[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 136 (Friday, October 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11388-S11389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE QUESTION OF IMPEACHMENT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I had the opportunity a few moments ago
to hear the distinguished Senator from Delaware talk about his views
and his analysis and his historical perspective from his extensive
research on the question of impeachment. I found it instructive, full
of much good insight and food for thought, and I agreed with the vast
majority of it.
We ought to be respectful and responsive as we go through this
process. It may be that it will never even get to this body. I
certainly don't hear many Senators making speeches about it. We don't
have any hearings going on in this body concerning impeachment. It is
solely a decision to be made by the House first, and only then would we
begin to focus on it. And I think that is the way it should be.
So far as I can tell, our attention in this body, the U.S. Senate,
has in fact been on appropriations bills and other legislation that is
important for the American people, and I am glad that is what has been
happening.
I agree that the founders were concerned about the abuse of the
impeachment process, and well they should be. They were wise people.
They knew there were dangers and they discussed whether or not to have
impeachment. But the important thing is they did adopt an impeachment
process and they set it forth in the Constitution with good clarity,
and it requires a majority vote in the House to impeach and a two-
thirds vote of the sitting Members of the U.S. Senate, with the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court presiding, I assume in the President's
chair. He would preside and manage the action on the floor. It would be
a controlled environment with the case being presented by managers from
the House following the historical rules of procedure. I believe
impeachment proceedings would be handled in a dignified and proper
manner. Certainly, that process is part of our Constitution and it is
something we ought not to treat lightly.
Now, as to the question of politics, I, and I think every Member of
this body, would be careful and very diligent to ensure that any
decision they made concerning such a momentous subject as impeachment
would be made on the law, on the facts, and on what is fair and just.
I do not believe politics will control this process, but, of course,
to get the 67 votes, the necessary two-thirds, a substantial number of
Democrats would have to vote for conviction before such an event could
occur. So I think the framers thought it out carefully, and they have
done a very good job in planning it out.
I hope that we do not talk politics in such a way that we create a
political situation. I know the House is dealing with procedure: Some
want to do it this way; some want to do it that way and some want to do
it another way. Often these are legitimate debates. Who knows precisely
how some of these procedural steps should be accomplished? Now, if
every time you lose a vote you say it is politics and accuse the other
side of politics, the charge of playing politics can be thrown back on
the person making the accusation.
I think both groups--the people who are supporting the President and
want to see him succeed, and those who are politically opposed to him--
both need to be careful to ensure that what they do is fair and is
perceived as creating a positive environment, as was done by Senator
Howard Baker during Watergate. He didn't always agree with everyone,
but he conducted himself in a way that brought respect to the system.
I think both parties, the Republican and the Democratic Parties, and
Members of the House and Senate need to be careful about how we conduct
ourselves and avoid politics and try to decide these matters on what is
right and fair and just.
I don't know what others might say, but I was a Federal prosecutor. I
had the opportunity over the years to be before grand juries hundreds
of times. Perhaps, I have presented a thousand cases to a grand jury. I
have seen people testify and tell the truth at great pain to
themselves.
I would agree with Senator Biden that it just may be that as a matter
of law, we are not in this body compelled to any conclusion because the
President may have committed perjury. At the same time, I want us to
not denigrate, not to too lightly respect the obligation of every
citizen, when they are called in a civil case or a criminal case and
placed under oath, to tell the truth, because when we do not have
truth-telling in the judicial system, then the whole legal system is
corrupted and can be undermined. That is so fundamental.
I have seen witnesses sweat drops of blood, but they told the truth.
A businessman lately told me: ``I had to give a deposition and it never
occurred to me I was not required to tell the truth.''
A few years ago, I had occasion to prosecute a young police officer
who was, basically, I think the driver for the chief of police, a
controversial chief of police, in my hometown. I liked him. He was an
aggressive young African-American officer and made some good community-
based changes. There were people with different views about things, and
the young officer made some statements that were not true, and a
lawsuit was filed. He testified in that lawsuit and later admitted what
he said was not true.
It caused a big controversy in town, and in the newspapers. The
people were upset, they didn't know whether the chief deserved to be
kept in office or not. Finally, we found out it wasn't true. I was U.S.
attorney then. We returned an indictment against that young officer for
perjury in a civil case because he abused the legal system. He
corrupted the legal system and caused great public damage and turmoil
in the community.
I don't know what the standards are here. I don't expect to be
prejudging what ought to occur in this body. But I want to say, as
someone who has spent 15 years, really 17 years as a prosecutor, as
someone who has been in court all my life professionally, and having
seen these kinds of cases, I am telling you, we don't ever want to get
in a situation in this country where we treat lightly the act of
testifying falsely in a court of law. I mean that very sincerely and
from my heart.
The President of the United States takes an oath to faithfully
execute the duties of the Office of President, and one of those duties
is to faithfully ``take care that the laws of the United States be
faithfully executed''.
I think the Senator from Delaware has given us much insight and much
food for thought. He said these are stark and momentous decisions, and
they are. But at the same time, he said something else that was just
right. He quoted his father saying, ``This country is so big, so
strong, so solid; we can handle an awful lot.'' I really believe that.
The process is set out in the Constitution and, as the Senator from
Delaware said, this is not a constitutional crisis. Some way, we will
get through it. If we follow what the Constitution says, if we let the
House do its duty, and if they vote impeachment, it will come over
here; if they don't vote impeachment, it won't come over here. It is
set out clearly in the Constitution. I don't think there will be any
doubt about the procedure to follow. I am much comforted, as I have
studied the Constitution in that regard, that there won't be much
confusion or doubt about how this process ought to be handled.
I thank the Senator from Delaware for his comments. They are
insightful and important. All of us need to begin to think about this.
I don't think we are required to be mute and not say anything about
what is obviously taking place around us, never expressing an opinion
about anything relating to this matter. This is not that kind of
process. I think we ought to be careful
[[Page S11389]]
and respectful and, above all, fair and just as we do this process.
____________________