[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 118 (Wednesday, September 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10109-S10112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          NO RUSH TO JUDGMENT

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we appear to be only days away from 
receiving the Independent Counsel's report on President Clinton. The 
pressure on Congress is escalating. Talk of impeachment is in the air 
along with suggestions of resolutions of reprimand and censure. Some 
have even suggested that we ought to get on with impeachment and ``get 
this thing behind us.''
  There had to come a time, sooner or later, when the boil would be 
lanced. The problem is, that with the lancing, a hemorrhaging may be 
only one of those continuing symptoms of a greater lancing--perhaps 
even an amputation--that still lurks in the shadows up ahead.
  There is no question but that the President, himself, has sown the 
wind, and he is reaping the whirlwind. His televised speech of August 
17 heaped hot coals upon himself, coals causing wounds which continue 
to inflame and burn ever more deeply. Coming, as the speech did, so 
soon after the President's appearance before the Grand Jury, his words 
were ill-timed, ill-formed, and ill-advised. Perhaps if he had only 
delayed his televised speech for 24 hours, he may have, upon 
reflection, avoided some self-inflicted wounds that have since festered 
and continue to fester.

       The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
       Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
       Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
       Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

  When the scribes and Pharisees brought before Jesus a woman taken in 
adultery, saying that, under Moses, the law commanded that she be 
stoned, they sought to tempt Jesus that they might accuse him. He said 
unto them: ``He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a 
stone at her.'' And that ancient admonition, that he who is without sin 
should cast the first stone, applies to every human being in this 
country today. Someone else has said: ``No man's life will bear looking 
into.'' These admonishments should give all of us pause and should 
encourage reflection and self-examination. In this instance, the 
President, himself, has, by his own actions and words, thrown the first 
stone at himself and thus made himself vulnerable to the stoning by 
others.
  What a sorrowful spectacle! To maintain that Presidents have private 
lives

[[Page S10110]]

is, of course, not to be denied, but the Oval Office of the White House 
is not a private office; it is where much of the business of the Nation 
is conducted daily; it is the people's office; and the only real 
privacy that any President can realistically claim is in the third-
floor living quarters of the White House with his family. What the 
President had hoped to claim was ``nobody else's business'' has now 
become everybody else's business.

  His speech was a lawyer-worded effort--as in the reference to 
``legally accurate'' testimony--and the people have long since grown 
tired of having to pick and sift among artfully crafted words that have 
too often obscured the truth rather than revealed it.
  The White House's apparent strategy of delay and attack over so many 
long months has only succeeded in stringing out a judgment day that is 
increasingly threatening, and has only made bad matters worse. Former 
President Nixon, in an earlier tragedy for the Nation and for all of us 
who were here and lived through it, tried the same thing--delay, delay, 
delay, and counter-attack, attack, attack--and it failed in the end.
  We seem to be living recent history all over again. As the Book of 
Ecclesiastes plainly tells us, ``There is no new thing under the sun.'' 
Time seems to be turning backward in its flight, and many of the 
mistakes that President Nixon made are being made all over again.
  We also must stop and remember that this is a sad time for the 
President and his family, a sad time for his friends and supporters 
throughout the country, a sad time for the devoted members of his staff 
who have labored and sacrificed and given so much for a man in whom 
they implicitly believed. It is a sad time for members of his cabinet 
and heads of agencies who publicly defended him and who depended on his 
word.
  But it is an even sadder time for the country. As a schoolboy, I 
looked upon George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison 
and Abraham Lincoln as my idols to be emulated; I looked upon Babe Ruth 
and Jack Dempsey and Charles Lindbergh and Benjamin Franklin and Thomas 
Edison and Nathan Hale and Daniel Morgan and Nathaniel Green and 
Stonewall Jackson as my heroes. I was taught, as most of us were, to 
revere God. I was taught to believe the Bible, and that a judgment day 
would surely come when we would all be punished for our sins or be 
saved by our faith and good works.
  The old couple who raised me taught me by their example and their 
words not to lie but to tell the truth, not to cheat but to be honest; 
but what will parents tell their children today? Can they tell them to 
plow a straight furrow and that honesty is still the best policy? To 
whom can our young people look for inspiration?
  I recently asked a question on this floor, ``Where have all the 
heroes gone?'' I ask that question again today. Where have all the 
heroes gone? Fortunately, we do have a Mark McGwire and a Sammy Sosa, 
both of whom have captured the Nation's admiration with their home 
runs. But where are the Nation's leaders to whom the children can look 
and be inspired to work hard and live clean lives?
  The political and social environment in which parents must today 
raise their children is, unfortunately, an environment in which 
anything goes; politicians try to be all things to all people; family 
values and religious values which made us a great Nation are looked 
upon as old-fashioned, unsophisticated, and the product of ignorance 
and rusticness. Profanity and vulgarity, sex and violence are pervasive 
in television programming, in the movies, and in much of today's books 
that pretend to pass for literature. The Nation is inexorably sinking 
toward the lowest common denominator in its standards and values. 
Haven't we had enough?

     I think our country sinks beneath the yoke;
       It weeps, it bleeds, and each new day
       A gash is added to her wounds.

  Yes, talk of impeachment and censure and resignation is in the air. 
It is on almost everybody's mind with whom I have talked.
  As we find ourselves being brought nearer and nearer, as it would 
seem, to a yawning abyss, I urge that we all step back and give 
ourselves and the country a little pause in which to reflect and 
meditate before we cast ourselves headlong over the precipice.
  To say we ought to get on with impeachment and ``get the thing behind 
us'' is a bold thing to say; but boldness, to the point of 
cavalierness, can come back to haunt us.
  I suggest that we Senators should let the House do its work and wait 
to see what action that body takes. The Senate cannot vote on Articles 
of Impeachment--we all know that--until the House formulates such 
articles and presents them by its managers to the Senate--if it ever 
does so. I also suggest that putting ``this thing behind us'' is not 
going to be an easy thing to do. If Congress reaches that stage of 
voting on Articles of Impeachment it is going to be a traumatic 
experience for all of us, both here in this city and throughout the 
country. The House is in no position to formulate Articles of 
Impeachment prior to its receipt and consideration of--and I emphasize 
consideration--the Starr report. The Judiciary Committee--I am talking 
about the Judiciary Committee in the House--will undoubtedly want to 
hold hearings before it formulates any Articles of Impeachment if such 
appear to be called for.
  That is the House's charge; that is the House's responsibility, not 
ours. If and when such Articles are presented here to the Senate--they 
are not amendable here, and the Senate, in such cases, is limited to an 
up-or-down vote on each Article--that will be a matter of the utmost 
gravity. All Senators will be sworn. I tell you. That will be a matter 
of the utmost gravity. Caution should be the order of the day.
  If, sometime in the future, the American people should come to 
believe that this President, or any other President, has been driven 
out of office for what they may perceive to be political reasons, their 
wrath will fall upon those who jumped to judgment prematurely. That is 
not something that we can so easily ``put behind us.'' Both the media 
and those of us who may ultimately be called upon to sit in judgment 
should exercise restraint in pressing toward a particular conclusion 
before all of the facts are known. There is a constitutional process in 
place. We should all let it work.
  It is my suggestion that everyone should exercise some self-restraint 
against calling for impeachment or censure or for the President's 
resignation.
  Who knows? I may do that before it is all over. But not now. We 
should exercise some self-restraint against calling for impeachment, or 
censure, or for resignation--until the other body has had an 
opportunity to study and sift through the Starr report.
  There are many avenues down which we could travel as we grapple with 
this matter. Among them is the path of official censure which some have 
suggested. Others may think that censure is ``meaningless.'' Let me 
state for the record that that is not my view. I have written in my 
work on the Senate that censure has no constitutional basis.
  It doesn't mean that censure is unconstitutional. Just as ``holds'' 
that are placed on bills and resolutions have no basis in the Senate 
rules, they nevertheless have grown up as a custom here, and such 
``holds'' are practiced.
  I have observed that censure is not mentioned in the Constitution. 
But, certainly censure is not ``meaningless.'' It is a serious and 
emphatic expression of condemnation and disapproval. Censure by the 
Congress is a major blot on the record and reputation of a public 
official. While at this point, I prefer to reserve judgment on that 
course, it should not be simply brushed off as ``meaningless.''
  And we must not fail to consider the lessons of history. For my part, 
I have seen history repeat itself. I served on the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and was the Democratic Whip during the weeks and months of 
the Nixon tragedy. Some of the aspects of that tragedy can be seen in 
the problems that are today confronting us. Some aspects are different. 
Much is the same.
  By April 1973, there had been talk of impeachment of President Nixon, 
with some people saying that he should resign. On May 23 of that year, 
I said, ``As of now, there is no reason for President Nixon to resign, 
and talk of impeachment is at best, premature, and, at worst, 
reckless.'' Citing the lack of hard evidence ``to date,'' I also

[[Page S10111]]

said, ``It is a time for restraint and sobriety in our words, our 
actions, and our judgments.''
  I later said that impeachment would require ``hard evidence'' of 
Nixon's complicity in Watergate and would also require strong ``public 
opinion to support'' impeachment and conviction. And I say to my 
colleagues here today, it will require strong ``public opinion to 
support'' impeachment and conviction of any President in the future.
  ``We all shrink from taking a step that is the most drastic step 
authorized in the Constitution,'' I said. I added that ``the bare 
possibility of resignation of Mr. Nixon at some point is a more likely 
event than impeachment.'' Those are my quotes as I look back.
  On January 28, 1974, I was a guest on ``Washington's Straight Talk,'' 
a 30-minute public television interview show. In reference to the 
impact that the Watergate Affair was having on the President, I stated: 
``There is no question but that his influence has been greatly eroded. 
I doubt that he can ever regain the confidence of the American 
people.'' I also said that impeachment of the President ``is becoming a 
more realistic possibility, but there is still no groundswell for 
impeachment.'' I was talking about a Republican President in that 
instance. ``There is an uneasiness on impeachment because of the 
paralysis that would come with it,'' I said then.
  I cosponsored a resolution directing the Committee on Rules and 
Administration--on which I served and still serve--to review all 
existing rules and precedents that applied to impeachment trials in 
order to recommend any revisions to the rules that might be necessary. 
The result of our work was an exhaustively researched publication, 
titled, ``Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials in the United 
States Senate.'' The Senate was, indeed, gearing up for an impeachment 
trial--if needed.
  But, on Thursday, August 8, 1974--almost a quarter of a century ago--
President Nixon resigned, his resignation to be effective at noon the 
next day. And promptly after noon on Friday, August 9, Gerald Ford was 
sworn in as the 38th President.
  Mr. President, just as I urged caution and patience in 1973 and 1974, 
I urge that same course now. I suggest that we try to restrain 
ourselves and wait until the House of Representatives has had an 
opportunity to examine the contents of Mr. Starr's report. It will be 
forthcoming soon, I hear. Perhaps before the week is out. Let us, as 
Senators, remember that if the House ultimately votes to impeach this 
President--and we all should be careful not to attempt to influence the 
other body--when I say ``we all'' I have reference to ourselves, to the 
executive branch and to the media--in any way in a decision which 
should rest with the House, and it alone--we Senators, who must sit as 
jurors if the worst ever comes to worst, will carry a heavy burden in 
that event. We must not compromise any final decision by rushing to 
judgment in advance. I trust that we will all weigh carefully, in our 
own minds and hearts, the possible consequences to the nation of our 
words and actions and judgments if that duty ultimately should beckon 
us. If it does, there will be many difficult questions.
  What is an impeachable offense? We read in last weekend's newspaper. 
And what is meant by ``high crimes and misdemeanors''? We heard the 
question asked on television. Gerald Ford, in remarks to the House of 
Representatives in April 1970, stated: ``The only honest answer is that 
an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of 
Representatives considers [it] to be at a given moment in history; 
conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds''--not 
just 60--``of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to 
require removal of the accused from office.''
  Even though the debates and actions at the Philadelphia Convention 
regarding impeachment appear on the record to have been comparatively 
sparse, they seem to indicate clearly enough that the framers intended 
the phrase ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' to subsume corruption, 
maladministration, gross and wanton neglect of duty, misuse of official 
power, and other violations of the public trust by officeholders.''
  The interpretation of the Constitution's clause on impeachable 
offenses entered into the ratification debates. James Iredell, speaking 
at the North Carolina Convention, declared that the ``power of 
impeachment'' given by the Constitution was ``to bring great offenders 
to punishment. . . . for crime which it is not easy to describe, but 
which every one must be convinced is a high crime and misdemeanor 
against the government.'' Iredell, who would later serve as a Supreme 
Court justice, said that the ``occasion'' for exercise of the 
impeachment power ``will arise from acts of great injury to the 
community, and the objects of it may be such as cannot be easily 
reached by an ordinary tribunal.''
  Alexander Hamilton, hoping to influence the critical New York 
decision on ratification, explained in The Federalist No. 65:

       A well constituted court for the trial of impeachments, is 
     an object not more to be desired than difficult to be 
     obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its 
     jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the 
     misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or 
     violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which 
     may with peculiar propriety to be denominated political, as 
     they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the 
     society itself. . . . What it may be asked is the true spirit 
     of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of 
     national inquest into the conduct of public men?

  A misconception that has surfaced during impeachment trials is the 
notion that criminal or civil standards of proof are somehow required 
in order to convict. Such standards run the gamut from the lowest 
threshold, proof by ``preponderance of the evidence,'' which must be 
met by plaintiffs in most civil cases; to the next highest standard, 
proof by ``clear and convincing evidence,'' employed in some classes of 
civil cases; to the most rigorous standard, ``proof beyond a reasonable 
doubt,'' imposed for criminal cases. Of course, Mr. President, a 
Senator may apply any standard of proof he or she desires, or may 
choose to apply no set standard whatever. But, given the history of 
impeachment in the United States and the fact that neither civil 
penalties nor criminal punishments are applicable in impeachment cases, 
any talk of standards of proof seems rather pointless and likely to be 
unproductive.
  If they have taught us nothing else, the events of recent months at 
least should have taught us the essential importance of restraint. As 
Members of this body, we are all likely to be sorely tested in this 
matter. The nation will look to us for leadership. And in critical 
times, real leadership often requires one to turn one's back on the 
daily hue and cry and quietly sort through the noise of competing 
interests for the one overriding, essential interest. Such a course 
demands restraint and discipline. We, who may one day be called upon to 
bear the brunt of the responsibility of deciding the fate of a 
president, must reach for those qualities at this time.
  And so, I respectfully urge everyone in this town to calm down for a 
little while and contemplate with seriousness the impact that our 
actions may have on the well-being of the nation, and the paralysis 
which we may be spawning if we continue to be mesmerized with each new 
rumor, and each new titillating whisper. The President's situation--and 
the Congress', the media's, and the public's all-consuming obsession 
with it--has contributed to a loss of focus on, and attention to, many 
aspects of our national life that have far-reaching consequences; and 
we shall see a continuation of that loss of focus when and if the time 
ever comes that we have to vote on an impeachment resolution. Nowhere 
is this more true than in the realm of foreign policy. In the few 
snippets of newspaper and news shows which attempt to turn our 
attention from our unfortunate domestic travails and focus instead on 
events overseas, we can see the troubling signs of a long and difficult 
winter ahead.

  In the Balkans, the Serb-dominated Yugoslav Army has reportedly 
rounded up ethnic Albanian men and boys of fighting age in the province 
of Kosovo, labeling them all ``terrorists.'' This action bears the 
bloody stains of earlier Serbian ``ethnic cleansing'' in neighboring 
Bosnia that eventually led to a massive intervention by NATO. What 
action, if any, should the U.S. take? I fear that our lack of attention 
may

[[Page S10112]]

allow the situation to get even further out of hand.
  In Iraq, troubling questions have been raised about an unwillingness 
to deal with continued Iraqi intransigence over weapons inspections. 
Russia's economy and indeed her very government appear on the verge of 
dissolution. North Korea has launched a long range missile right over 
our ally, Japan. In China and elsewhere, many tens of thousands of 
people face the coming winter hungry and homeless as a result of floods 
and fires and droughts. And, not least, acts of terrorism against U.S. 
embassies and interests continue to threaten. All of these unhappy 
circumstances will challenge the U.S. economy and U.S. leadership. It 
ill behooves us all to become so enmeshed in the current web of scandal 
that we ignore or obscure opportunities to deal with these serious 
challenges before they escalate into full-blown crises.
  We cannot continue to swirl in this miasma of misery if we are to 
judiciously carry out our duties as the representatives of the people. 
Impeachment is among the most serious, if not the most serious, duty 
meted out to us in the Constitution that we are sworn to support and 
defend. Let us wait for the facts to come out before we rush to 
judgment as to the action we should take. Let us wait for the House to 
determine those facts from the report that will shortly be presented to 
it. And then, hopefully, we can all see what the facts are.
  There are serious challenges to our nation ahead. Here in the Senate, 
we may be called upon to help restore such forgotten qualities as 
courage, integrity, dignity, fairness, and thoughtfulness to a 
situation marked, for the most part, by the absence of those 
characteristics. For my part, I shall pray that we who serve here will 
do our best to restore the sense of serious contemplation and quiet 
duty expected of us under the Constitution and by the good people of 
this nation during times of testing and crisis.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I wanted to respond, if I might, for just a 
minute, to Senator Byrd. First of all, I would like to thank him for 
the lesson of his speech today. Our founders did not write the 
Constitution and then sit down and wonder about what they would do 
about corruption in public men. In fact, when they wrote the 
Constitution the first power enumerated for the House of 
Representatives in the Constitution is the power to impeach. This was 
no afterthought. When the founders wrote, in article I, section 3, 
about the first power of the Senate, it was the power to try all 
impeachments. So Senator Byrd, I would like to thank you for reminding 
us that this is a high constitutional responsibility.
  None of us will be judged based on what the President did or did not 
do, but we will be judged on what we do or what we do not do. One of 
the quotes from the Federalist Paper No. 65, from Alexander Hamilton, 
that you did not use, which I think defines the role you have taken in 
this debate, is the line where Hamilton sees a Senate which is ``unawed 
and uninfluenced.'' I think your lesson today to us is we should be 
unawed, but we should also be uninfluenced. And I can say that if I 
were to be tried in the Senate, if I were innocent, I would look to 
Senator Byrd as my greatest hope; if I were guilty, I would look to him 
as my greatest fear.
  Finally, before yielding the floor, the Senator asked, Where are the 
heroes? I would like to say that for those who know him, Robert C. Byrd 
is a hero. When I think of great men and women who have sat in this 
body as Senators whose names you might want to put up next to Cicero 
and Cato, I include the name of Robert C. Byrd on that list. I am very 
proud to serve in the Senate with him.
  I think his comments today really reflect on the posture that the 
Senate should take. I have no doubt that Senator Byrd will take that 
posture. I intend to do my best to take it as well. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his 
words, which I take very seriously, and for his kindness, as always, to 
me.
  I hope that I have spoken wisely. I hope that I will not be 
misunderstood. I simply think that before we reach a judgment on this 
President or any other President--and I said this when Mr. Nixon was in 
the docks, as it were--I hope that we Senators will not advocate 
impeachment or censure or resignation at least until the Starr report 
has reached the House and the House has had an opportunity to conduct 
hearings, if it so chooses, and has formulated articles, if it so 
chooses. There will be plenty of time then for Senators to reach that 
judgment. In the meantime, we have much to do. I thank the 
distinguished Senator.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator 
from West Virginia, obviously, as fundamental a matter as we can have 
before us, but I share the Senator's view that prior to the release of 
the report, there are many matters that need our attention. First on 
that list is what we have been debating today and will be debating 
tomorrow, and that is the extremely urgent need to pass campaign 
finance reform.

                          ____________________