President's defenders?
    Now, there is no question that this is a momentous issue. 
There is no question that impeaching a President of the United 
States is a momentous act. But this is not a legislative coup 
d'etat. This is a constitutional process.
    Now, will the impeachment of the President cause 
difficulties, discomfort, and inconveniences? Most certainly. 
No one would deny that. This is a sad chapter in our history. 
But I reject the notion that the Senate will be tied up for 
month after month with this matter. Such dire predictions are 
scare tactics, a tactic to scare us into turning away from our 
constitutional duty.
    There is a great deal of evidence before us, but in its 
essentials, this is a rather simple case. It can be resolved by 
the Senate expeditiously. We should reject the scare tactics, 
we should reject the effort to have us turn away from our 
constitutional duty, we should vote down this motion and move 
forward with doing our duty in the House of Representatives.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. First of all, the argument that because we are 
not explicitly authorized by the Constitution to pass a vote of 
censure of the President can't be meant seriously by anyone 
here.
    I've been reading the Constitution. It is going to make the 
best-seller list this week, obviously. And I looked at the 
enumerated powers. There is nothing in here that says we can 
pass censure Congress resolutions. There is nothing in here 
that says we could have passed the resolution sponsored just 
this year by Mr. Solomon, Chairman of the Rules Committee; Mr. 
Delay, the Majority Whip; urging the President to do this, 
being critical of the President for doing that.
    No one seriously argues that, because it is not explicitly 
authorized, Congress cannot pass resolutions expressing 
opinions. So I don't believe that the constitutional argument 
has any substantive issues whatsoever.
    This committee, every single member, has participated in 
passing resolutions for which there is no more explicit 
constitutional sanction then censure; and many of them are, in 
fact, resolutions which are implicitly or explicitly critical 
of the President.
    Though the next set of arguments kind of cancels out, they 
are the too much and too little simultaneous argument. Censure 
is considered to be wrong because it would so easily be 
responded to, that it would hamper the President. It would 
interfere with the separation of powers. It would prevent the 
President from doing his work.
    How would it prevent the President? How would too frequent 
censure prevent the President from doing his work? The answer 
is by having no impact whatsoever. Censure cannot 
simultaneously be nothing of consequence and a potentially 
fatal interference with the scheme of the separation of powers.
    Now I want to talk about the argument that it would have no 
force. And I will repeat, as one of those who serves in this 
body today who was reprimanded, along with Speaker Gingrich, I 
do not understand how any of my colleagues who share my 
reverence for this institution who, like me, are as proud of 
being here as of almost anything in the eyes--certainly 
anything in their public eyes, can argue that we would be 
indifferent to being reprimanded. No one thinks that.
    Please be wary of using arguments that are good for this 
day and this purpose only. Let's not use arguments that none of 
us really believe.
    Look at history. Was the censure of Joseph McCarthy or 
Thomas Dodd of any relevancy? And I understand there were 
different constitutional sanctions. But I'm talking now about 
the impact.
    And, by the way, when we are told censure is to be 
dismissed because it would have no force, we are told that by 
some of the same people who said, here's what we think we 
should do. We should vote an impeachment. And, by the way, one 
reason you can vote for it without too much worry is the Senate 
is not going to do anything about it.
    Well, impeachment not acted on in the Senate has no more 
formal force than a censure. So you cannot consistently argue 
that the way to deal with the President--the gentleman from 
Florida said it is the ultimate censure impeachment. That is 
funny. I thought impeachment was impeachment. And censure was 
censure. This is Orwellian.
    What are we now doing? Changing the words. We may be able 
to amend the Constitution, but we're amending the dictionary.
    The fact is that we have now two choices, and this is 
critical. We have two choices, because people here have been 
arguing, and they've been arguing this because they need to get 
votes on the floor by saying, don't worry, you're not really 
throwing the President out. The question is, here are two 
choices.
    There is a broad consensus of disapproval of the 
President's behavior, of the dishonesty. And I did not mean to 
suggest that--if I did, I was speaking sloppily--that the 
reference here to false statements was only the press 
conference. I personally believe that the President testified 
falsely when he said he could not remember being alone with 
Monica Lewinsky. I think he did remember being alone with 
Monica Lewinsky and testified falsely in the deposition to the 
contrary.
    But we have a consensus that the President behaved badly, 
was dishonest and should be condemned. We have two choices. How 
do we do that? How do we get a vote that expresses 
condemnation?
    One choice is a broad bipartisan majority passing a 
strongly worded censure. That is one choice. Your option is an 
impeachment which you tell us is unlikely to be finally adopted 
by the Senate. So, therefore, it would have no more force and 
effect, except to cause a trial in the Senate. And if the 
gentleman from Florida thinks it wouldn't take up too much time 
in the Senate, I know how much it has taken up in committee. Is 
the Senate to be considered less likely to be serious about 
this than this committee? Every member of this committee knows 
the extent to which it has disrupted our ability to do other 
sorts of business. We have legislation put aside because we 
were working on this.
    So here's the choice: Assuming that the Senate is not going 
to actually act on the impeachment, if you are bent on getting 
on the President thrown out of office, as many of you are, then 
you vote impeachment. But if you are saying here, look, here 
are the two choices, the impeachment not acted on in the Senate 
or this censure. Here are the choices----
    And I will ask for 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman, to finish up.
    Either you get a bipartisan majority that censures in the 
House, or you have a very narrow, very tight partisan majority 
in the House.
    And, by the way, that majority for impeachment will be a 
majority only because of the vote of lame ducks who were 
defeated in the last election in which impeachment was an 
issue. There will be nine Members serving when we vote next 
week who ran for another office and were defeated and had their 
seats go to a Member of the opposite party, and that reflects a 
net gain of five for the Democrats.
    So if impeachment passes by five votes or less, it will be 
passed because of the votes of lame ducks who lost their seats 
to people in the opposite party and the elections in which 
impeachment was an issue.
    Here's your choice: bipartisan censure, both parties, the 
majority of both parties saying we're appalled by what the 
President did, and we take this historical, unique opportunity 
to say so, or a narrow and crabbed bipartisan majority not 
legitimate under Democrat norms, because it will be a majority 
only because of those lame ducks. I think the country will be 
much better served by this censure.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I was interested in asking some questions of Mr. Boucher, 
if he is willing to answer.
    I'm curious, Mr. Boucher, you seem to indicate here that 
there were false statements--you do indicate that there were 
false statements that the President made. Were any of those 
false statements made under oath?
    I would be happy to yield to you.
    Mr. Boucher. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    I would say to the gentleman that the phrase in our 
resolution that the President made false statements is a 
vessel. I would assign as contents to that vessel the public 
statements that the President made on television in January. 
Those statements were not made under oath.
    I would personally also assign as contents the President's 
statement that he was never alone with Ms. Lewinsky. That 
statement was made under oath. I personally don't think it was 
truthful.
    I am not prepared to characterize other statements that he 
made under oath which some have said to be untruthful as 
untruthful, but there are other Members who may. And other 
Members may give greater or lessor definition to this phrase 
``false statements'' than I have. Each Member is free to assign 
whatever content to that vessel he or she deems proper----
    Mr. Inglis. Let me reclaim my time just for a moment so I 
can ask you another question. How about in the grand jury, do 
you personally assign any--to that vessel, any statements made 
by the President in the grand jury?
    Mr. Boucher. Well, the President I think in his grand jury 
testimony repeated his statements with regard to whether or not 
he remembered being alone with her. My own personal belief is 
those statements were not true.
    Mr. Inglis. No, in other words you would--in your case, I 
don't want you--you obviously can't speak for everyone else who 
would be supporting this resolution, those false statements. 
Some of them were made under oath in the grand jury and in the 
deposition.
    Mr. Boucher. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Inglis. Yes.
    Mr. Boucher. I would say that is true. However, let me also 
add that, even taking those statements as having been false, 
having been made under oath, I do not believe that that conduct 
rises to the level of an impeachable offense; and, therefore, I 
think the resolution of censure is the proper alternative in 
this case.
    Mr. Inglis. And reclaiming my time, because I understand 
the gentleman would not make those impeachable offenses.
    How about this? You say that the President took steps to 
delay the discovery of the truth. Do you suppose that there 
were investigations under way or legal proceedings under way at 
the time that he was taking those steps? And I would be happy 
to yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Boucher. I would say to the gentleman that my intention 
in authoring that particular phrase was to say that, in not 
telling the truth, primarily in the public statement the 
President made in January, that statement alone constitutes an 
action that delayed the discovery of the truth. And that is the 
extent to which I believe that phrase deserves definition. 
Others might want to assign a greater meaning to it. That is my 
personal meaning.
    Mr. Inglis. Reclaiming my time for that and ask you another 
question. If, in fact, there were investigations under way or 
legal proceedings pending, did the President's steps to delay 
the discovery of that truth in your mind constitute obstruction 
of justice?
    Mr. Boucher. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Inglis. Yes.
    Mr. Boucher. No, it does not. It doesn't rise to that legal 
standard.
    Mr. Inglis. I would be curious--I would yield again to the 
gentleman to explain the difference. I mean, if he was taking 
steps to delay the discovery of the truth while legal 
proceedings were pending, you, in your mind, don't define that 
as obstruction. I would be interested in knowing why.
    I would be happy to yield.
    Mr. Boucher. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Let me say to the gentleman that the steps that the 
President took delaying discovery of the truth were, in my 
opinion, not steps that were central to any legal proceeding 
that was under way at the time. It is a general statement. It 
is designed to say that the President should have been more 
forthright at that particular time. He should have told the 
truth on that occasion, rather than making false statements. 
And in making false statements, the inquiry of the Independent 
Counsel perhaps took somewhat longer than it necessarily 
should. In my opinion, none of that rises to the level of 
obstruction of justice.
    Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Boucher. And I'm nearly out of 
time.
    I just observe it is pretty clear that those false 
statements were made under oath; and, if so, it is perjury. And 
it is pretty clear that the President was taking steps to delay 
the discovery of the truth, and I believe that is obstruction 
of justice. That is why I support articles of impeachment.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from New York, Mr. Schumer.
    Mr. Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I thank you once again. This may be the last moment I 
will officially address you in this committee. And I want to 
thank you for your years of guidance and leadership and 
fairness which I believe extends up to this moment.
    Chairman Hyde. Thank you.
    Mr. Schumer. I would like to make four points, two really 
augment the points Mr. Frank made, and then go into the two 
major points I want to make. First, in terms of what Mr. Frank 
said, in terms of the constitutionality of censure, I just like 
to remind people, yes, we censure every day or every week. 
There are motions of censure on the floor. We have importuned 
the President in those censures and one could make an argument, 
which I think has no validity, just as the argument that 
because impeachment is in the Constitution you will never--you 
should never have censured--that you couldn't have censure. 
Well we have statutes mentioned in the Constitution laws.
    Does that rule out the kinds of censure that we have done 
having less effect? Simply because the Constitution mentions 
impeachment doesn't mean it rules out censure, just as simply 
because the Constitution mentions statute, it doesn't rule out 
censure on other matters.
    Second, in terms of this becoming too frequent a measure, I 
think the sponsors of this bill, and I would like to compliment 
Mr. Boucher, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Barrett and Ms. Jackson-Lee, had 
a singular wisdom.
    They made this a joint resolution, that means that the 
President has to sign it. That means he has to acknowledge his 
misdeeds. In a sense it is like the censure we have here in the 
House of Representatives, where the Member has to go into the 
well, the significance of that, and hear the articles of 
censure read against him or her. In a sense that is forcing 
that Member to acknowledge the censure. The joint resolution 
form of this that the President would have to sign requires the 
same acknowledgment, and I think guards against the fact that 
this would be used too frequently.
    My two major points. You know, what's good for the goose is 
good for the gander. And this body through its Ethics Committee 
and then through its vote found that Newt Gingrich made false 
statements. For instance, Newt Gingrich said that the course 
GOPAC was, by design and application, completely nonpartisan. 
It was and remains about ideas and politics, page 2. The fact 
is, he said on page 4, Renewing American Civilization and GOPAC 
have never had any official relationship. We know those 
statements to be patently false. They were made to the Ethics 
Committee.
    Mr. Gingrich's rationale for that was a simple one. He said 
his lawyer did it without him knowing. I can imagine if Bill 
Clinton had said that, the opprobrium justifiably that would 
have rained upon him from the other side. And, yet, I didn't 
hear a single member of the other party call for Mr. Gingrich 
to be removed from office in the House equivalent of 
impeachment, which is expulsion. In fact, with the exception of 
Ms. Bono, who wasn't here, and Mr. Buyer and Mr. Barr, every 
member of this committee voted to censure Mr. Gingrich for 
making false statements.
    False statements to a government body, false statements 
that were at least as patently false as the statements you are 
saying that Mr. Clinton made, it seems to me--now you can say 
one was under oath and one was to the Ethics Committee--it 
seems to me that is not the kind of difference that measures 
such a huge support for censure of Mr. Gingrich and saying 
censure is not the right punishment for President Clinton.
    I would remind my colleagues again to be fair and 
consistent. And, finally, again, I would like to compare this 
to Watergate; to me the major difference is the fact that in 
Watergate there was a bipartisan agreement. It didn't start out 
bipartisan. When Mr. Rodino chaired the hearings, every 
Republican was opposed to impeaching the President, as was the 
American public. But as the facts came out, and as the fairness 
of the hearings became clear, Republicans and the American 
people came to a view that we ought to have impeachment.
    I would plead that we have not reached that here. And you 
can force it all you like, that is not going to happen. I would 
plead with Mr. Livingston. Do not force the House on Thursday 
between 2 unpalatable choices, no punishment or impeachment. 
If, as you have stated this, you believe this is a matter of 
conscience, if you believe this is a matter of fairness, if you 
believe each member should decide for him or herself, please in 
the name of the greatness of this country and our future allow 
a censure resolution like the one that was crafted here on the 
floor and let the chips fall where they may.
    Mr. Gekas [presiding]. The time of the gentleman has 
expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first 
I would like to commend my friend and colleague from the 
adjoining district of mine in southwest Virginia for his 
efforts. I think he is sincere in those efforts. And I think 
that he has accurately described the nature of the resolution 
in terms of what it accuses the President of, as an unspecified 
open vessel into which he might place some statements and I 
might place others.
    The problem that I have with the resolution is this. Those 
things that I would place into that vessel are perjury under 
oath before a civil deposition, before a U.S. district judge, 
perjury before a Federal grand jury, perjured statements 
submitted to the United States Congress, obstruction of justice 
in subverting the right of an individual to have her day in 
court. And those are impeachable offenses and that is why I 
must oppose the gentleman's resolution.
    I am further concerned by the comments from the gentleman 
from New York. First of all, the United States Constitution is 
explicit in the power of the Congress to discipline its 
Members. But I think that it is not only not stated that the 
Congress has the power to discipline the President, but except 
for the specific power of removal, separation of the man from 
the office by virtue of the impeachment process, what the 
gentleman proposes and what this resolution proposes is 
unconstitutional.
    He is correct in noting that it is a joint resolution, 
requiring the signature of the President, and that is very 
significant, because requiring passage by both Houses and 
signature by the President, while a simple or concurrent 
resolution is more like a collective shout from the House or 
from the Senate, a joint resolution is very clearly a bill. And 
since it is a measure requiring the signature of the President, 
a joint resolution of censure, a law formally and publicly 
expressing condemnation, or to use the gentleman's own words, 
punishment by the legislature directed at a specific 
individual, confronts squarely the prohibition in the 
Constitution on a bill of attainder, and, therefore, I believe 
this is unconstitutional.
    But finally and, most importantly, the reason why I'm 
opposed to this censure resolution is the contrast between the 
reaction of President Clinton who openly yesterday sought a 
censure resolution and President Jackson. What a sharp contrast 
to President Jackson, who wrote that the very idea of a censure 
is a subversion of that distribution of powers of government 
which the Constitution has ordained and established and 
destructive of the checks and safeguards by which those powers 
were intended, on the one hand to be controlled and the other 
to be protected.
    President Clinton welcomes this censure because it is an 
open vessel for him as well. And you can expect that the spin 
doctors at the White House, the James Carvilles of America will 
be out there filling that vessel with nothing, nothing, and 
exonerating this President because this is exactly what the 
President wants. The President in his behavior before the 
district court, in the behavior before the grand jury, in his 
behavior before this Congress mocks the American people. This 
President mocks the Congress.
    And this censure is exactly what he wants. He will take it 
as vindication of his mocking. And we should not give it to 
him. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Gekas. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Berman, who moves to strike the last word.
    Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question, but 
before I ask the question of the Chair, I would just like to 
point out that what I haven't heard in a very long time is a 
substantial amount of time spent by those who favor the 
articles of impeachment on one issue which I tried to raise 
Thursday evening.
    I concur with a number of the assertions made by the 
majority with respect to presidential wrongdoing. Your 
quickness to come to legal conclusions I don't agree with, I 
don't think that is our role. And I don't think we're in the 
right situation to make those judgments. But as to the specific 
acts, I tend to agree with many of your interpretations. And I 
also agree that the President's wrongdoing has had a corrosive 
effect and will have a corrosive effect on the law and on 
society.
    But very little time of the majority has been spent 
explaining why that corrosive effect could possibly equal or 
outweigh the corrosive effect of nullifying the defining moment 
in our political system, the national vote for President of the 
United States, particularly in the context of the fact that the 
body politic doesn't want that to happen.
    Again, I would just like to repeat, a vote for impeachment 
may be the only vote you should think twice voting for based on 
your conscience, because what you are doing there is nullifying 
the one unifying expression of the people.
    Mr. Gekas. Would the gentleman yield for a moment on that? 
I thought you addressed the Chair on that.
    Mr. Berman. No, I was going to ask a somewhat narrower 
question, but I'm always happy to hear your thoughts on the 
subject.
    Mr. Gekas. I was just going to say in 1974 the result of 
that inquiry and impeachment was to nullify an overwhelming 
election by the holder of the White House at that juncture.
    Mr. Berman. I couldn't agree more. And the one thing I know 
is that the body politic less than 2 years earlier had voted 
for that President. I can't remember whether that was the 
election in which Massachusetts was the only State to support 
the President's opponent.
    Within that time and by the time that the House Judiciary 
Committee had taken its action, it was very clear that the 
center of gravity of the body politic with respect to on 
presidential wrongdoing had shifted. There is no case to be 
made that that has happened here and, in fact, there is 
constant reaffirmation of the fact that that hasn't happened.
    Now, before my time runs out I'd like to ask my one much 
narrower question to those who argue that this resolution is 
not constitutional. On October 8th, we passed a resolution, 
House Resolution 581, which said that the Committee on the 
Judiciary is authorized to investigate fully and completely 
whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of 
Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach 
William Jefferson Clinton, the committee shall report to the 
House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of 
impeachment or other recommendations as it deems proper.
    And the question I ask to the Chair or anyone else who 
wishes to respond is, if censure is not contemplated by the 
Constitution and therefore not permitted by the Constitution, 
without regard to whether you like this language or anything 
else, what were the other recommendations or resolutions that 
the House contemplated when they vested this committee with the 
power to begin this inquiry?
    Mr. Gekas. If the gentleman would yield? Many of us on this 
side of the aisle and elsewhere do not contend that censure is 
unconstitutional, but the Constitution does not prohibit the 
introduction or passage of a censure resolution.
    Mr. Berman. I'm sorry, just to reclaim my time. I ask 
unanimous consent for one additional minute. I was hoping I 
could get an answer from----
    Mr. Gekas. Without objection.
    Mr. Berman [continuing]. One of the many people from 
Chairman Hyde to Mr. Sensenbrenner to Mr. Canady, I believe, 
who argued that it is the absence of reference to it in the 
Constitution, in a Constitution which gives us powers only that are 
enumerated, therefore, meant that we couldn't do it. It was one of 
those members, not you then that I was asking that question.
    Mr. Gekas. Does anyone wish to save my hide or Mr. Hyde's 
hide?
    Mr. Barrett. I would.
    Mr. Berman. I just want to know for those people what were 
the resolutions or the other recommendations that we were 
vested to provide back to the House floor in our original----
    Mr. Hutchinson. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Berman. I would be happy to.
    Mr. Hutchinson. I would assume one of the recommendations 
back could be to take no action. You would have to have that 
statement in there if we were going to report back no action. I 
think it was a broad statement.
    Mr. Berman. I think the absence of reporting articles of 
impeachment would have been no action. It is hard for me to 
believe that your explanation is what was contemplated.
    Mr. Hutchinson. I think the gentleman has a very good 
point. And I've always interpreted that as a broad statement, 
broad jurisdiction to the committee, and that's why I think we 
are debating the resolution of censure that you are proposing.
    Mr. Berman. It is a functional equivalent of the phase one 
or more of the following, as the Rogan amendment added to 
Article I.
    Mr. Gekas. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Buyer.
    Mr. Buyer. I thank the Chair. I have some specific 
questions about the censure resolution itself.
    Mr. Barrett, could I ask you some specific questions about 
the censure resolution? I noted in paragraphs 1 and 2 and you 
have some subsections, it appears to me that, such as in line 
11, you say he egregiously failed, and then in line number 1 in 
page 2, he violated the trust; and then line 2, it says 
lessened their esteem; and line 3, dishonored the office; line 
5, that he made false statements; line 6 is reprehensible 
conduct; line 8, wrongly took steps.
    This appears to be you are laying the foundations for 
findings of guilt. Why did you lay it out in such a way that 
you would have findings of guilt?
    Mr. Barrett. Well, we didn't have findings of guilt, and 
that is exactly the point, because the findings of guilt in an 
impeachment resolution would have to occur in the Senate after 
a lengthy trial, and that is exactly what we want to avoid. We 
believe that if we go down that road, it is going to rip this 
country apart.
    Mr. Buyer. But you've laid it out so that it is findings of 
guilt, that he in fact did this type of behavior, so that you 
could then set up number 3 with regard to this is what the 
remedial effect would be of the censure, did you not?
    Mr. Barrett. Again, I think all of us know that there has 
been something bad happening in this country over the last 
year. And I think, frankly, as the impeachment articles 
attempted to avoid that, so does this resolution.
    Mr. Buyer. Well----
    Mr. Barrett. It is a fair criticism of both.
    Mr. Buyer [continuing]. I look at this and read this as 
though you actually have findings of guilt with regard to the 
President having conducted certain things, so you laid it out 
with specific statements, would you agree?
    Mr. Barrett. The resolution refers to admitted misconduct 
by the President.
    Mr. Boucher. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Buyer. I have a short amount of time. I will just in a 
second, Mr. Boucher.
    With regard to, quote, his actions brought dishonor, why 
did you use that word, that phrase?
    Mr. Barrett. If I could yield to Mr. Boucher, who obviously 
is the main author.
    Mr. Buyer. Sure.
    Mr. Boucher. Let me first respond to the gentleman by 
saying that nowhere in here is there a direct accusation that 
the President is guilty of a crime. I think your initial set of 
questions were focused on whether or not we were suggesting 
that there is guilt, and there is no suggestion here that the 
President has committed a criminal offense. If Members want to 
expand the particular content in these two phrases, that he 
made false statements and that he wrongfully took steps to 
delay discovery of the truth, to believe that the statement 
suggests involvement in criminal conduct, that is up to each 
individual. But the statement itself does not go that far.
    Mr. Buyer. Let me reclaim my time. In paragraph 2 you said 
that he made false statements concerning his reprehensible 
conduct with a subordinate. I suppose you are referring to what 
you've been arguing here the last couple of days about private 
sexual misconduct. Would that be true?
    Mr. Boucher. The reprehensible conduct with a subordinate 
does relate to the various items of conduct in which the 
President engaged with Ms. Lewinsky.
    Mr. Buyer. Then is your effort here to say that this 
censure is some form of a moral condemnation with regard to 
that conduct? What are you trying to say?
    Mr. Boucher. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Buyer. Yes.
    Mr. Boucher. I would not use the phrase ``moral 
condemnation''. I think the public disdains the President's 
conduct. I certainly disdain it. It is reprehensible. The words 
here speak for themselves in terms of the condemnation that we 
suggest the Congress express for the conduct that the President 
has engaged in.
    Mr. Buyer. To say then that you disdain that type of 
reprehensible conduct, would that be some form of seeking 
retribution then upon the President?
    Mr. Boucher. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Buyer. I'll yield.
    Mr. Boucher. I would say to the gentleman this is not 
designed to be retribution; this is designed to express the 
outrage of the American public for the conduct of the President 
that is referred to in the resolution. If there is criminal 
conduct, if it is subsequently determined in a criminal trial 
that there is criminal conduct, the President can be punished 
in the courts just as any other American. And that is the way 
questions of guilt and conduct that reaches that level of 
reprehensibility would be addressed.
    Mr. Buyer. Reclaiming my time, why have you used the term 
his actions have brought dishonor? And the definition of 
dishonor is a lack or loss of honor or reputation. Aren't you 
inflicting a penalty by taking away the President's honor and 
reputation by a censure that says ``I find you dishonorable''?
    Mr. Boucher. Would the gentleman yield.
    Mr. Buyer. Yes.
    Mr. Boucher. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    It is not designed to be a penalty. It is an expression of 
opinion. Congress expresses its opinion all the time on 
matters. The President in my opinion has acted dishonorably 
here, and I think that is an opinion that is shared by the 
American public. And it does not suggest that in saying so, we 
are in any way penalizing the President. We are simply 
expressing the condemnation that the American public expects.
    Mr. Buyer. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 
minutes so I may engage with the author.
    Mr. Gekas. Without objection, the gentleman is accorded two 
minutes.
    Mr. Buyer. I appreciate the gentleman's candor here. The 
only question I have if we're going to make--I think this is my 
interpretation, Mr. Boucher, of it, that these are specific 
violations--findings, when you say in fact that he violated a 
trust, that he lessened the esteem, that he dishonored the 
office, that he made these false statements and he wrongly took 
steps to delay. Then we want to say, oh, by the way, William 
Jefferson Clinton remains subject to criminal and civil 
penalties.
    If Congress is going to make an affirmative statement with 
these specific types of findings in it, how can Bill Clinton 
afford himself to a fair trial? I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Boucher. Nothing in our resolution, I would say to the 
gentleman, accuses the President of criminal conduct. It is 
fairly to be interpreted by a court of law as merely being an 
expression of Congressional opinion reflecting the public's 
disdain for the President's conduct. Dishonor does not mean 
criminal conduct.
    And in a court of law, if the President is prosecuted upon 
leaving office for any offenses that he may have committed 
while in office, if it is alleged that the acts of false 
statements or acts of delays leading to discovery of the truth 
are characterized as perjury or as obstruction of justice, then 
it will be up to the prosecutor to prove whether or not that 
standard in the law is met. We are making no judgment with 
respect to that question in putting forward this resolution.
    Mr. Buyer. I would say to the gentleman, then, this becomes 
a very weak censure resolution then, if you are unwilling to 
step forward and say then, with regard to he wrongfully took 
steps to delay the truth, with regard to what. I mean, I know 
the Chairman was saying, well, okay, I can in turn say what 
about the specificity; but if you are unwilling to say that and 
say with regard to delaying discovery truth in what, the 
civil--the Jones civil case? Was it the criminal proceeding? I 
mean, just giving it in a blanket like that, you've watered it 
down as much as you possibly can.
    My sense though, Mr. Boucher, is that in paragraph 2(a) 
that really is not a sense of moral condemnation, it is a form 
of retribution, and it is therefore punitive in its nature. And 
I really have some very strong concerns about if the President 
could every have the right to a fair trial, if in fact the 
Congress wants to legislatively make these sort of findings, 
taking a judicial role, which is in fact why a bill of 
attainder----
    Mr. Barrett. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Buyer [continuing]. The Supreme Court has said has been 
unconstitutional.
    Mr. Gekas. The time of----
    Mr. Barrett. If I can ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
    Mr. Boucher. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
have an additional 30 seconds.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Objection.
    Mr. Gekas. Objection is heard.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Withdrawn.
    Mr. Gekas. Objection is withdrawn.
    Mr. Barrett. It sounds to me----
    Mr. Gekas. The time is extended.
    Mr. Barrett [continuing]. That you are saying at the same 
time that it is too strong because it is not going to allow a 
fair trial, and it is also too weak.
    Mr. Buyer. No, no, it is not. I'm just saying that I don't 
understand this censure. When I first read it, Mr. Barrett, I 
read it as though you have laid out actually findings of guilt. 
And then you say, oh, by the way, he can stand at trial, and 
then I say how do you protect himself to a fair trial, and then 
at the same time there is this unwillingness here to give 
specificity.
    Mr. Barrett. Do you think----
    Mr. Buyer. There is an inconsistency.
    Mr. Barrett. I'm just asking, do you think it is too strong 
or too weak?
    Mr. Buyer. Frankly, I don't think this is an alternative to 
impeachment. What I'm saying is that I'm trying to figure out 
why you have drafted it in a particular way and whether it will 
pass the constitutional scrutiny of bill of attainder.
    Mr. Barrett. Do you think it is too strong or too weak?
    Mr. Buyer. I think the way you've laid it out is very, very 
weak.
    Mr. Barrett. I don't see how it can hurt the President's 
case if he were charged 2 years from now.
    Mr. Buyer. Absolutely. In my judgment of being strong,there 
is no way I believe that you can do a censure and the President could 
find a fair trial in this country. And that is the error of this 
resolution.
    Mr. Gekas. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    We now turn to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, who 
moves to strike the last word.
    Mr. Nadler. I do indeed, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have already stated my reasons 
for opposing impeachment and I will not repeat them now. 
Suffice it to say that a partisan impeachment opposed by one of 
our two major political parties and by two-thirds of the 
country can only be divisive and calling into question the 
legitimacy of our political institutions.
    We now take up a resolution of censure which I will support 
today, despite my very grave reservations concerning the 
precedent its adoption would set. I will vote for this 
resolution, however, because I believe that many Members of the 
full House and the people they represent believe that the 
President ought to be censured by Congress but not impeached. 
They have a right to a choice between the extreme and 
unjustified action of impeachment, and a less radical 
expression of the Congress and the Nation's disapproval 
embodied in this motion.
    And I do not want to support Mr. DeLay's strategy of 
maximizing the number of votes for impeachment by denying to 
Members who feel the President's conduct warrants a formal 
rebuke by Congress, but does not warrant impeachment, no 
alternative but impeachment or nothing. That, Mr. Chairman, 
constitutes moral blackmail.
    I would note that this resolution cites acts that are 
worthy of condemnation and that have been admitted by the 
President. The resolution does not cite alleged crimes that 
have been denied by the President and have not been proven. I 
believe it would be improper for Congress to pronounce 
officially a President or anyone else guilty of crimes that 
have been neither admitted nor proven.
    Indeed, one of the reasons I oppose impeachment is that in 
my opinion there is far from sufficient evidence the President 
committed perjury or the other alleged crimes, but this 
resolution does not deal with allegations of crimes. It is 
indisputable that the President lied to his family, his 
friends, his staff, the Congress and the American people. He 
carried on an affair with a subordinate employee and attempted 
to keep it secret. He has admitted these actions.
    He has sought forgiveness from those he has hurt and 
deceived. Should crimes turn out to be provable, he will face 
the possibility of criminal prosecution like any other citizen 
because no one is above the law. Most importantly, he will bear 
the burden of the judgment of history and of the American 
people. So there are consequences and the President will not 
escape them simply because he is the President.
    What disturbs me about censure, however, is that it sets a 
worrisome precedent. Congress will now be in the business of 
making sweeping statements on the conduct of future Presidents. 
Presidents often do things that anger or offend Members of 
Congress or the public. Presidents are answerable to the 
American people for that conduct and they are answerable in the 
courts. But to single out this President for deception about a 
personal indiscretion disturbs me.
    We did not censure George Bush when he lied to the Nation 
about being out of the loop in the Iran-Contra scandal or when 
he said, ``Read my lips. No new taxes.'' President Reagan was 
not censured for using members of his White House staff and 
Cabinet to conceal those illegal acts, nor was President Bush 
censured for issuing pardons to keep those involved in that 
lawbreaking above the law.
    It is certainty constitutional for Congress to adopt a 
censure resolution. I know it is said that censure is not 
mentioned in the Constitution. Neither is Social Security. 
Congress expresses its views in on all sorts of things, and 
there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents us from 
expressing our views as an institution about the President. 
Members who want to express that view should have the 
opportunity to do so, and not be muzzled by a partisan House 
leadership.
    I urge the members of this committee on this supremely 
important issue to permit the Members of the House to make 
their own choices. And despite my serious reservations with the 
censure resolution, I am willing to vote for it today to 
increase the odds that the country we all love may avert the 
catastrophe of a partisan impeachment resolution that does not 
commend the support of the country and can only increase the 
bitterness of our politics and public life for years, perhaps 
decades to come.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Yes, I would yield.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman very much. Let me 
just say to the gentleman from South Carolina, this is not a 
bill of attainder. This censure resolution does not restrain 
the property and liberty of the President, but it does condemn 
his conduct. And the recitation that we have in the censure 
resolution condemns the conduct that we have seen over the past 
few months.
    We have never done great in this country when we have 
remained to the left or the right. We have done our best work 
when those of us of different perspectives move to the center 
of the road and do what is best for this nation.
    I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Gekas. The time----
    Mr. Nadler. Can I have one additional minute?
    Mr. Gekas. Without objection.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Nadler. I would simply also observe it is precisely 
because this resolution does not officially condemn the 
President for crimes, for perjury, for acts which he has denied 
and which have not been proven, that it is not a bill of 
attainder and I can vote for it.
    I yield back the balance of my time, and I thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Gekas. The Chair thanks the gentleman for yielding back 
the balance of his time.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 
Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant. I thank the chair.
    I am genuinely confused here, but I'm going to use all my 5 
minutes to talk about what I understand this to be. And perhaps 
someone who feels they can straighten me out on their own time, 
I welcome that, but I do have more than 5 minutes of things to 
talk about here.
    I understand that this is not punitive. I think I've heard 
that phrase used that this is not punishment. And I thought 
that is what a censure was. And, in fact, I looked up in 
Black's Dictionary that a censure is defined as the formal 
resolution of a legislative, administrative or other body 
reprimanding a person, normally one of its own members, for 
specific conduct, an official reprimand or condemnation. 
Reprimand is punishment.
    And then I hear that, basically, this entire censure arises 
out of one incident where the President, I assume, shook his 
finger at America and said, I did not have sex with that woman, 
Monica Lewinsky. Both the misleading and delaying the 
disclosure of evidence and the false statement arose from that 
incident. That gives me great trouble, as Mr. Nadler has 
mentioned several statements that past presidents have made, 
and if we're going to set this precedent that we can censure a 
president for a statement that he makes publicly in a political 
speech or a political campaign, I think we really don't want to 
go down that road.
    The bottom line for me is we don't, as a Congress, as a 
House, I should say, have the authority to punish. The Senate 
has the power to punish the President. The House has no such 
authority, and we can only match our actions in the House with 
the authority that we have. We can't go out and create 
something here. We can't go out and invent something that we 
don't have under the Constitution, just for expediency. This is 
unconstitutional.
    And if it were challenged by the President who objected to 
receiving a censure and if it did go to court, the court would 
hold it to be unconstitutional. It is not in the Constitution, 
only the power to impeach. And if we can't do that, we can't do 
anything. But because the President might accept this 
unconstitutional censure, it might never be brought before a 
court, and it might never be resolved.
    But, in the end, we will know if we were to pass this that 
we passed an unconstitutional act. And we have not done that. 
That is not the standard by which we operate. Because it is not 
going to be challenged or what, we can slide it by.
    It is a terrible precedent that we have here. The only 
possibility that I could see perhaps possibly if we voted 
articles of impeachments out of the House and gave the Senate 
something to work with that they might could somehow perhaps 
not consider the articles, but at least have something in front 
of them that they could take some action on, maybe. Maybe you 
could argue that they could censure the President or reprimand 
the President in the Senate.
    But, very clearly, the House of Representatives has 
absolutely no authority to punish the President. And no matter 
what you call it, we are punishing the President with this 
reprimand, with this censure; and I very much oppose this. This 
is a terrible precedent and for us to do this in the interest 
of expediency. It sounds good and all, but it is not 
constitutional.
    And I would yield back my time.
    Mr. Smith [presiding]. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I defer to the gentleman from 
North Carolina.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to say, at the outset, this is a very difficult 
issue for me. I was not involved in the drafting of this 
censure resolution. And that clearly there are some words in it 
that I have some trouble with. I suspect that the drafters 
didn't--either thought I was too liberal or thought I was too 
constitutional or for whatever reason and didn't get me 
involved in it.
    But I'm kind of happy that I can either vote it up or vote 
it down without vexing about it and trying to deal with it. I 
have on a number of occasions--well, I shouldn't say a number 
of occasions--but a couple of occasions stood by myself in 
defense of the Constitution, even when the House of 
Representatives voted all the way on the other side. I almost 
paid a political price for it, in fact, in the last election. 
That became a major issue in my campaign.
    So I have a history of defending rigorously the 
Constitution of the United States and have defended it in this 
committee vigorously. And if I thought that this was 
unconstitutional, I would say that I thought it was 
unconstitutional.
    I've looked at the bill of attainder provisions, and I had 
some concerns about whether it might be a bill of attainder, 
but I am convinced that it is not.
    The second option would be that there is no mention of a 
censure in the United States Constitution, but a lot of things 
we do in the House of Representatives there is no mention of. 
So I don't find any constitutional prohibition against this, 
although I do believe that it sets a difficult precedent. And 
that is kind of the slippery slope argument. Once you get on 
the slippery slope, where do you stop when you start censuring 
a president? Will we have one everyyear? Will we have one every 
term of different presidents? But I'm satisfied that the history of 
censures in this country and the responsibility of Congresses will have 
to be accountable for that.
    Censure is a constitutional alternative which Congress has 
used on several occasions in the past. Andrew Jackson was 
censured in 1834 for vetoing legislation creating a national 
bank.
    In 1942--I mean 1842, I'm sorry--the House adopted a motion 
agreeing to a committee report condemning President Tyler for 
``gross abuse of constitutional power'' through his actions 
vetoing legislation.
    In 1860, the House adopted a resolution stating that 
President Buchanan was deserving of ``reproof'' relating to 
alleged kickbacks.
    And those are the only three occasions--and I'm just going 
to have to trust future Congresses not to abuse this, because 
there is the possibility that it could be abused and you get 
into situations regularly.
    What I'm more concerned about is the slippery slope we're 
on with the words that are actually in the Constitution. There 
is nothing about censure in the Constitution. There is a 
standard in the Constitution having to do with what is 
impeachable. And that is the slippery slope I'm concerned 
about.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for one additional 
minute.
    Mr. Smith. Without objection.
    Mr. Watt. So I think I'm going to vote for this, probably 
much to the chagrin of some people in my congressional 
district, who think we ought not do anything. But there are a 
bunch of people in my district who think we ought to impeach 
the President, too.
    So I think my responsibility is to do what I think is right 
here, and there are two things that make me believe this is 
right: Number one is the very, very persuasive argument that 
Mr. Barrett made yesterday that every single Member of this 
House ought to be allowed to vote their conscience, whatever 
that is. And, number two, I think we have a very strong message 
to bring this matter to an end from the country's perspective.
    And if I do find anything in the enumerated legislative 
powers that justifies what we might do, there is a provision in 
the legislative powers that says we can do whatever we want to 
do for the general welfare of the United States. And if anybody 
wants to find that provision, it is in section 8, clause 1.
    So I will yield back the balance of my time. And it is my 
intention to vote for the resolution.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Watt.
    The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Chabot. I thank the Chairman.
    I have some serious concerns about the censure resolution 
before us today. So what is this censure really all about? We 
heard Chairman Hyde when we started this debate refer to 
censure as yelling at your teenager. Well, I've got a teenage 
daughter, and I can assure you it doesn't do any good.
    And you might even get back the response that the 
Democratic counsel, Abbe Lowell, got back from his daughter the 
other day--dah.
    And, you know, this censure, is it really just a way for 
people to cover their political backside? I guess we can use 
that term when we consider how graphic the evidence is that we 
have endured.
    Mr. Barrett. Would the gentleman yield for two seconds?
    Mr. Chabot. I would yield in a moment.
    I respect the work that my colleagues undoubtedly put into 
the drafting of this resolution, and I know that they were 
doing what they believed to be right. But I do not believe that 
this resolution adequately addresses the President's 
reprehensible actions.
    As has been noted, the most glaring omission from this 
resolution are the words under oath. I had hoped that by now 
members of the committee would have all agreed on one simple 
truth, the President of the United States did, in fact, lie 
under oath.
    The phrase, and I quote, ``took steps to delay discovery of 
the truth'' also seems to represent an immense understatement. 
I assume it refers to the President's lies and misstatements 
before the grand jury, lies in a civil rights case, obstruction 
of justice, witness tampering, lies to Cabinet members and lies 
to the American people.
    Sadly, these crimes are far more serious than described in 
this proposed censure resolution. It also is of concern to me 
that there is no expressed provision in our Constitution that 
allows Congress to censure the President. In fact, we know that 
the constitutionality of a censure resolution is open to 
challenge. My colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, have 
made strong arguments in defense of their positions on this 
issue. But there is no clear consensus.
    We do know, however, that impeachment is a constitutional 
process; and we know that censure does not appear to be and has 
not traditionally been a component of the impeachment process. 
It is my belief that our first duty is to consider articles of 
impeachment and allow the full House to vote on those articles. 
A censure resolution, especially one that does not acknowledge 
many self-evident truths, is not appropriate at this time.
    Mr. Chairman, I would also like to comment briefly on our 
deliberations over the last few days. I very much respect the 
passionate arguments made by my friends on the other side of 
the aisle. I think there have been impassioned arguments on 
both sides of the aisle; and I think everybody has considered 
this very, very seriously. We simply see much of the evidence 
in a different light.
    These truly have been decisions of conscience, and we have 
all done a great deal of soul-searching in this whole matter. 
And I deeply respect the members, each and every one of them, 
on the other side of the aisle, just as I do my colleagues on 
this side of the aisle.
    And was there somebody that asked me to yield? Mr. Barrett?
    Mr. Barrett. You had asked whether this was a vote just for 
people to cover their backside, and I wanted to take two 
seconds to say no.
    Mr. Chabot. Okay. I appreciate that. And I am just saying 
for some people it is----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Chabot [continuing]. And we all have to make our own 
decision on these types of matters.
    I would be happy to yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman.
    Likewise, as a coauthor of this resolution, I would simply 
say that it might do more damage to those who may ultimately 
vote for it than not. But I think the deciding factor is one of 
conscience and, the point that I made, one of bringing us 
together as a Nation.
    And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Chabot. I thank you.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Gekas [presiding]. The gentleman yields back the 
balance of his time.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, who 
moves to strike the last word.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I have complained from the beginning that, as 
a result of an unfair process, we have an insufficient factual 
basis to support impeachment. This is not Mr. Boucher's fault, 
because we drafted, along with others, a democratic, fair plan, 
which would have started with allegations, would have required 
us to focus on those which might be impeachable offenses, if 
true, proceed to fact-finding to support those allegations, and 
then come to a logical conclusion.
    Instead, we went right from the allegations and jumped over 
focus and fact-finding to conclusions that we should impeach 
the President. The so-called evidence for impeachment is 
flimsy, because it is based on contradictory hearsay and 
inferences. The so-called evidence might be true, but we should 
have tested that evidence the traditional way by which we would 
test the reliability of the evidence, cross-examination and 
opportunity to rebut.
    We saw this today when the gentleman from South Carolina 
read a portion of a newspaper article which suggested that the 
President's operatives would ensure a Republican Representative 
suicide if he voted for impeachment. When this evidence was 
subjected to rebuttal, we find that the whole article reflects 
a total different interpretation.
    The evidence before us has been selected by Mr. Starr and 
consists mainly of answers to questions posed by the 
prosecution, not additional answers to questions posed by the 
President, nor rebuttal witnesses. And, therefore, it is wrong 
to draw factual conclusions from the uncross-examined hearsay 
and inferences drawn by Mr. Starr without the opportunity to 
rebut.
    Unfortunately, the process which fails to establish a 
factual basis for impeachment also fails to establish an 
appropriate factual basis for censure.
    Mr. Chairman, I have two additional concerns. One, there is 
the serious policy implications when one colloquial branch of 
our government seeks to unilaterally punish another. And it is 
even worse when there becomes an expectation or even a 
responsibility to censure every time one branch is outraged by 
the conduct of another branch.
    Mr. Chairman, these are policy questions. Like the 
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, I do not believe that 
this rises to constitutional implications, just policy 
implications.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, the consideration of a censure now, 
while articles of impeachment are pending, is troublesome, 
because it diverts focus from the reality that we are about to 
impeach the President of the United States.
    Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, future impeachment thresholds 
may be lowered, because future offenses, like we have today--
instead of offenses like we have today. Offenses that may be 
impeachable but not--may be not impeachable but censurable 
would be considered in order to launch an impeachment inquiry.
    Mr. Chairman, a Republican witness referred to what we have 
before us as low crimes and misdemeanors, and I would hope that 
we would not provoke future inquiries with even more flimsy 
allegations. Impeachment inquiries are serious.
    During this inquiry we have already voted against a motion 
to recognize attorney-client privilege. During this inquiry we 
have already subpoenaed confidential memos between the Attorney 
General and her subordinates, and we have diverted attention 
from important issues like religious freedom, juvenile justice, 
immigration concerns that we could not consider at the end of 
last year because we were focused on impeachment.
    Mr. Chairman, an impeachment inquiry should only be 
launched when there are clear allegations of impeachable 
offenses, not lesser offenses. So, in summary, because we have 
not done rational fact-finding to prove the allegations, 
because we have concerns about coequal branches of government, 
that they should refrain from censuring one another, and 
because this might provoke future impeachment inquiries with 
flimsier allegations than we have today, I cannot support this 
resolution.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Gekas. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 
time.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Gallegly, who moves to strike the last word.
    Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 
Chairman, it has been a long week, and as we get to the final 
hours of this debate, I want to stand up and strongly oppose 
censure, particularly including this censure proposal.
    I will let my colleagues continue to discuss the 
constitutional problems with censure, but I would like to take 
just a second and focus on the practical problems. Censuring 
the President will, in my opinion, establish a very dangerous 
precedent and will weaken the office of the presidency for 
generations to come.
    In the future whenever the President is involved in any 
wrongdoing, Congress will be tempted to punish the President by 
passing a censure resolution. The greater perceived wrongdoing, 
the more we punish the President. The lower the poll ratings, 
the more we condemn. I think this is a terribly bad idea.
    The result would be to upset the balance of powers among 
our three branches of government. It would limit the ability of 
future Presidents to make unpopular decisions. It would weaken 
our future Presidents. This is also a very bad idea, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The country today is faced with serious wrongdoings by our 
President: perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of 
presidential power. Our goal should be to properly judge the 
President's office without undermining the office of the 
presidency, and there is only one way I believe that we can 
accomplish this.
    We can't take the easy way out, Mr. Chairman. We can't 
establish a new way to punish the President not contained in 
the Constitution. In short, with all due respect, I believe 
censure is a cop-out, a cop-out with very dangerous 
consequences. Based on our conscience and judgment, we should 
do what is provided for in the Constitution, no matter how 
uncomfortable that may be. Next week we should vote up or down 
impeachment.
    With that----
    Mr. Barr. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gallegly. With that, I am pleased to yield to the 
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous 
consent to insert into the record an October 6, 1998 article 
which appeared in the New York Times by Lowell Weicker.
    Mr. Gekas. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.110
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.111
    
    Mr. Barr. Thank you. This article, Mr. Chairman, I think 
lays out some very cogent arguments that bear directly on the 
debate today, and perhaps in addition to those in attendance 
here, our colleagues who do not serve on this committee yet 
will be called upon within a matter of days to render a very, 
very grave and serious decision on impeachment.
    I quote from this article by Lowell Weicker, who our 
colleagues will, I am sure, remember served very ably in this 
Congress as a Republican Senator from Connecticut for 18 years, 
from 1970 to 1988, and thereafter as a very distinguished 
independent governor in his home State of Connecticut. He says, 
directly addressing the issue of censure which has been 
floating around here for a long time, ``It is too early to say 
whether the President should be impeached. It is not too early 
to say that the alternative, censure, would be a grave 
mistake.''
    He goes on: ``Censure has no constitutional basis.'' He 
goes on: ``Censure also carries no enforceable sanction.'' He 
goes on: ``Censure could become a volatile new political 
instrument.'' He goes on: ``For too long, Americans and their 
elected representatives have opted for soft landings on the 
toughest problems, and whenever a tough call has been required 
it has been supplanted by a symbolic gesture.'' Censuring Mr. 
Clinton would be a gesture of this kind. Thereis no choice now 
but to push ahead with impeachment hearings. Anything less will result 
in government by free-for-all.
    I thank the gentleman and yield back to him.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman from California yield?
    Mr. Gekas. The time of the gentleman from California has 
expired. The Chair recognizes the lady from California, Ms. 
Waters, who moves to strike the last word.
    Ms. Waters. I move to strike the last word.
    Mr. Chairman and Members, we have had a lot of discussion 
about the Constitution of the United States of America and it 
has been good for us and this institution. Oftentimes I think 
we forget our oath, and we forget about this most profound 
document that basically instructs us on how we can live in a 
democracy and the rules of the democracy.
    I can recall my years as a very young girl when we were 
being taught the Constitution of the United States, and my 
absolute eagerness to learn more as they taught us about the 
divisions of government and why they were separate and what it 
meant, and our Commander in Chief, and what the legislative 
branch's responsibilities would be.
    And I have thought about it an awful lot as we have debated 
this issue, and I still believe, the more that I know and 
understand about the Constitution, that the allegations that 
are being brought in these articles of impeachment do not meet 
the test of high crimes and misdemeanors, and I sincerely 
believe that.
    I also believe that the conduct of the prosecutor and the 
investigation was a lot less than what it should be, and a lot 
of people's rights were abused in the process. I am also still 
stung by the fact that the prosecutor came here as an advocate. 
I am also amazed that the prosecutor had not even met some of 
the central players in this impeachment attempt.
    I am also bothered that we did not get a chance to see, 
feel and hear the witnesses to begin to understand how we could 
get rid of some of the contradictions and misinformation.
    I also come to this process having lived a long time, and 
with enough wisdom to know the difference between the ideals 
and what happens in the real world. I abhor hypocrisy, and I 
don't easily compromise. I think compromise is a very important 
concept, and it helps to get rid of gridlock, and it is very 
important dealing in this kind of atmosphere. We have so many 
people with so many ideas coming from so many different places, 
until I guess we have to understand compromise, and I have a 
great deal of respect for people who know how and when to do 
it.
    I am not so blessed with the ability to give in, to being a 
little bit right and a little bit wrong. I am rather passionate 
about my beliefs. And so I do not embrace compromise in general 
very easily, and certainly on this important issue of 
impeachment do I understand how to move to the so-called 
middle.
    For those people who have decided that they are going to do 
it, that censure is the answer, I certainly respect that, and 
maybe that will be the way that this Congress will eventually 
go. I am not prepared to do it at this moment and at this time. 
I still think that the Members of our House have a lot to learn 
about what has gone on here; the people out there looking at us 
have a lot to learn about what we are doing and what the facts 
are.
    And so while I am not prepared to support censure at this 
time as a way to compromise, I am prepared to keep talking to 
the people of this Nation, to keep educating, to keep seeking 
out the facts, and we have time to do that, a short time, but 
impeachment should never have been attempted in a short period 
of time. We should never have tried to do this work in a short 
period of time, so that we could get over with the business of 
it because people didn't want it to be dragged out too long. 
Justice takes time, and I am prepared to put the time in. I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Gekas. The lady yields back the balance of her time.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 
Barr, who moves to strike the last word.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, in listening to the debate over the last few 
hours, I jotted down some words that we have heard on more than 
one occasion. We have heard about healing, closure, the healing 
process. Next I expect we will hear we are in group therapy. 
But we are not in group therapy, Mr. Chairman. We are in the 
Congress of the United States of America. Let's act like it.
    Let's stand up and say we have a Constitution. The 
Constitution tells us what to do. By God, let's follow it. This 
isn't group therapy. This isn't a feel-good session. This is 
the Congress of the United States. We have a solemn duty here, 
based on an oath that we took to uphold the Constitution. Let's 
do it.
    If people believe that it is indeed okay for the President 
of the United States of America to perjure himself, to lie 
under oath, to make false and misleading statements under oath, 
then let them have the backbone to stand up and say so, to look 
the people of this country in the eye and say, ``I think it's 
okay for a President to do those things.'' But let's not 
succumb to that siren song, that mirage in the desert of a 
censure.
    It is in fact, as the gentleman from California said, a 
constitutional cop-out, which is, I think, words also that we 
heard from some of the experts. If we look at the history of 
censure--and I would like to ask unanimous consent to introduce 
into the record pages 1317 through 1336 of debates in Congress 
from the year 1834.
    Mr. Gekas. Without objection, they will be included in the 
record.
    [The information follows:]
     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.112
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.113
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.114
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.115
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.116
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.117
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.118
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.119
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.120
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.121
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.122
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.123
    
    Mr. Barr. We see that there is indeed a very substantial 
record against censure. For example, I quote the President of 
the United States of America: ``I do hereby solemnly protest 
against the aformentioned proceeding of the Senate as 
unauthorized by the Constitution, contrary to its spirit and to 
several of its express provisions, subversive of that 
distribution of the powers of government which it has ordained 
and established, destructive of the checks and safeguards by 
which those powers were intended. The resolution of the Senate 
contains an imputation upon my private as well as my public 
character.''
    And then the President of the United States goes on at 
length to establish the proposition that censure as a 
substitute for impeachment is unconstitutional and has no 
meaning. That document was signed by Andrew Jackson, President 
of the United States of America. We do have plenty of 
incidences of resolutions of censure type condemnations. Every 
year hundreds if not thousands are introduced into the 
congressional hopper, all with very, very lofty sounding goals, 
to stop violations of human rights here, to stop military 
intervention there, to condemn human rights abuses here, to 
stop brutal killings there, to prevent bombings here. Well, 
some of these even pass. And I take nothing away from the 
motivation of those who introduce and vote for these, including 
myself. But the bombings go on, the killings go on, the abuses 
of human rights go on. Why? Because censure resolutions have no 
basis, no power, no results whatsoever.
    It would be the same here. If in fact this President lies, 
misleads and perjures himself, no piece of paper that we pass 
here condemning him for that is going to stop him from doing 
it. Either he has stopped already, if people believe that, 
fine, or we are going to have to remove him from office for 
having done so in violation of the Constitution. That indeed, 
not feeling good, not worrying about closure or healing or some 
process of healing, should be our goal, to do the right thing, 
not to look for the easy way out but to do the right thing. And 
if we in the Congress do the right thing, I believe the people 
of America will support us. They will back us up. They will 
say, yes, we may not agree with everything you do but, by God, 
you had the backbone to stand up and say we take the 
Constitution seriously, we're going to make the tough calls, 
we're not going to look for an exit strategy, we're looking for 
a constitutional strategy, you found it, you voted for it, God 
bless America, and God bless this Congress.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Gekas. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Barrett. Mr. Chairman, point of personal privilege.
    Mr. Gekas. What does the gentleman refer to?
    Mr. Barrett. The gentleman refers to a member saying 
healing process, and I just want to plead guilty, I was the one 
who used the phrase ``the healing process.'' I do want to 
acknowledge----
    Mr. Gekas. The gentleman is out of order.
    Mr. Barrett. I think he made reference to me.
    Mr. Gekas. The gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds for 
some purpose.
    Mr. Barrett. He made reference to the person who said ``the 
healing process,'' that was me. I just want to confirm that it 
was me. And that my political philosophy is not to try to find 
ways to divide this country but to try to find ways to bring 
this country together.
    Mr. Gekas. The time of both gentlemen has expired. The 
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler, 
who moves to strike the last word.
    Mr. Wexler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had planned on 
making a speech in favor of the censure resolution with all the 
gusto that I could have. But I have learned, as have Mr. 
McCollum and Mr. Canady and all the people of Florida in the 
last 15 minutes, that our finest public servant, our governor, 
has passed away, Lawton Chiles, who served as a Senator for 18 
years, I believe, and who served as the governor of Florida for 
the last 8 years. Governor Chiles was I think in most 
Floridians' eyes the epitome of a fine and decent man, a 
throwback to the age when partisanship didn't play the role it 
plays, and I don't mean that in any condemning fashion. This 
man rose above party. He walked the State of Florida the long 
way, and that is how he got his nickname, ``Walking Lawton.'' 
He just embodied what is good about America: A poor kid who 
grew up to be in the United States Senate, made good, did it 
the honest way, did it the old fashioned way.
    And I guess, well, of course there is absolutely no 
relevance to Governor Chiles' life and what we are doing now. 
Rather than make a speech about censure, I guess what I would 
like to do is just use whatever remaining time there is to talk 
about my feelings and my impression of the experience that the 
American people have gone through in the last year.
    Mr. McCollum. Would the gentleman yield before you do that?
    Mr. Wexler. Certainly.
    Mr. McCollum. I just want to join you, Mr. Wexler, in 
expressing my sadness with learning of the passage of Governor 
Chiles. He was a personal friend. Despite some political 
differences, he was a good friend when I first came here as a 
junior Member of Congress and he was a United States Senator. 
He has been a good man and a good governor for Florida. I will 
never forget visiting my tornado ravaged area with him for 
nearly a full day earlier this year, and the great compassion 
he showed. I feel the loss as a personal human being and as a 
leader. I share it with you. It is a very nonpartisan, very 
strongly felt feeling that I share tonight. I thank you for 
taking the time to mention that.
    Mr. Gekas. The Chair exercises the power of the gavel to 
extend a minute of silence in the recognition of the memory of 
the Governor of Florida, after which we will return to the 
gentleman from Florida. One minute of silence.
    The time of the period of recognition of the late Lawton 
Chiles has expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Florida, Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I believe Mr. Canady 
wishes to say some words.
    Mr. Canady. Mr. Wexler, if you would yield I would be 
deeply grateful.
    Mr. Wexler. Certainly.
    Mr. Canady. I knew Lawton Chiles from the time that I was a 
child. I worked in his first campaign for the U.S. Senate. That 
was one of the first campaigns I was involved in. My father 
managed his campaigns, and worked for him for about 18 years. 
He was a good man. He was a dedicatedpublic servant. I didn't 
agree with him politically in recent years, but I had the utmost 
respect for him. My prayers go out to his family, his wife Rhea and to 
his children Bud and Ed and Tandy and Rhea Gaye. They are a fine 
family. They have meant a lot to the people of Florida.
    Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
time consumed by Mr. Canady and Mr. McCollum be restored to the 
gentleman from Florida.
    Chairman Hyde. Surely.
    Mr. Wexler. If I may continue, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Thank you. I am going to use my time, if I 
could, to speak about my feelings and my impression of the 
feelings of many Americans over the last year. When I think, I 
look back at what has transpired, I will certainly remember the 
historic nature of this committee, the debates that we have 
had, and I too respect very much the heartfelt opinions of 
those in the majority. But I think the things that I am going 
to remember most, quite frankly, are the night after night 
arguments that my wife and I had over the President's conduct 
and morality. And it made us search, it made me search and 
reevaluate my own morality, my own morality as it relates to 
our children and the role of morality in public life. I suspect 
that many, many Americans, regardless of political affiliation, 
have undergone their own thinking about what the President did, 
how it relates to our national character and how it relates to 
their own family. In doing that, I came to a variety of 
different conclusions, one of which I think for me is the most 
important. Personally, I have a tendency of seeing things black 
and white sometimes. Either something is all good or all bad or 
all right or all wrong. But what I have learned when it comes 
to morality is that most people are either not all moral or all 
immoral. They are not all good or all bad. We can strive to be 
all good, but not too many of us are. And in the President, I 
see someone who has extraordinary talent and in some ways is 
extraordinarily moral and in others is extraordinarily immoral.
    It would seem to me at this juncture in our history we are 
living in an age where there are such bitter divisions. We had 
our government close down 3 years ago without assigning fault. 
We have campaign after campaign after campaign where we rip 
each other apart, again without assigning fault. It would seem 
to me that for the benefit of the country, all of us would come 
around a censure motion. If this censure isn't this enough of 
that enough, well, let's make it enough of this or that so that 
an overwhelming majority of the Members of Congress can vote 
for it and end this national nightmare.
    If I can conclude by using my colleague from Florida's 
statements, even though I don't agree, let me assume for a 
moment that Mr. McCollum is correct, and I don't say this in 
any way to try to challenge his statement, that impeachment is 
in fact the ultimate censure. Well, this President has already 
been subject to four articles of impeachment passed by this 
committee. That is already history. So if in fact impeachment 
is the ultimate censure, well, then four articles of 
impeachment passing out of the Judiciary Committee have got to 
be awfully close to that ultimate censure. So these articles 
have passed out of that committee, that is history, that is 
done. Next week, let it be God's will, let it be the American 
people's will, that we end this national nightmare and pass a 
censure resolution.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Before recognizing Mr. Hutchinson, who is next, I have been 
handed a note. Mr. Gary Ellenwood, the field operations 
director for C-SPAN, the network who has provided the wonderful 
pool for televising this inquiry, was just beeped and is on his 
way to the hospital where his wife Tess is ready to deliver 
their fourth child. We wish them well.
    Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say that 
I do oppose this resolution of censure. But before I go into 
the details of that, I wanted to express my appreciation to all 
my colleagues on this committee for the way they have conducted 
themselves during this hearing, on both sides of the aisle, but 
I have enjoyed getting to know some of my Democrat colleagues 
and I appreciate the spirit by which they have offered this 
resolution.
    The Chairman knows that I have from time to time met with a 
rump group of Democrats to discuss these issues. Some people 
thought that we were going to come up with some kind of deal or 
resolution but through the process we realized that there was 
simply a difference of opinion. My colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle were forcefully committed to censure. I did not 
share that view. But even though we did not resolve anything, I 
believe that the spirit that we gained through those 
discussions has been beneficial to this committee, and I just 
wanted to acknowledge my appreciation for everyone who has 
shared their time with me in that venue.
    I also want to comment on my good friend from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, who has referenced the 
constitutional hearing that we had in which the constitutional 
scholars talked about censure. And Mr. Delahunt wrote them, 
they responded, and he was good enough to provide this 
committee with those responses. I want to now go through some 
of those.
    One was Stephen Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal 
History at Northwestern University. He said: ``Dear Congressman 
Delahunt: My recollection of the hearing on November 10 is 
different from yours. I thought there was general agreement 
that censure would not be constitutional. That is certainly my 
view. In my opinion impeachment is the remedy specified in the 
Constitution.''
    And then there is another letter to Mr. Delahunt from Gary 
McDowell of the Institute of United States Studies, University 
of London: ``Dear Mr. Delahunt: I have received your letter of 
December 1 concerning the hearing that was held November 9. I 
must confess, your letter leaves me morethan slightly 
perplexed, as we seem to have completely different recollections of 
what was actually said at the hearing. With all due respect, I think 
your recollection that most, but not all, of the 19 witnesses who 
testified at the hearing concluded that a resolution [of censure or 
disapproval] would be constitutional, is completely wrong.''
    Mr. Delahunt. Would my friend from Arkansas yield?
    Mr. Hutchinson. I want to finish this discussion and then I 
will be happy to yield. Next, a letter from John Harrison, 
professor at the University of Virginia Law School: ``Dear 
Representative Delahunt: Your question led me to reflect on the 
matter more carefully than I had before. My view at this point 
is that there are serious constitutional difficulties with 
Congressional censure of the President as that idea is 
currently understood.''
    And then John O. McGinnis of the Cardozo School of Law 
wrote to Congressman Delahunt: ``As I testified at the hearing, 
I believe Congress has no power to censure the President as 
part of the impeachment process or otherwise.''
    Griffin Bell wrote that he did not see a problem, I believe 
is what he says, to Congressman Delahunt, ``but the House has 
adequate power to adopt resolutions, although the use of the 
legislative power of resolution toward the President may be 
questioned on separation of powers grounds.''
    Charles J. Cooper, lawyer, wrote to Mr. Delahunt: ``I would 
note, however, that serious scholars whom I respect greatly, 
notably Professor McGinnis, have examined the matter and 
concluded that censure would not be constitutional.''
    And then Richard Parker wrote to Representative Delahunt. 
He adds: ``Any resolution worth its salt must state plainly 
that the President has with premeditation sought to subvert the 
process of the Judiciary.'' And he says that it is 
constitutional but you need to have something pretty strong.
    Daniel Politt, University of North Carolina Law School says 
that the Congress has the authority, but wrote to Mr. Delahunt, 
``However, I am not sure a reprimand is wise. I was very much 
impressed by the testimony of Arthur Schlesinger on how 
reprimands, if the practice caught on and spiraled, would 
seriously weaken the institution of the presidency.''
    I would also refer to the good witness that was called by 
the President's counsel and the Minority counsel, Father 
Drinan, who indicated very strongly that he disagreed with 
censure.
    And so I respect the gentleman, but I do believe there are 
many scholars that have a different recollection and clearly 
believe that censure would be inappropriate.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent 
that the gentleman be yielded 2 more minutes for purposes of 
yielding to me.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Maybe we can cut it to one and return some, 
but go ahead, my friend.
    Mr. Delahunt. I think it is important to really set the 
record straight, because I remember you and I having this 
discussion early one morning over eggs, and you did express 
your position clearly that you had constitutional reservations 
about the use of censure.
    And yet if you remember, the panel that was sitting here, 
in fact it was the first panel on that day, some Monday with 19 
scholars, and you yourself polled that particular group; you 
posed the question, and it was clear from that panel, a 
majority indicated unequivocally that there was no 
constitutional impediment. And then you provoked that 
discussion and gave me the thought to do a review. And I just 
want to take a minute to report----
    Mr. Hutchinson. Reclaiming my time. You have addressed 
that. Reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Delahunt. Let me just say this. By a 2 to 1 ratio, 
without any equivocation whatsoever, men such as Professor 
Gerhardt, Professor Holden.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Let me reclaim my time, because you will 
get to address this. Reclaiming my time, I recited the 
responses that were given, and even some who did raise their 
hand in support of a censure have expressed strong 
reservations, and I do not have the same recollection that it 
was divided. But let me just end by saying I had grits that 
morning. You had eggs.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Meehan, the gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before I 
go on to talk about what censure is, I just want to add a final 
word about what impeachment is and is not.
    Actually they are not my words. They are the words of 
Representative Frank Riggs, a Republican Member of the House 
but not a Member of this committee. He was quoted today in the 
New York Times, and Representative Riggs is undecided about how 
to vote on the House floor. And this is apparently how he views 
his choice.
    Quote, ``What's influenced me the most over the last 24 to 
48 hours is the notion that the vote to impeach is the vote to 
remove. Prior to that, I was favorable to the view that 
impeachment is censure. I've raised the bar. That's reinforced 
the gravity of the situation.''
    No one on this side of the aisle could put it any better. 
It is such a dangerous precedent for one party to unilaterally 
move against a President of another party, and I fear for what 
that means for the future of our country.
    But let me talk a bit about censure. You know, so many 
people seem to consider that censure is simply the alternative 
to impeachment, and I suppose to a certain extent it is an 
alternative to impeachment, an alternative to the 
unconstitutional removal of this President. But that isn't all 
what censure is. No, censure has a life and a rationale of its 
own, independent of impeachment.
    Indeed, censure is something that we should be doing even 
if there hadn't been the slightest thought on Capitol Hill of 
impeaching the President. The President has disgraced himself 
and the high office that he holds, and I expect better from a 
President. The American people expect better from a President. 
And you better believe we have a right to.
    Censure is the way we stake the claim to our right to a 
President who is forthright, a President who doesn't say things 
that he knows the American people will misinterpret, a 
President who understands that acting as a role model comes 
with the job. I have heard that censure amounts to little more 
than a slap on the wrist, easy to deliver, easy to take. That 
is absolute nonsense.
    Do you think it is easy for me to call a President with 
whom I proudly assumed office in 1993 reckless or deceitful? Do 
you think it is easy to cast a vote for a resolution that uses 
the term ``reprehensible'' to characterize the behavior of 
someone whom I have not only endorsed twice, but when we both 
got to Washington we had a $300 billion deficit. We have 
thefirst balanced budget in a generation, three-decade low unemployment 
rate, the economy is moving in the right direction. I have been proud 
to stand tall with this President at events to rally around campaign 
finance reform and tobacco control. This is difficult.
    And for those of you who think the President will just 
laugh off the approval of a censure resolution and there will 
be champagne toasts over at the White House, I would refer you 
to the eloquent and moving statement delivered Thursday night 
by my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, 
regarding what it is like to be censured. Everyone knows that 
this President cares very much about his place in history.
    Let me tell you if we pass a censure resolution, his place 
in history will be significantly diminished. No American 
history textbook written from 1998 on would fail to mention 
what Bill Clinton did and what this Congress thought of it and 
how we expressed our views in a tough censure resolution. 
Meaningless? A slap on the wrist? I think not. Rather a 
branding, a scarlet letter, a deep and lasting mark of shame, a 
wound that is painful today and will fester in history.
    This censure is anything but meaningless. It is the right 
thing to do. It is the way that we can get this country over 
this very difficult period in our history and move on to the 
future and avoid a terrible, disgraceful trial in the United 
States Senate.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hyde. Would the gentleman yield to the gentlelady 
from Texas for 2 minutes to make a point of clarification?
    Mr. Meehan. I would be very happy to yield to the 
gentlelady from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for 
his eloquent remarks, because that was what I wanted to speak 
to.
    We have heard people from different political perspectives 
in this room today offer out their souls and their 
consciousness. My colleague from Georgia, my good friend on the 
other side of the aisle, challenged those of us who for weeks 
now have talked about healing the Nation, bringing us together, 
coming to the point of censure, albeit many of us are in so 
many different ways so different from coming together on a 
consensus idea.
    But I am reminded by this chairman, Jack Brooks, in this 
room, who is no longer the chairman of this committee or in 
Congress, from my State of Texas. He was one of those who 
accepted the call of an ordinary man, Lyndon Baines Johnson, 
for extraordinary circumstances in 1964, and he rose as a 
southern Democrat and voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That 
vote, of course, opened the opportunities for so many of us who 
had been deprived rights in this Nation.
    It was a censurous perspective, Mr. Chairman. And so I do 
not fall away from trying to heal this Nation and bringing us 
together as a people.
    I yield back, and I thank the gentleman for his time.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentlelady.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a point 
of personal privilege.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Massachusetts, state your 
point, please.
    Mr. Delahunt. I would state the point that the accuracy of 
the material that I entered into the record pursuant to a 
unanimous consent request has been questioned, and I would like 
the opportunity to respond.
    I think it is important when we talk about precedent and 
the constitutionality of censure that we are reminded that the 
best evidence of its constitutionality is that the United 
States Congress did, in fact, censure President Jackson; did, 
in fact, censure and rebuke President Polk; did, in fact, 
condemn and censure President Tyler; and went ahead and 
censured and entered a statement of disapproval against 
President Buchanan.
    But in terms of the present case, I want to be very clear. 
We heard from 19 eminent experts on the Constitution. I asked 
each one of them to clarify his or her position on this 
question. Twelve responded that there is no constitutional 
impediment to censure. Another had semantic difficulties with 
the term censure but agreed that a resolution of disapproval 
would pass muster. One witness took no position on the 
question. And only five suggested that a resolution would be 
unconstitutional.
    I daresay let's not hide behind the issue of 
constitutionality. Let's understand that this is the wisest 
policy that we could adopt.
    Chairman Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pease.
    Mr. Pease. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The day has been long. I will be brief. I am one of the 
members of this committee who has advocated that the committee 
should consider this resolution today. I come to that 
conclusion for a variety of reasons. One is the resolution from 
the House. The second is an understanding of the deeply held 
convictions of many members of this committee, many of whom I 
have spent a lot of personal time with who I know feel deeply 
about it, and I respect that.
    It seems to me, after all this discussion of what exactly 
is a resolution of censure regarding the President, there is 
still not agreement. It is either an action to punish the 
President or it is an action that doesn't punish the President. 
If it is an action to punish the President, it is a bill of 
attainder and unconstitutional. If it is a resolution that does 
not punish the President, it is meaningless.
    For that reason, though I have the greatest respect for 
those who have offered it, I cannot support the resolution.
    Having said that, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Thank you.
    I thank the gentleman for yielding, and ask unanimous 
consent to enter into the record the letters that I referred to 
from the constitutional scholars who testified at the hearing 
in November.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.148
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.140
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.141
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.134
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.135
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.142
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.126
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.130
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.144
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.146
    
    Mr. Goodlatte. Would the gentleman from Arkansas yield?
    Mr. Hutchinson. I would be happy to.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Would the gentleman also say that some of 
those scholars that testified who said that the censure 
resolution may be constitutional confirmed that some of them 
also said that, however, it was inadvisable, that even though 
it may be constitutional, it may not be a good idea to do it?
    Mr. Hutchinson. Reclaiming the time, you are precisely 
right. The scholars, even some that responded saying that it 
might be constitutional, said it was not preference, it was not 
good policy.
    My staff has just given me the transcript of the hearing on 
that day. I will just read from that: ``Some people have said 
the President ought to be punished. Mr. Schumer mentioned that, 
and a fine would be levied.'' And I asked them to raise their 
hand if they agreed with that, if that would be constitutional. 
They all raised their hand that it would be unconstitutional. 
``And I think I see everybody's hand up except for two.'' And 
then I asked them if they would raise their hand if they 
believed simply a censure without any fine would have some 
serious constitutional problems, and I responded that it looks 
like that there were five that would have serious problems with 
that avenue. And so I thanked them.
    I think the gentleman is very close and we are close on 
these numbers, but there is clearly a dispute on that point. 
And, as the gentleman from Virginia said, even those who said 
it might be constitutional believed that it would be bad 
policy.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Would the gentleman yield further?
    Mr. Hutchinson. Yes.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Would the gentleman also confirm that when 
the scholars were asked this question, were they advised that 
this would be a joint resolution passed by both Houses and 
requiring the signature of the President, which raises the 
additional question of whether this constitutes a bill of 
attainder and therefore would be unconstitutional as a result?
    Mr. Hutchinson. No. In fact, I think they probably had the 
understanding that it would be a typical kind of resolution 
that would be passed where it would not have to be signed by 
the President in a joint resolution fashion.
    I yield back to the gentleman from Indiana.
    Mr. Pease. And I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Utah.
    Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Pease.
    First of all, I would like to thank my friend Mr. Watt for 
his generous unanimous consent request on my behalf earlier.
    Secondly, I would like to point out that I share the hope 
with Mr. Frank that the Constitution makes the best-seller list 
this weekend. I think that one of the possible good things that 
could come out of this series of events is that people begin to 
understand the robustness and brilliance of our constitutional 
system.
    I would like to comment briefly on the colloquy between Mr. 
Boucher and Mr. Inglis. The idea that the censure is an empty 
vessel that we could fill with our own interpretations of the 
President's actions leaves me to wonder what the President 
would see if he looked into the depths of this vessel. And I 
fear that he would see nothing to restrain him from lying to 
the public, to the press and to the Congress in all of our 
business. That gives me deep concern.
    Mr. Meehan's discussion with reference to the budget 
deficit and the economy would leave me to wonder if it won't 
become a factor leaving us in the anomolous position of hoping 
for a bad economy so that we can constrain a bad President.
    Mr. Frank, who is my friend and who I believe loves this 
institution, spoke of his reverence for this institution. That 
reverence is what makes a censure by this body significant to 
him. I think it would be significant to me. I hope to go down 
as one who loves this institution and the other institutions of 
American government, and I think that most of our colleagues in 
this House would have the same feeling. But I am concerned 
that----
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired. Does the 
gentleman desire additional time? Or seek his own time?
    Mr. Cannon. May I seek my own time at this point?
    Chairman Hyde. Very well. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Cannon. I am concerned that at this point a censure for 
this President becomes a get-out-of-jail-free card or, rather, 
an avoid-any-kind-of-serious-punishment-free card.
    There has been a great deal of talk today about 
bipartisanship and the need for bipartisanship. I think that 
this question is maybe one of the most fundamental that we 
face. Because, in fact, the American public is divided.
    I would like to read and comment upon a letter by Ben 
Jones, a former member of this body, who deals with that.
    ``Let me speak,'' he says, ``as a Democrat, one of the 10 
percent of Democrats (according to reliable polls) who believe 
that our President should be impeached. It is clearly a 
minority position in our party, but we are a party which has 
always fought for minority viewpoints for inclusion and for a 
diversity of ideas. I believe that our party is being corrupted 
by its support of a man who is not deserving of that support.''
    Let me just say that when I was on the way to the 
hearingthis morning, a fellow stopped his car, jumped out and said, 
``Representative Cannon.'' I stopped and looked at him, and I said. 
``What?'' And he then told me that he is a Democrat from Massachusetts, 
that he is going to tear up his registration card, that he has become a 
Republican over these hearings.
    So there are some intense feelings, granted, by a minority 
of Democrats.
    Though Democrats may win in the short term by succumbing to 
the popular wishes, in the long term we will be in a moral 
desert searching for the oasis of our soul. It is our job to 
clean our own wounds and our job to lead when one of our own 
has erred.
    ``As a Member of Congress, I endorsed,'' this is Ben Jones 
again, ``I endorsed and supported President Clinton even before 
he announced his candidacy.''
    I am going to skip down to the next paragraph.
    ``In January, I wrote that if these allegations were true, 
the President should take full responsibility and consider 
resignation to spare the Nation the trauma his actions would 
surely cause.''
    We have heard a great deal today about the trauma that we 
would go through as a Nation because of the actions of this 
Congress. I submit with Mr. Jones that it is the actions of the 
President which could cause us that trauma.
    ``In August, after 7 months of lying and stonewalling by 
the President, I called for his resignation. I still believe he 
should resign. And were I a voting member of Congress I would 
support his impeachment.''
    ``Understand,'' he goes on, ``I think that he has done an 
excellent job, and I firmly believe that he has more raw 
political talent than any American of the 20th century.''
    I, too, believe myself--not quoting from the letter now--
that this is a great political person in the White House.
    ``I think you can truthfully say that the country is in 
many ways in better shape than when he took office and although 
I agree with some of his policies I think that he has shown how 
the Democratic Party can respond to the centrist interests of 
mainstream America.
    But I think that his actions of 1998 have made impeachment 
a sad necessity.''
    Then he talks about high crimes and misdemeanors. I will 
skip that and go on.
    ``The integrity of the Office of the President is to a 
great extent dependent upon the trust and respect of the 
American people. We must have a strong and active political 
disagreement and it is common sensical that in a two party 
system this will sometimes be partisan. People of good will can 
agree to disagree, so there will always be an element of 
partisan opposition to any President but those same polls that 
show popular aversion to impeachment also show clearly and 
consistently that in the face of an overwhelming majority of 
Americans, even while approving of the Presidents' job 
performance, `they do not trust him, do not respect him and 
believe him to be a liar. This erosion of the integrity of our 
Nation's highest office is due to the President's actions and 
not to any political animus toward him.''
    ``The President's defenders have blamed this on the zealous 
pursuit of a partisan prosecutor but were it not for that 
zealous pursuit, we would not have known the truth and the 
undeniable fact is that the President showed arrogant disdain 
for the truth, the law, the court and the American system of 
justice. This alone should be cause for his ouster.''
    ``He has violated the public trust, he has disgraced the 
highest office in the land, he has shown a cynical disrespect 
for the rule of law, and when accountability has been demanded, 
he has only shown cowardice. Much worse, he oversaw an 
organized public relations attack on those who uncovered his 
lying under oath and orchestrated an attack that lasted for 7 
months. This enormous deceit from January to August using the 
resources of his office and the Democratic Party was only 
stopped by the appearance of undeniable evidence.''
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Frank. Would the gentleman yield to me for 10 seconds?
    Chairman Hyde. Just a moment. Does the gentleman require 
additional time?
    Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the letter 
for the record and I do not request additional time.
    Mr. Frank. Will the gentleman yield to me for 10 seconds?
    Mr. Cannon. You would have to ask the chair for that.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman has 10 seconds.
    Mr. Frank. I thank the gentleman. I heard him refer to the 
Massachusetts party registration card that was going to be torn 
up. I have never seen one. Maybe you could ask this person 
instead of tearing it up to show it to me and my colleague from 
Massachusetts because to our knowledge there is no such thing 
as a Massachusetts Democratic Party registration card, so it 
would be nice to see the only one in existence before it is 
destroyed.
    Mr. Cannon. It could have been a card that the Democratic 
National Committee sent him, Mr. Frank. I don't know.
    Chairman Hyde. I think the reason you haven't seen any is 
they are all torn up.
    The letter will be included in the record.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.167
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.168
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.169
    
    Chairman Hyde. The gentlelady from Texas has something she 
wants.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I will wait.
    Chairman Hyde. You will wait until the end.
    Mr. Meehan. Mr. Chairman, a point of personal privilege.
    Chairman Hyde. I hope it is Mr. Meehan. Yes.
    Mr. Meehan. It is. My name was mentioned over there, and I 
thought that Mr. Cannon had mentioned it. So I think I just 
want to make the record straight because my statement was very, 
very clear. And my statement did not say the President had done 
a great job, therefore we should not in any way look the other 
way. My statement said that censure is not a slap on the wrist. 
It is very painful to censure a President with whom I have 
worked and most of us on this side have worked, who has been 
frankly a great President and has moved our economy in the 
right direction, and by all accounts is a great leader. What I 
said was it is difficult and painful to vote for a censure 
resolution of somebody who has so much talent, so much 
potential. That is what I stated. So please don't misrepresent 
my statement.
    Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman, point of personal privilege. Mr. 
Meehan has just suggested that I misrepresented. But I referred 
to his reference to the budget and the economy and have not 
misrepresented anything that he said beyond that.
    Chairman Hyde. Very well. The record is clear. I yield to 
the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rothman, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rothman. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How did we get here? 
There was an allegation in a civil rights lawsuit brought by 
Paula Jones against the President of the United States, Bill 
Clinton, based on his alleged--the allegations of terribly 
inappropriate and wrongful misconduct while he was the governor 
of Arkansas. That was a civil lawsuit. At the end of that civil 
rights civil lawsuit, the judge had said the President of the 
United States is not above the law. The President can be sued 
civilly and be punished civilly if found guilty, and the 
President is about to pay $850,000 to settle that civil law 
claim. The plaintiff felt she was made whole, which was the 
purpose of going to court in the first place, and she accepted 
that sum. We are told the President may be brought up on 
criminal charges for perjury and other things, although most of 
the Republican and Democratic former prosecutors who came 
before us said they would never, under any circumstances, bring 
any of the charges of perjury, abuse of power and obstruction 
of justice that were brought by Judge Starr for indictment. But 
nonetheless, when he finishes his term, the President can be 
prosecuted criminally and if convicted put in prison for his 
wrongful conduct.
    So the President of the United States, as we tell our 
children all the time, is not above the law. No American is 
above the law. How did we get involved here in Congress? There 
were brought before us not questions about the civil or the 
criminal law, but the constitutional law. Should the duly 
elected President of the United States be impeached for 
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors? The 
allegations were that the President had committed perjury, 
abuse of power, and obstruction of justice. It is my belief 
that anyone who seeks to impeach the President of the United 
States or convict anyone or indict anyone must bear the burden 
of proving the charges. Most constitutional legal scholars say 
the standard of proof for the House of Representatives for the 
impeachment is a clear and convincing standard of proof.
    What is the proof that was presented to us? Judge Starr and 
Mr. Schippers presented their inferences and conclusions about 
portions of civil deposition and grand jury testimony from 
people who were never cross-examined. On the other side, those 
arguing against impeachment have argued against every single 
one of the charges, and refuted every single one of the 
charges. Lawyers Kendall, Ruff and Lowell neutralized the 
arguments of lawyers Judge Starr and Schippers, lawyer against 
lawyer, zero to zero, while not one fact witness was brought 
before this committee. I believe that when the score is zero to 
zero, the accused does not get convicted, even if the accused, 
perhaps especially if the accused is the President of the 
United States and he has been charged with impeachable 
offenses.
    Mr. Chairman, may I have one more minute, please?
    Chairman Hyde. You certainly may.
    Mr. Rothman. Thank you. And that is why with all my heart I 
feel that the burden of proof has not been met on the charges 
to impeach the President of the United States. That is why I 
voted against the articles of impeachment. The burden of proof 
had not been met by those who wanted to impeach him. But that 
is not the end of this matter because I am a father of two 
kids, and my President waved his finger at us and lied. He 
chose for us to characterize his relationship with someone, and 
he lied about it to us on television. I was a fact witness to 
this, as were we all. And then we know what he admitted the 
relationship was, an adulterous wrongful relationship that 
occurred with an intern in our White House. For those offenses, 
I am prepared to censure this President.
    Now, most people would ask, are those impeachable offenses? 
Most Republican and Democratic constitutional scholars say no. 
While despicable, they don't rise to the level of treason, 
bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. But nonetheless 
I feel it incumbent upon myself as a father, as a Congressman 
and as an American to prove to my kids the President cannot lie 
to us, he cannot behave dishonorably in our White House and not 
be punished. And that is where I am. That is why I support 
these grounds for censure. May I have 30 more seconds, please?
    Chairman Hyde. 30 more seconds.
    Mr. Rothman. Mr. Hyde has been a gracious, generous 
chairman, and he has decided to allow us to vote on censure 
even though he doesn't support it. That tells you something 
about the kind of man Mr. Hyde is. The new Speaker of the 
House----
    Chairman Hyde. Take a full minute if you like.
    Mr. Delahunt. You can take an hour if you want.
    Mr. Rothman. Thank you. I will accept that. I will take the 
full minute.
    The next Speaker of the House--this is serious. This is the 
impeachment of our sitting President. The next Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, Mr. Robert Livingston, has said, as 
set forth in the Wall Street Journal of November 23, quote, let 
everybody in the House of Representatives have a chance to vote 
on the option of their choice, unquote. He meant censure. 
Perhaps he knew that two-thirds of the American people were for 
censure, not impeachment. Perhaps he knew that the majority of 
constitutional and historical scholars in America say censure, 
not impeachment. Perhaps he knew that the majority of the 
Members of the House of Representatives want censure, not 
impeachment. But as of today, we are told the Republican 
leadership in the House of Representatives will not let the 
members of the House of Representatives vote their conscience 
to choose between impeachment or censure, that the Republican 
leadership of the House will not let the Members of the House 
choose between impeachment or censure, that the Republican 
leadership in the House who the people of America put there, by 
the way, will only allow a vote on impeachment. And you are 
going to have to ask yourselves, fellow Americans, and you are 
going to have to ask your representatives in Congress, is that 
right? Is that fair? If Mr. Hyde, who believes in impeachment, 
allowed a vote on censure, why can't the Speaker of the House, 
Mr. Livingston, allow for a vote on censure and allow our 
representatives, your representatives the choice between 
impeachment and censure?
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Rothman. Please let your representatives know how you 
feel.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is it not 
correct that the rules of the House provide for members to 
address the committee?
    Chairman Hyde. Address the Chair, you mean?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Yes.
    Chairman Hyde. Probably so, but he's finished now.
    Mr. Goodlatte. I suggest we start over.
    Chairman Hyde. I move that lie on the table.
    The gentlelady from Texas has a unanimous consent request.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
ask unanimous consent to put into the record the statement of 
the President of the United States dated December 11, 1998.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.170
    
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Wisconsin has a unanimous 
consent request.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that this committee unanimously praise our chairman, Henry 
Hyde, at the conclusion of this debate for being a very fair, 
impartial chairman during these very difficult times.
    Chairman Hyde. I'm looking around to see who is not 
applauding. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Schumer. I would just add in that we also praise our 
ranking member Mr. Conyers for doing a wonderful job as well.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rogan, is 
recognized to strike the last word.
    Mr. Rogan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Actually, I was 
enjoying basking in the applause as I was preparing to speak.
    Chairman Hyde. We're near the end, ladies and gentlemen. 
Please attend Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I've made the point a couple of times during 
debate over the last two days that there is a significance to 
the oath of office of the President of the United States. In 
fact, mere election alone does not allow someone to become 
President. There is a prerequisite in the Constitution. Even 
after winning an election, one cannot serve as President until 
they raise their hand and take an oath to preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States. If somebody 
is elected President and fails to take that oath, they 
presumably are precluded from assuming the office of the 
presidency. It obviously follows that once a President is in 
office, violation of the oath to preserve, protect, and defend 
the Constitution would subject them to impeachment.
    Mr. Chairman, I wonder if my good friend from Virginia, the 
maker of this motion, would allow me to yield time to him to 
respond to a question.
    Chairman Hyde. You mean Mr. Boucher?
    Mr. Rogan. Yes.
    Chairman Hyde. Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher. I am at the gentleman's disposal.
    Mr. Rogan. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the 
gentleman, as the maker of the motion, would agree with me in 
the proposition that if the President of the United States 
violates his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend 
the Constitution, that would properly subject him to 
impeachment?
    Mr. Boucher. I would say to the gentleman that that 
conclusion would only be drawn following a presentation of 
facts that would justify it, and it would depend entirely on 
what the facts are that lead to that conclusion. It would be 
the facts themselves that would justify the impeachment action.
    Mr. Rogan. I thank the gentleman. But if the facts did show 
that there was a violation to preserve, protect, and defend the 
Constitution, would that subject the President to impeachment?
    Mr. Boucher. I would have to say to the gentleman once 
again that it is the facts that would have to govern, and I'm 
reluctant to reach that conclusion without knowing the facts 
that are part of the hypothetical.
    Mr. Rogan. I thank the gentleman for his candor. I didn't 
think that was a terribly difficult question, and I'm sure the 
gentleman hesitated in his answer for a good reason. But the 
proposition seems to be self-evident. Let me share why I raise 
the issue.
    In looking at the joint resolution proposed by the 
gentleman from Virginia, it says that President Clinton didn't 
just fail--it says he egregiously failed to do two things. It 
says he egregiously failed to set an example of high moral 
standards, and it says that in his conduct, the President 
egregiously failed to conduct himself in a manner that fosters 
respect for the truth.
    That is significant, because the language of the resolution 
itself reads as follows: it reminds us that implicit in the 
presidential oath is the obligation that the President do two 
things. Number one, he must set an example of high moral 
standards; and number two, he must conduct himself in a manner 
that fosters respect for the truth.
    It seems to be without contradiction that by the very 
language of the resolution prepared, the oath implicitly 
requires any President to meet those two basic standards of 
constitutional decency. And in the very next sentence, this 
resolution declares that the President has failed in these 
basic expectations that are implicit within the constitutional 
oath.
    That is not my interpretation of the resolution's language. 
That is the language of the resolution itself.
    By its own language, this resolution states the President 
violated his oath of office. It concedes the point.
    I would also ask my friend from Virginia if he would agree 
with me that there is no language in the resolution, nor in 
fact can there be any language in the resolution to preclude 
censure from later being expunged. There is no language 
because, this Congress cannot bind a future Congress. There is 
nothing that can preclude, at a future date, any Congress from 
voting by a simple majority vote to expunge from the record 
this censure were it to pass.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the gentleman from California be given two additional minutes.
    Mr. Boucher. I would ask the gentlemen if he would yield.
    Chairman Hyde. First of all, the gentleman is given two 
additional minutes.
    Mr. Rogan. Yes, I'm happy to yield to my friend from 
Virginia.
    Mr. Boucher. Let me say initially to the gentleman that I 
think he is correct in saying that a subsequent Congress, if it 
be the will of that Congress, could decide to repeal a 
resolution of censure. That did happen in fact in the case of 
Andrew Jackson's censure by the Senate. But we're still talking 
about it today, and that Senate did take action with respect to 
Andrew Jackson and this set of acts by the President of the 
United States today will be talked about for generations to 
come. It will be widely highlighted in all of the history 
books, and a formal action by the Congress of the United States 
censuring the President for that conduct will live in history. 
And I'm confident that it would not be reversed by a future 
Congress.
    While I have a few minutes, let me say----
    Mr. Rogan. I was about to reclaim my time and thank the 
gentleman for his response.
    Mr. Boucher. If I could ask the gentleman to yield to me 
just for an additional second. With respect to the initial 
question the gentleman raised about the oath of office, all 
this resolution says is that implicit in the oath is the 
obligation to set a high moral standard and to foster respect 
for the truth. We believe the President has failed in carrying 
forth that requirement. That, however, in our opinion is not a 
ground for impeachment. It is a ground for censure.
    Mr. Rogan. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Barr. Would the gentleman from California yield?
    Mr. Rogan. I'm wondering if I might have unanimous consent 
for two additional minutes since I shared so much of my time 
with the gentleman from Virginia.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, two additional minutes.
    Mr. Rogan. I thank both the chairman and I thank the 
committee for its indulgence because I think it is an important 
issue. In looking at the language for this resolution, one has 
to come to a conclusion. Either one makes the simple 
determination that a violation of the presidential oath to 
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution is an 
impeachable offense, or one concludes it is not. And I think 
that we are really hitting the nail on the head as to where 
this debate is going.
    Ms. Waters. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Rogan. There is a body of members who do believe that 
the oath means something, and the violation of that oath places 
in jeopardy the right of an individual to continue serving as 
President.
    Ms. Waters. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Rogan. Regrettably, no, because my time is so short. I 
want to finish my point.
    This is significant because the word expungement--the 
phrase ``expungement from the record'' has legal as well as 
historical significance. It does not mean we just turn our back 
on the censure. It means the censure never happened. If 
somebody is convicted of a crime, and they later go back to 
court after an appropriate time has expired and they have 
served their time, they may petition the court to expunge the 
record. This means the offender lawfully may answer on a job 
application that they never have been convicted of a crime, 
because in the eyes of the law it never happened. And on any 
given date, any future Congress could, by a simple majority 
vote, take this piece of paper called censure and erase it from 
the history books of America. A majority vote later can erase 
its significance, erase its longevity, and erase its effect. I 
don't see that as a significant rebuke at all.
    Mr. Frank. Will the gentleman yield?
    Ms. Waters. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Rogan. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, who was 
the first person to ask me to yield earlier.
    Mr. Barr. Would it also be the gentleman's understanding, 
being a legislative and constitutional scholar, that the fact 
that this is a joint resolution requiring before it would even 
get to the President passage by the Senate and, if in fact this 
House even and the remote possibility that it passed this, if 
the Senate did not act on it by the end of this Congress, which 
is January 3, then it goes out of existence anyway?
    Mr. Rogan. I will answer the question: that is my 
understanding, but I hesitate to answer it under the false 
guise as a legislative or constitutional scholar.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired. All time 
has expired. Without objection, the previous question on the 
censure resolution is ordered. And the question occurs on the 
resolution offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Boucher. 
All those in favor will signify by saying aye. All those 
opposed will signify by saying no.
    Mr. Conyers. Could we get a record vote, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hyde. A record vote has been requested and the 
Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCollum votes no.
    Mr. Gekas.
    Mr. Gekas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas votes no.
    Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble votes no.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
    Mr. Canady.
    Mr. Canady. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Canady votes no.
    Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis votes no.
    Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte votes no.
    Mr. Buyer.
    Mr. Buyer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Buyer votes no.
    Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant.  No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bryant votes no.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot votes no.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr votes no.
    Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins votes no.
    Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson votes no.
    Mr. Pease.
    Mr. Pease. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pease votes no.
    Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes no.
    Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rogan votes no.
    Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Mrs. Bono.
    Mrs. Bono. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bono votes no.
    Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers votes aye.
    Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank votes aye.
    Mr. Schumer.
    Mr. Schumer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schumer votes aye.
    Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman votes aye.
    Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher.  Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher votes aye.
    Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler votes aye.
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott votes no.
    Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt votes aye.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye.
    Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Present.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters votes present.
    Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan votes aye.
    Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt votes aye.
    Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler votes aye.
    Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rothman votes aye.
    Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrett votes aye.
    Mr. Hyde.
    Chairman Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde votes no.
    Mr. Chairman, there are 14 ayes, 22 noes, one present.
    Chairman Hyde. And the motion is not agreed to. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett, for 
purposes of a motion.
    Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the 
resolution's adverse recommendation to the full House and ask 
for five minutes to speak.
    Chairman Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes 
in support of his motion.
    Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I make 
this motion because this is one of the avenues available to us 
to ensure that this issue remains alive for full House 
consideration. And there have been times when committees that 
have defeated a measure in committee have nonetheless forwarded 
the measure to the full House in recognition of the fact that 
it is an issue of such importance that the entire House should 
be permitted to act on it. To give you a few examples, NAFTA, 
Most Favored Nation status for China, base closures, trade with 
Vietnam, are all issues where the committee of jurisdiction had 
defeated them but nonetheless the matter to the full House. In 
addition, from this very committee, the term limits 
constitutional amendment was sent with no recommendation. So 
there is a history for doing this.
    But I would argue that none of these is more important than 
the censure resolution of a President of the United States for 
only the second time in 164 years. And here we get back to the 
issue of conscience because for many of us this is the ultimate 
vote of conscience. As I said before, I trust that each and 
every member on the other side is voting their conscience. And 
in fact I have heard from many, if not most, members of the 
other side that their vote in favor of impeachment is a vote of 
conscience and I will accept them at their word. I simply ask 
that you return the favor and allow us to vote our conscience 
as well.
    Actually, I think the most appropriate comparison was a 
vote that took place before most of us were in Congress, 
although not that long ago, and that was the Persian Gulf War 
resolution back in January of 1991. In fact, only 13 members of 
this committee, I think, were in Congress at that time. And as 
we can recall at that time, that measure had popular support 
within the public. But the majority party at the time, the 
Democratic Party, the majority of the members of the Democratic 
Party did not support that as evidenced by the final vote. 
Nonetheless, the measure came to the floor. And I can remember 
watching thatand being really, really proud and I was really, 
really proud to be an American because I felt that that was an 
honest debate. I felt that every single Member of Congress put 
aside partisan differences, put aside partisan concerns to do 
what in their conscience they thought was the right thing to do 
for this country. And I would argue here that this country will 
not accept a sanction that is not a bipartisan sanction. It 
will continue to divide this country. And I say to the 
proponents of impeachment, if you want impeachment to be 
accepted, there has to be to the American people a showing of 
good faith, a showing that every single member of this Congress 
was given the opportunity to vote his or her conscience.
    I have heard the argument that if you are against 
impeachment, just vote no. But that's not what the reality is, 
and I think all of us understand that the American people and 
the Members of Congress as well feel that what the President 
did was wrong, that he should be held accountable, but he 
should not be removed from office. So I guess I'm asking also 
for the award for eternal optimism because I think that in the 
end we can do this. We can do this right, and next Thursday 
when we leave that Chamber, every one of us, we can hold our 
head high because we did what was right for the country. And 
every one of us, every single Member of Congress can leave that 
room and say that they voted their conscience. And if we do 
that, then this will not have a happy ending because this story 
is never going to have a happy ending, but the American people 
will feel that this process gave them a fair shake.
    So I hold no illusions that this motion is going to pass in 
committee now, but over the next four or five days as Americans 
key into this issue more, I ask you to revisit it and to search 
your conscience as to what we should be doing.
    I had someone ask me today as to whether I thought America 
has awoken to this yet. I said well, I think they hit the 
snooze button. They know there's something going on but they 
want another 10 minutes to sleep. In the next four or five 
days, people are going to be awake. Again, my final plea is at 
the end of this process, we can all look each other in the eye 
and say, I gave you a fair shake. And with that, Mr. Chairman, 
I would move the question.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett. All those in favor will signify by 
saying aye. All opposed by no. In the opinion of the Chair, the 
noes have it. The noes have it and the motion is----
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker----
    Chairman Hyde. I'll settle for Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you. Speaker Elect Livingston has 
publicly said he will consult with you before making a decision 
as to whether to schedule this matter for the floor. And as you 
know, traditionally one Democratic alternative is generally 
made in order even if it fails in committee, a matter of 
fundamental comity and fairness we've observed across the 
years. And so the question is consistent with your sense of 
procedural fairness. Will you ask Mr. Livingston to make this 
censure resolution at least in order?
    Chairman Hyde. I cannot make that promise, but I of course 
expect to talk to Mr. Livingston and I'm sure the subject will 
come up, but I cannot commit to any undertaking of that nature.
    Mr. Gekas?
    Mr. Gekas. I just ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
record a CRS report for Congress on the question of censure of 
the President by the Congress.
    Mr. Meehan. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hyde. I would like to finish with the motion for 
Mr. Barrett. In my opinion, the noes have it. The motion is not 
agreed to.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.171

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.172

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.173

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.174

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.175

    Now, who wants recognition?
    Mr. Meehan. Could we have a roll call vote?
    Chairman Hyde. No, you can't. Ladies and gentlemen, this 
ends the committee's proceeding----
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hyde. Who seeks recognition? Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. We have a lot of material in executive session. 
Is there a procedure for determining how any more of it gets 
released?
    Chairman Hyde. I'm not able to deal with that now.
    Mr. Scott. I would like to make a unanimous consent request 
that the Starr letter and answers to our questions be taken out 
of executive session retroactively.
    Chairman Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you.
    Chairman Hyde. This ends the committee's proceedings 
pursuant to House Res. 581. The committee stands adjourned and 
the Committee of the Judiciary for the 105th Congress slips 
into history, and I want to congratulate every member for 
contributing to a challenging, productive two-year session and 
see you in the next Congress. Committee's adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 6:22 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
      

=======================================================================


                            A P P E N D I X

=======================================================================

      
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.176
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.177
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.178
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.179
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.180
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.181
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.182
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.183
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.184
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.185
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.186
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.187
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.188
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.189
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.190
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.191
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.192
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.193
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.194
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.195
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.196
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.197
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.198
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.199
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.200
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.201
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.202
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.203
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3325.204