[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 16, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7905-H7910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            ISSUES SURROUNDING REPORT OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cook). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, like most if not all Republicans in the 
House, I have refrained from making speeches or public statements about 
the current scandal gripping the White House. I have said on numerous 
occasions that there are more important issues I would rather the 
public focus on, like, for example, using American technology to 
upgrade Communist Chinese rockets, thus putting millions of American 
lives at risk of nuclear incineration. That is something I would like 
the American people to pay attention to. I would rather see 
investigative journalists tracking down the details of Communist 
Chinese money that was laundered into the last presidential campaign. I 
never did understand how those impoverished Buddhist monks ever got 
those $5,000 checks to turn over to the President's reelection effort. 
We never did find that out, did we? I wonder where that came from.
  Anyway, there are other things that are much more important than the 
current scandal that seems to be gripping onto everybody's attention. 
We Republicans have done our best to let the Starr investigation run 
its course without adding to the shrillness of the voices heard 
throughout the land.

                              {time}  2230

  Most of us honestly believe that it is a tragedy that a young lady 
who asked for an apology for ungentlemanly conduct did not get those 
words of apology that she sought, and had that happened, had she 
received the apology she was looking for, there would have been no 
civil case, there would have been no depositions, there would have been 
no lying under oath, there would have been no need to seek information 
to see if the offending actions were or were not part of a pattern of 
personal abuse. This country would have been spared all the humiliation 
and the spectacle of it all. Well, except for the fact that arrogance 
came to play and there was a refusal to apologize for offensive 
behavior. But for that, this thing would have gone away.
  But this disgusting scenario has played itself out, and it has been 
all too public, and it has played itself out without the prodding of 
Republican Members of Congress. We have, for the most part, tried to 
maintain decorum, we have tried to maintain our position so that, if 
necessary, we would be ready to deal with the worst eventuality if we 
were called to make judgments.
  One of the most respected leaders of this body admired by Republicans 
and Democrats alike is Henry Hyde, chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. He, more than any other, has attempted to remain aloof from 
the bitter rhetoric and accusatory language

[[Page H7906]]

that swirls throughout the land due to this ever growing scandal.
  Today many of us were horrified to hear that the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was the target of a vicious personal attack and 
that that personal attack has all the appearances of an effort to 
intimidate not only Mr. Hyde, but other Members of Congress.
  Upset with Mr. Hyde's leadership even before the hearings begin, a 
media outlet saw fit to disclose an indiscretion, an affair Mr. Hyde 
committed 30 years ago.
  The smearing of Republican Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth disclosing 
an indiscretion of 15 years ago, and now the trashing of the chairman 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, Henry Hyde, is a blackmail message 
to every member of Congress. It is an ugly and possibly illegal tactic 
designed to cower Republicans.
  Yes, no one is perfect, no one in this body is per, either 
Republicans or Democrats; we understand that. And there is no jury in 
the world that ever goes to try someone in court which is composed of 
perfect individuals either. But there is a difference between an 
indiscretion or something that someone has an imperfection, and there 
is a big difference between that and lying under oath and asking others 
to lie under oath in order to thwart a civil suit that was itself a 
product of misconduct.
  The vicious attack on Mr. Hyde underscores that the issue at hand in 
Washington is the abuse of power, of arrogance and of a willingness to 
act without shame in having one's own way.
  Those people who pushed this story of a 30-year-old indiscretion have 
strengthened the resolve of the Republicans to stand tough. Not one of 
us is perfect, or not one of us has, you know, has a situation where we 
do not have something in our past that we would prefer not to be made 
public. But we will not be intimidated.
  Years ago in the Nixon administration Charles Colson, a legal counsel 
to the President, showed one-half of one FBI file to a journalist. That 
file contained derogatory information about a critic of the 
administration. For that repulsive and undemocratic personal attack Mr. 
Colson was convicted of a felony and sent to Federal prison.
  Now we all know that in this administration hundreds of FBI files 
made their way into the hands of a democratic opposition researcher who 
was on the White House staff. No one has ever been held accountable for 
these hundreds of FBI files that were so abused. And an enormous effort 
was made to throw dust into the air and confuse the issue and obscure 
it from public scrutiny until it was forgotten, just like perhaps those 
$5,000 checks from those Buddhist monks are now forgotten or just a 
distant memory.
  By the way, whatever happened to those things? Whatever happened to 
the FBI files? Who was accountable for that? These are things that have 
never been answered, but it is forgotten now because so much dust is in 
the air.
  We have seen from this administration a willingness to destroy any 
adversary, far beyond anything that Richard Nixon ever dreamed of. 
Richard Nixon, yes, had an enemies list. It was a list of names with 
whom the White House would not cooperate. These were people who, the 
enemies list were people who would not be invited to luncheons or to 
special briefings or given any special type of treatment. That is what 
the enemies list was under Richard Nixon.
  This administration seems to have a hit list of people who are 
targeted for personal character assassination. Paula Jones was 
mistreated and then disparaged and brutalized for asking for an 
apology. Now we see attacks on Members of Congress. Dan Burton was 
investigating, Congressman Dan Burton was investigating, campaign 
corruption, had nothing to do with any other personal things that are 
going on, any other scandals that are going on, but he was 
investigating campaign corruption, and his own personal shortcomings of 
long ago were rubbed in his face. He, too, will not be intimidated. He, 
too, is standing tough.
  The public does not expect us to be perfect, it does not expect it. 
Does not expect Dan Burton to be perfect, does not expect me to be 
perfect, does not expect any Republican Member or any Democrat Member 
to be perfect because none of us are. But it is not hypocrisy for those 
of us who are not perfect to look into the abuses of power, to look 
into felony obstruction of justice, or perjury, of lying under oath, 
and we should be able to do that without someone threatening to 
disclose some information about an indiscretion of years ago.
  It appears that the House of Representatives may soon be called upon 
to judge evidence and make determinations. Any attempt to blackmail or 
intimidate us, to make us cower for fear of personal embarrassment, 
will not work. And if it is found that these attacks can in any way be 
traced to those under investigation, it will be the last straw.
  The American people are tolerant, sometimes to a fault. They are long 
suffering and slow to anger. But those who would tamper with the jury, 
blackmail and intimidate and conduct the most vicious type of personal 
attack on one's adversaries, will feel the wrath of the American people 
and will unify this Congress. On both sides of the aisle we will come 
together because we believe, as Members of this body, that this is an 
American institution that is dedicated to the proposition that we are 
better than that, better than they that do things in other more 
totalitarian, less democratic countries. We are better than that here 
in the United States of America, and in the capital and in the Congress 
of the United States we will hold to a higher standard.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of utmost importance. It took my breath 
away today when I heard that Henry Hyde had been attacked in this way. 
As I say, we had seen this with Helen Chenoweth and Dan Burton before. 
We had seen critics of the administration suffer these type of personal 
attacks, and we have heard stories of things that happened in the past 
to critics, and it is something that goes beyond the bounds.

  This cannot be tolerated. It is a crossing of the line. Mr. Hyde is a 
well-respected, a very well-respected Member of this body, and not only 
have they shown they can do this to Mr. Hyde, but they have done this 
to others, and they can do to the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary this? If we let this go by, it is just admitting that our 
standards of our country have sunk to that level, and we cannot let 
that happen, and I would yield to my friend from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from California.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say tonight, ladies and gentlemen who join us 
here in this Chamber and those who watch these words coast to coast and 
beyond through the facilities of C-Span and other satellite networks, 
that sadly a scourge has descended on this Federal capital district, on 
this capital city, a scourge borne of a cynicism, a scourge borne of a 
scorched earth policy. And, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I think it is 
important to note some basics at this hour of need in our Nation.
  First and foremost, every Member of this body, as well as those who 
serve in elective capacity within the Executive Branch and those in the 
Judiciary, take an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution 
of the United States. And at this hour in this place at a time of grave 
national concern we would do well to remember the words of our founders 
in Article 2, Section 4, when it comes to discussion of the Executive 
Branch. Our founders write, and I quote:

       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.

  Those are the words of our founders. Those are the words of the 
document which Katherine Drinker Bowen characterized as the miracle at 
Philadelphia. Those are the words to which we took an oath of office to 
protect, uphold and defend.
  And I share my colleague from California's amazement and outrage that 
in this city, at this time, there are those who would pursue a scorched 
earth policy to try and convince the American people that, quote, 
everybody does it.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, no. Everyone does not do it.

                              {time}  2115

  Everyone does not lie under oath. After making a promise to God, 
after

[[Page H7907]]

making a promise to the citizens of this nation, after swearing an oath 
to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, at long 
last, have they no dignity? Have they no sense of honor?
  Those who through the media and who through whispered comments and 
who through telephone calls would besmirch the dignity of those who 
serve in this branch under the cynical and sick notion that everyone 
does it, Mr. Speaker, I give the American people far more credit.
  I understand the burdens that confront the average American family. 
Indeed, we have seen it here and my colleague from California will 
attest, I have come to this well, as has he, and as have others, to 
point out that the median American family today surrenders well over a 
quarter of its income in taxes to the Federal Government as opposed to 
the median American family in 1948.
  I understand the workload that confronts moms and dads around this 
country, where one spouse chooses to work not voluntarily but out of 
necessity, to pay the tax bill.
  I understand the stresses and strains on average Americans simply to 
pay their taxes and to feed and educate and clothe their children and 
yet I understand what our founders meant in this document. Let there be 
no mistake, to those cynics who offer the tactics of smear and fear, 
the citizens of this great country and those who serve in this body 
will not be intimidated. Freedom has come at far too great a price.
  The Constitution is far too valuable for those peddlers of petty 
gossip to sustain a position of supremacy.
  Mr. Speaker, their actions speak clearly. They have no decency. They 
hold no harbor for the rule of law, and they certainly fail to adhere 
to the edicts of the Constitution, but our founders, in their 
prescience, in their foresight, in their resolve, offered 
constitutional remedies to this House and to this nation. No one 
approaches these remedies with glee, for our oath is to the 
Constitution, not to partisan political advantage.
  As my colleague from California points out, the peddlers of gossip, 
cynicism and despair continue to wage their sinister tactics.
  Would that it were not so. Would that we could come to this chamber 
to discuss policy differences, earnestly held, sincerely championed. 
Yet, even though there are grave concerns that confront this nation, 
from the concept of providing for the common defense, as my colleague 
from California pointed out, to the challenge of making sure that 
American families hold on to more of their hard-earned money and send 
less of it to Washington, even with those pressing concerns, not to 
mention the concerns of education that confront every family, there is 
no more pressing need, Mr. Speaker, than to champion the adherence to 
the rule of law in this constitutional republic, at this time, in this 
place, Mr. Speaker, the most hallowed of American institutions.
  To those, Mr. Speaker, who would weave a cynical web of gossip and 
cynicism, we say, shame, shame on your cynical tactics, shame on your 
crawling into the gutter, shame on your cheap, reprehensible notions 
that you can claim simply that everyone does it.
  For, Mr. Speaker, even though as I stand as a human, as the Apostle 
Paul said, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Even 
as we understand the difference between mistakes, so, too, Mr. Speaker, 
do we note the distinction of crimes. If we are to suggest that, one, 
for whatever reason, is excused from the oath before God and man, not 
of high office but simply to tell the truth in interpersonal matters, 
then we have abandoned the rule of law and we have surrendered that 
which makes this constitutional republic the last best hope of mankind. 
It transcends party. It transcends personality. It goes to the core of 
what it means to be an American.
  Mr. Speaker, again, to those who would crawl into the gutter, who 
would whisper to the magazine writers, who would whisper to the 
television journalists, Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity and all humility 
I must ask, have they no shame? At long last, have they no shame.
  Worse, Mr. Speaker, have they no reverence for our constitutional 
republic and the concept of freedom, which is every American's, 
conditional upon the rule of law?
  These are not tranquil times. No matter the Dow Jones industrial 
average, no matter the rate of return in the bond market, if we face a 
crisis of personal integrity in the social will to tell the truth, then 
we indeed face a crisis. If we continue to hear from the punditocracy 
that the rule of law makes no difference, then we confront a crisis as 
grave as the missiles that may be aimed at us, a crisis of spirit.
  Mr. Speaker, I reject that notion. I know full well from hearing from 
the constituents of the Sixth District of Arizona, to whom I have 
listened in the past few months, in knowing of the concerns of my 
colleague and others on both sides of the aisle, we know full well what 
is at stake and we heap disdain on those who would try to change the 
subject through cheap gossip.
  Mr. ROHRBACHER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman 
would like to stay we can have a colloquy on this. I would just like to 
point a few things out.
  I worked in the White House for 7 years under Ronald Reagan, and I 
worked in all of his presidential campaigns. I was very close to 
President Reagan. I was, in fact, a speech writer for President Reagan 
and special assistant to the President and was privy to many, many 
internal discussions about how to confront various challenges to the 
administration.
  At no time during my many, many years with Ronald Reagan did I ever 
hear anyone ever suggest that we launch some type of personal attack on 
an adversary, especially dealing with Congress, especially dealing with 
the chairman of a committee like the Committee on the Judiciary. At no 
time did I ever hear a suggestion in the Reagan White House that we 
should leak some negative information about somebody's personal life to 
a reporter. Never did I hear that.

  In the 10 years since I have been here, let me just say, even the 
most aggressive fights that we have had on the floor here of the House 
of Representatives, never has anyone from the other side of the aisle 
or anyone on this side of the aisle that I have heard of, talked about, 
well, let us get that person by leaking some personal information about 
them, about some indiscretion they had years ago or some sort of 
personal problem that they might have. It just does not happen.
  We have a comity here that speaks well of democracy. There has to be 
a certain degree of goodwill in democracy. Those standards of goodwill 
and comity are especially important at times of crises as we are now 
facing in the Nation's capital.
  I never heard it when I worked at the White House and I have not 
heard it here but yet today we hear, after hearing stories of the 
gentlewoman from Idaho (Helen Chenoweth) of 15 years ago, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Dan Burton) of long ago and now the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary has had some indiscretion he committed 30 
years ago made public.
  It is a message to all of us here. It is a message to say, either go 
along or we are going to find something on you.
  We have a Member of our body here, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. McHale), who was on television and announced that he was no longer 
supporting the President's position in terms of this scandal.
  What happened? People tried to leak negative information. Geraldo 
Rivera on TV tried to bring up some negative personal story about the 
man that proved to be false. The story itself was incorrect. Even if it 
was correct, is this the right tactic to use to try to bludgeon people 
into submission and not to criticize?
  Now, when I was a reporter, I was a reporter for about 10 years, that 
is my profession, I am a writer, and during that time period, we 
journalists, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) spoke about 
journalism before he came here, before we got up and talked about 
people who have to say negative things about other people, but not all 
journalists are that way. A lot of times, it is not relevant.
  Sometimes personal things are relevant, and they are brought out and 
they are not just brought out for a mean spirited thing. It is because 
they are relevant. I remember when someone came to me when I was a 
journalist in Los Angeles and talked about a public figure, an office 
holder in the Democratic Party, who had been arrested,

[[Page H7908]]

when he was very young, in some kind of a homosexual act.
  They said, this is going to be a big story and you are going to have 
a chance to break it. This was not the Republican Party, I might add, 
who was telling me this. I will not go into who it was but it was not 
someone associated with the Republican Party and it was not a 
Republican Party office holder. In fact, it was another journalist.
  I said, no, I am not going to do this. This was long ago and this has 
no relationship to this person today and I am just not going to do 
that. That story never did come out, because I am sure that that story 
probably went to several other journalists in Los Angeles. I can say 
right now if that would have been a conservative Republican that story 
would have come out, and the message from some of the things that are 
happening right now is that if someone goes up against the President on 
this issue, they are going to get it.
  Now, whoever is going to be dishing it out, we do not know who it is 
but the message is there. When we have someone of the stature of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who is dragged through the mud, and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is beloved on both sides of the 
aisle, he is respected on both sides of the aisle, integrity does not 
mean that you are a perfect human being. Jesus Christ was a perfect 
human being, but that is the only person I know that ever traipsed upon 
the earth that is a perfect human being.
  To instead of argue a case, instead of arguing the merits of one's 
position, to go after people like this and to disclose embarrassing 
information and just to get up here and say this and to challenge this, 
of course, opens me up to that kind of attack and if we try to get 
together and do something tomorrow, every one of us will know that we 
are opening ourselves up to that kind of an attack, but I will state 
right now for the record, and I am sure my colleague from Arizona will 
agree, that these tactics will not intimidate the Members of the House 
of Representatives.

                              {time}  2300

  I think it will draw us closer. I think the Members of the Democratic 
side of the aisle will reject and they will condemn this type of 
practice and will, in doing so, be drawn closer to those of us on this 
side of the aisle and our commitment to have an honest hearing of all 
of the facts that will come to us and make an honest decision. For 
whatever decision we are called upon to make, we are going to have an 
honest decision.
  Now, we have held our tongues and have not used this floor as a means 
to manipulate or attack or to use for political purposes this scandal 
that has been sweeping through our country. We have tried our best, and 
sometimes we slip a little bit because it is of interest, but we are 
trying our best. And for some to suffer this kind of personal abuse, 
and to see a hero, one of our heroes, and by the way, I have had my 
disagreements with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) too. I had a 
big fight with him, and my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) was on my side in that fight on the patent issue.
  But even in the middle of that fight, I remember how much I respected 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, as I hear my colleague from California 
recount honest policy differences, I am struck by the words of that 
great and good man, Dwight David Eisenhower, the supreme allied 
commander in Europe, and later the President of the United States who, 
Mr. Speaker, instructed all of us, all of us when we have a political 
dispute, to understand that those who might hold differing views 
honestly want what is best for the country. This is the distinction we 
draw tonight, Mr. Speaker.
  To those small-minded, sinister, purveyors of the perverse, we say 
tonight, Mr. Speaker, shame. Shame on you and your tactics. Shame on 
you and what you attempt to do. For in your attempt, you bankrupt any 
innovative policy of those who have chosen to stray from constitutional 
guidelines, those have chosen to stray from the conduct of simple human 
decency, and those who may have chosen to stray from the rule of law.
  That is the statement we make tonight, well aware that those small 
and sinister minds may work overtime with journalists of their choosing 
and publications of their philosophy to try and lower us to the muck 
and mire, and yet Ike's example is there for every American.
  To quote the former President and a member of the other body in 
bygone times, ``I am not going to climb into the gutter with that 
guy,'' said President Eisenhower. And those of us of both parties join 
in the example of Ike to say, no, it is not time to climb into the 
gutter. Instead, it is a time to champion the truth, the constitutional 
remedies at our disposal for the people, because principle outstrips 
polling and outstrips malicious gossip any day at any time, and 
especially in this place.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman 
brought up Eisenhower. I think it would be interesting to those reading 
the Congressional Record, listening over C-SPAN and our colleagues who 
are listening at home and in the body, to note a quotation from Adlai 
Stevenson.
  Mr. Speaker, Eisenhower and Stevenson fought a very tough battle for 
the presidency, not on 1 occasion, but on 2 occasions. And Adlai 
Stevenson is quoted as saying, my favorite quote from Mr. Stevenson is, 
``He who throws mud will generally lose ground.''
  I am afraid that those people who have launched these personal 
attacks on the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenowith) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and now the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, those people who have tried to destroy 
Paula Jones when she was asking for an apology for ungentlemanly 
conduct that was thrown at her, that those people will not be tolerated 
by other members of the media and other Members of this body. I think 
that especially now, this attack on the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde), tomorrow we will see that our colleagues will rally to the 
gentleman from Illinois, and we will tomorrow reconfirm to one another 
that that is unacceptable, and that there shall be no more of this, and 
that this indeed may be the last straw, but if this tactic continues, 
and if this tactic is traced back to anyone who is under investigation, 
that that will be the last straw.
  There are reports, there are some reports right now that this may 
well have been something that came out of this White House. Again, just 
like the charges that we were asked to investigate, let us wait and 
see. I am not going to state that that is the case because all I have 
done is hear some television reports. But if the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), as the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
is faced with some sort of conspiratorial action to have a personal, a 
vile personal attack against him to disclose some information from 30 
years ago, while we are trying to investigate, and again, trying to 
investigate charges of what? Charges that someone lied under oath, 
charges that someone has asked other people to lie under oath and 
things such as that, if we cannot look into this seriously and take 
that job seriously without having it threatened, that we are in some 
way going to have some little thing that we have done wrong, and all of 
us have done things that are embarrassing in our lives, then we have 
let the standards slip.
  This is the United States of America. We are supposed to be better 
than that here.
  There was a movie a few years ago, I do not know if my friend 
remembers that movie, and it was about somewhere here in Washington, 
and I think it was the President's choice of a certain ambassadorial 
job or something, and some personal information was leaked about that 
person that he had had some homosexual affair or something like that, 
and the man ended up committing suicide. I forget what the name of that 
movie is right now. Advice and Consent, that is exactly what it was.
  In that movie, I think that it really brought home for those of us 
who had never been in Washington, when I first saw that I had never 
been in Washington, and of course it was a wonderful book by Mr. Drury, 
was it? What that brought home was the fact that we are people here. We 
are human beings, and we have feelings, and certainly we get

[[Page H7909]]

mad and angry. I know I got mad today and said a couple of things to 
somebody I did not want to say.
  But this was not an action of anger. What we are talking about is the 
activity taken against the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was cold 
and calculated and as low as one can get in this town. We are supposed 
to be above that.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, indeed, those 
tactics, Mr. Speaker, are tactics of desperation and depravity, for 
they fail to make the moral distinction between mistakes, sins, and 
possible crimes. There is a clear distinction in our society, 
especially for the latter category. That is why for over 200 years we 
in this constitutional republic have had an adherence to the rule of 
law. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there are those who, through their scurrilous 
actions, would try to muddy the waters, try to change the distinctions, 
try to mitigate the circumstances for what could possibly be crimes.
  Let us state clearly and unequivocally, Mr. Speaker, for those who 
join us in this chamber; for those who may watch around the world, a 
failure to tell the truth under oath is a crime. Not a mistake, not an 
indiscretion simply, and not simply a sin. It is a crime.

                              {time}  2310

  Mr. HAYWORTH. That is the crux of what confronts us at this time, in 
this place, in this city, and indeed across the Nation.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we of course are 
seeing that is what the issue is. That is to be determined. We are not 
saying right now that a crime has been committed.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. But what we are saying is that that is what the 
underlying tension in this city today is as we are moving forward to 
investigate a crime. We have done everything that we can do.
  My colleagues have not seen me on the floor, and my colleagues have 
not seen the gentleman from Arizona on the floor. We both would like to 
speak, and we are politically oriented. We are in the middle of the 
year. My colleagues have not seen some of the other great, great 
speakers on the Republican side of the aisle down in the well and 
making political hay out of this. We are not.
  We have not been doing that because we know that that this body has 
to determine, as the gentleman showed in the Constitution, it is up to 
us to uphold that standard and determine if a crime has been committed.
  God will judge people's sin and morals. It is up to us to make that 
judgment if a crime has been committed. To have in the middle of this 
now, to have this word go out that anybody who gets too tough, even the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is going to find themselves 
the subject of a smear. Anything they have ever done wrong is going to 
be spread all over the newspapers.
  This is unconscionable. We cannot let that be the standard here in 
Washington, D.C. This is all we are really talking about is upholding 
the standards, the standards that were written down by our Founding 
Fathers in that Constitution.
  There is a lot of talk about moral standards, and I think that is an 
important issue of discussion; that is not what we are talking about 
here. We are talking about the law.
  By the way, if a simple apology would have been made to someone who 
was mistreated, and that is all that person was really asking for, 
everything else had been decided, this need not have come to a head. 
There did not need to be depositions. There did not need to be someone 
to be asked an investigation to find out if this kind of conduct was 
something that was a personal habit that was going on, an ongoing thing 
rather than just one little incident. That would not have been 
necessary then.
  The lying under oath and trying to protect oneself, it would not have 
happened except the fact that somebody did not get an apology when they 
asked for it because they were a simple person, just a simple person 
who believed that she had been treated not like a lady.
  In this country, even a simple person has a right. No matter who that 
other individual is, no matter what high office they may hold, they 
cannot treat a citizen in a way without legal recourse.
  One note. In Los Angeles, I remember the story of an Arab, rich Arab 
Sheik that came into town and had lots of money. He was a king or 
something. Maybe he was a prince or whatever he was. He was a pretty 
big shot in his own country.
  He checked into a hotel, and the bellman was late with delivering 
something by 5 minutes or something, and this man slapped the bellman. 
The bellman looked at him and he said, you cannot do that. This is the 
United States of America. He said, you are a bellman. He said, get out 
of here.
  No, in the United States of America, that bellman has the rights and 
can have his dignity protected just like that young lady, Paula Jones, 
had a right to have her dignity protected.
  If that prince would have apologized, it probably would have been 
okay. But he did not, and he was arrogant. In the end, that prince, 
worth hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps billions of dollars, had 
to flee this country because of a civil suit filed by that bellman.
  I am proud to live in the United States of America where these people 
are protected. But it is only the rule of law that protects them. It is 
only a certain amount of respect that we have for the average person.
  Yes, when the average person sues the high and mighty, there are 
depositions that have to be taken and people have to give testimony 
under oath in order to investigate personal conduct that may prove that 
there is some kind of a pattern, a personal pattern in that abuse.
  If someone lies during that civil matter, that is a violation of the 
law. We have to determine whether the law has been violated, whether 
that happened in this case. We take that seriously.
  I am not saying I am in favor of impeachment or if I believe that 
there is any crime that absolutely has been committed, but we can say 
that there is enough evidence for us to look into this matter, and we 
must look into this matter without outside pressures trying to 
intimidate us to back away or to cower because someone's going to say 
something bad about our background. It is wrong.
  What happened to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was wrong. 
What happened to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) was wrong. 
What happened to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) was wrong.
  We are not going to let it happen. We are not going to be 
intimidated. We are not going to let that happen. We are going to find 
out whether this could be traced back to the people who are under 
investigation. We are going to find that out.
  Again if it is, if this can be traced back to the person under 
investigation, this is the straw that breaks the camel's back.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
California for yielding to me. I would simply stand in support of all 
that he has said. It is important to make the distinction between 
charges and crimes. I thank him for that distinction.
  I thank the gentleman also, Mr. Speaker, for explaining in his own 
unique fashion the creed that is inscribed on the magnificent temple of 
law across the street here in Washington, D.C., Mr. Speaker. For 
outside the chamber of the Supreme Court of the United States, as one 
gazes at that edifice, one sees the words ``Equal Justice Under Law.''
  Who among us would alter that notion? Who among us, Mr. Speaker, 
would perverse or pervert that dynamic, that all who live in this 
Nation, that all who are blessed with citizenship in this 
constitutional republic are equal under law? That is the question that 
confronts us, not the high jinks or tomfoolery or gossip that 
accompanies the charges that are there, but, instead the simple notion, 
Mr. Speaker, that no one, no one, no prince, no potentate, no President 
is above the law.
  For in this constitutional republic, if we abandon that notion, then 
one should simply take a match to this document or tear it asunder. For 
the rule of law will crumble as will this last best hope of mankind.

[[Page H7910]]

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just note this, if the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was being accused of perjury and saying that he had 
committed perjury in the past, how can he now investigate and have a 
perjury investigation? If the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was 
being accused of obstruction of justice, that would be something else. 
We probably would say maybe there is a point here, and someone has a 
built-in situation where he should not be that chairman or something.
  That is not what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), what they 
brought up. That is not what they brought up on the gentlewoman from 
Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Let us say that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) had been 
accused of all sorts of campaign violations, and of course he is 
looking into campaign violations himself, these things.

                              {time}  2320

  These things, hypocrisy is something that someone can talk about and 
charge with someone. Someone has a double standard and things such as 
that. But that is not what has happened here. And, of course, we do 
know that Mr. Starr, and I have not personally commented on this. This 
is the first time that I have publicly commented on this. That Mr. 
Starr, of course, the investigator himself, has been brutalized over 
and over and again these last few years.
  When I was in the Reagan White House, Ronald Reagan was committed to 
seeing that the communists would not take over Central America. And as 
much as people do not like to admit that, that was the core issue that 
was going on. Ronald Reagan was going to stop the Sandinista 
government, which had billions of dollars of military equipment from 
the Soviet Union, from expanding and put them on the defensive.
  We did that until the Soviet Union collapsed. Because had the 
Sandinistas started expanding their role, it would have been a terrible 
thing. Probably communism would not have collapsed because they would 
have thought they were going to win.
  Anyway there were some mistakes made by people in the White House and 
elsewhere, and we helped the Contras at a time when some Members of 
Congress felt that it was not legal for us to do so. Let me add, I 
personally believe that no laws were ever broken in that situation. I 
personally believe that it was perfectly legal for the President to, 
although it was not advisable what he did in terms of Iran, but it was 
perfectly legal for him to try to make those contacts with Iran and 
there was residual money that was left over that was then transferred 
to the Contras.
  Mr. Speaker, that was a big crisis in the Reagan administration. That 
was as big as a crisis and upsetting of the natural order of things 
here as what we are going through now, based on this current scandal. 
But at no time do I remember that the special prosecutor in that case, 
that we tried to do anything like is being done to Mr. Starr to the 
special prosecutor that went after Mr. Reagan.
  And, by the way, that special prosecutor spent more money and had 
more people working for him, I believe, or at least an equal amount, 
and a number of people, and I do not remember seeing anything in the 
paper about whether seeing if people believed in the special 
prosecutor's words as they do now. They have polling as, ``Who do you 
believe? Clinton or Starr?" That did not happen during the Reagan 
years.
  I think Mr. Starr, and believe me, I do sympathize somewhat with the 
idea that prosecutors should not just have a blank slate and be able to 
come in and investigate anything in anybody's life until they find 
something. I understand that. But that is not what the situation is 
today. We have some specific things that we have to decide here, very 
specific things about specific statements made under oath that we 
believe that may well not have been truthful.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to investigate that because it was made under 
oath and involving a civil legal matter. If we do not say that, we just 
say across the board that it is okay to lie under oath in civil cases. 
Now we cannot say that. We cannot permit that standard to sink that 
low.


                Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cook). The Chair must remind members not 
to discuss charges against the President.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I have not mentioned the President when 
discussing any particular charge. And in fact, some of the charges, 
some of the things that we have been discussing have no relationship to 
the President whatsoever. And, in fact, relate more perhaps to some of 
the President's staff or perhaps to other people in the executive 
branch. Or perhaps some of the things that we are discussing are aimed 
more at people who are liberal activists in the news media.
  So, although obviously some of the things we are discussing may have 
some impact on the President, we are not addressing this specifically 
at the President.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, lest there be any doubt, we come to this 
Chamber, and indeed in the next few trying weeks this should be our 
cause. This, Mr. Speaker, should be our mission not to address the 
impending crisis as Republicans or as Democrats, but as Americans. 
Americans concerned about the future of the rule of law. Americans who 
understand that our adherence to the rule of law is both central and 
elemental to our survival in a constitutional republic. Adherence to 
the rule of law for all, regardless of title, regardless of job, 
regardless of economic standing, regardless of race, religion, color or 
creed. This is the essence of what it means to be an American in the 
late 20th century. To understand that adherence to rule of law is 
everything. For if we lose that, then, Mr. Speaker, we have nothing. I 
yield to my colleague.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. In conclusion, let me say that I am pleased that my 
friend from Arizona joined me here tonight. Actually I am sure he saw 
me on C-SPAN and decided to come over, working late in his office. He 
was probably working in his office after 11 o'clock at night and came 
over here, and I know that has happened to me at times as well.
  Mr. Speaker, we are both concerned, and I think that tomorrow that we 
will see in this body a great deal of concern about this vicious 
personal attack on the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). And I would hope that it is a 
source of unity for this body, that we unify tomorrow and say that this 
is over. This is beyond the pale. This is over the bounds of 
acceptability. And we will stand together to uphold the standards of 
law because that is true, both Democrats and Republicans, we realize 
that like in that movie about the young boys who were on the island, 
remember that? Somebody else is going to have to help me with this. 
Lord of the Flies, in that movie Lord of the Flies, I remember I read 
the book as well, come to think of it. There was a conch that was the 
symbol of respect for law. But once that respect for whoever held that 
conch so the people would be quiet and listen to them and they could 
discuss the issues, once that was destroyed, there was a degeneration 
into a type of life, a savagery that came out. We will maintain the 
comity of this body. We will maintain goodwill. Goodwill among free 
people, goodwill among people who believe in democracy and 
constitutional government.
  What happened with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was not in 
keeping with that spirit, and it will not, and let us just state once 
and for all, we will not be intimidated. Justice will be served. We 
will make an honest determination of everything that comes before us 
and personal attacks on us must stop and they will not be tolerated.

                          ____________________