[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 7, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11645-S11647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DON'T TAMPER WITH THIS JURY
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have recently read several articles in the
press which are cause for concern. One such article appeared in the
Sunday, October 4, edition of the Washington Post, titled ``Bid to
Trump Inquiry Shelved.''
The piece discussed White House efforts to produce a letter signed by
at least 34 Democratic Senators declaring that they would not vote to
convict the President, should the House decide to write articles of
impeachment. According to the report, Minority Leader Tom Daschle has
discouraged such an attempt.
I commend the Democratic leader, Mr. Daschle, for his wise and
judicious counsel on this matter. He has done the White House, he has
done the President, he has done all Senators, and, indeed, the entire
nation a great, great service.
I am concerned about the ugly and very partisan tone that has
enveloped many discussions of this matter, and about the extreme
polarization which has already occurred. The House Judiciary Committee
has voted to begin an impeachment inquiry. I have had nothing to say
about that. I don't intend to have anything to say about that. This is
the House's business. There is a constitutional process in place. That
process has begun. The ball is in the field of the House of
Representatives at this point. We here in the Senate should await the
decision of the House of Representatives as to whether or not articles
of impeachment will, indeed, be formulated.
Senators may at some point have to sit as jurors. Let me say that
again. Senators may at some point have to sit as jurors in this matter
and will be required to take an oath before they do. I read this oath
into the Record a few days ago. I want to read it again, because the
Senate will shortly be going out, not to return at least until after
the elections, and perhaps not until the new Congress convenes in
January.
To repeat this oath at this point, might be well advised. The Bible
says, ``a word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of
silver,'' and so I think it is a good time to repeat this oath, which
will be incumbent upon every Senator, should articles of impeachment
come to this Chamber. Here it is:
I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the
trial of the impeachment now pending, I will do impartial
justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me
God.
Note the word ``impartial.'' We all need to remember the solemn
responsibility we may be required to shoulder.
I would suggest by way of friendly advice to the White House, don't
tamper with this jury. Don't tamper with this jury. I have been in
Congress 46 years. I have been in this Senate 40 years. There are some
people here who take their constitutional responsibilities very
seriously. This will not be politics as usual if articles of
impeachment come to this body.
My friendly words of advice to my colleagues are these: We may have
to
[[Page S11646]]
sit as jurors. Don't let it be said that we allowed ourselves to be
tampered with, no matter who attempts the tampering, no matter how
subtle the attempt. How can we commit ourselves to vote for or against
articles of impeachment without having seen them, without having heard
the managers on the part of the House prosecute the articles, without
having heard the impeached person's lawyers and representatives or even
the impeached person himself make the defense? How can we as Senators,
who will be prospective jurors, commit ourselves at this point, or at
any point, as to how we will vote on such articles? We cannot do it and
live up to the oath that we will be required to take. It is a solemn
matter, it is not politics as usual, and I personally will resent--and
I hope every other Senator will personally resent--any effort on the
part of anybody in these United States to tamper with Senators as
prospective jurors. I will personally resent it on behalf of the Senate
and on behalf of the Constitution. I urge all Senators to be on their
guard.
There has been a great deal of gratuitous advice given by people on
the outside, and some on the inside, who know very little, probably,
about the history of impeachment, about the history of the Senate,
about responsibilities of Senators under the Constitution in such an
event. We don't know what the House may decide to include in articles
of impeachment when and if they ever come to the Senate. There can be
an inquiry by the House, yet never be any articles formulated. That is
up to the House. But if the House decides to formulate articles of
impeachment, we have no choice here in the Senate but to vote up or
down. We can't amend such articles. We have no way of knowing what the
House may consider to be an impeachable offense. An impeachable offense
does not have to be an indictable offense at law.
So I warn Senators, and I warn those at the other end of the avenue,
to exercise the utmost care lest somebody be unjustly prejudiced
because of tongues that wag too easily and too early.
I also condemn the circus atmosphere which has overtaken this city.
There are attack dogs on both sides, on the talk shows and in the
press, and their wild and rabid rhetoric is hardly contributing to an
atmosphere of reason or respect. I believe that everyone must stop
playing for advantage. And by that, I mean Republicans and Democrats
alike; I mean people at both ends of the avenue and in between.
If the Senate votes on impeachment articles, that will be the most
solemn, the most sobering, and the most far-reaching vote that Senators
in this body will ever cast. Voting for a declaration of war does not
compete with voting to convict or not to convict a President. We won't
be voting to convict a Federal judge and to remove that judge from
office. In this case, it would be the ultimate vote on the ultimate
question that could ever face this Senate. So I say to my colleagues:
Be careful.
Mr. President, just to illustrate how close we are to making a total
farce of the situation, I note that Larry Flynt, publisher of a
magazine called Hustler, has offered $1 million to anyone who will come
forward with evidence of a sexual liaison with a Member of Congress or
other high-ranking official. How much lower can we go? Now, that makes
a farce of the Constitution.
Such tactics and countertactics only serve to convince the people of
this Nation that whatever course we eventually take will amount to
nothing more than partisan politics at its very worst. Now, we all play
partisan politics, but this is one thing that won't bear touching with
partisan politics on either side, Republican or Democrat. This is the
Constitution which we have sworn that we will support and defend. One
may say, well, there is no impeachable offense. This is something we
don't know. If Senators commit themselves prematurely and then find, in
reading the articles, that there is one article that is very, very
difficult to vote against, it may be your own seat that you are
imperiling.
I urge all Senators, many of whom are going home to stand for
reelection, to avoid making commitments on this matter and to resist
lobbying attempts, no matter how subtle, and no matter who attempts to
lobby them. We must resist pressure from all sides.
The people are watching. This should not, this cannot, this must not,
become bad, boring, beltway ``politics as usual.'' This is a matter in
which partisan politics should play no role. I say this to my
Republican friends as well. There is far, far too much at stake for the
President, for the Presidency, for the system of separation of powers,
for Members of Congress, and for our country as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the article from the October 4, 1998 Washington Post.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 4, 1998]
Bid to Trump Inquiry Shelved--Clinton Lobbying Behind the Scenes to
Avoid Impeachment
(By John F. Harris)
Hoping to quash the congressional impeachment process in
its nascent stages, President Clinton in recent days
discussed with Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-
S.D.) organizing an effort to have Democratic senators sign a
letter declaring that none of the allegations or evidence in
the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation would merit impeachment,
according to Democratic sources.
Daschle discouraged the idea, which Clinton apparently
first heard from another Democratic senator about a week ago,
and for now it has been shelved.
But the effort illustrates the intensive behind-the-scenes
lobbying Clinton is doing to ensure his future in office. The
skepticism of Daschle and other Democrats in both the House
and Senate also illustrated how even lawmakers who want
Clinton to remain in office are placing clear limits on what
they will do to short-circuit the constitutional process of
reviewing the allegations of impeachable behavior that
independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr presented last month.
The hope, as Democrats familiar with the discussions
described it, was to get at least 34 Democrats--or more than
one-third of the Senate--to declare up front that they would
never vote to convict. Since two-thirds of the Senate must
vote to evict a president, such a letter would make a House
impeachment vote moot, for all practical purposes. Clinton,
sources said, apparently hoped that the letter could defeat
the gathering momentum for a full impeachment inquiry in the
House, which is set to authorize the process later this week.
``This is an idea which was generated on the Hill which is
not getting much traction, because it's premature,'' said a
senior White House official.
Also yesterday, sources said U.S. District Judge Norma
Holloway Johnson had appointed an outside expert known as a
``special master'' to help her determine whether Starr's
office illegally leaked grand jury material to reporters, as
Clinton's lawyers have complained.
Starr's office has denied illegal leaks, but Clinton's lead
private attorney, David R. Kendall, contends that the
independent counsel's office has been the source of grand
jury material whose publication was damaging to Clinton. Late
last month, Johnson decided instead to appoint a special
master, whose identity was not revealed, to conduct the
inquiry and report back to her.
Clinton's advisers have resigned themselves to the virtual
certainty that an impeachment inquiry will be approved by the
House this week, but they hope perceptions that the vote was
a partisan rush to judgment can turn this legal setback into
a political gain.
The House Judiciary Committee will begin its formal
deliberations on authorizing an impeachment inquiry Monday,
and is planning to vote that day or Tuesday. Democratic
sources in the administration and Congress said yesterday
they are confident a measure authorizing an open-ended
impeachment inquiry will pass with only Republican support,
over the objections of Democrats backing a more focused
inquiry that would be completed by Thanksgiving.
A day after the last major release of documents from Starr,
Clinton's legal and political team yesterday had focused its
own vote-counting efforts on the full House floor, in
anticipation of a vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry by
the end of the week.
On the floor, Clinton's hopes for making the case that the
effort against him is a partisan affair are more clouded. A
significant number of Democrats are prepared to vote in favor
of the impeachment inquiry, which many administration and
congressional officials say is all but certain to pass.
Estimates on the precise number of these Democratic defectors
vary widely. One Democratic source who has consulted with
lawmakers said lower-end scenarios would have about 20
Democrats voting with the GOP. A House Democratic leadership
aide said the number may be as high as 50; many of these
lawmakers are planning to vote yes for both the Democratic
inquiry resolution and then, if that fails, the Republican
version.
What was striking this weekend was the passive public
posture of the White House. Although the Clinton
administration usually engages in aggressive public advocacy,
on the eve of a vote that is critical to Clinton's future the
White House was not sending its representatives on the usual
Sunday talk
[[Page S11647]]
show circuit. Lawyers yesterday did nothing to expand the
public defense they offered Friday, when Clinton's team
claimed the 4,610 pages of new material released were further
evidence of what they said was Starr's tendency to suppress
exculpatory evidence.
The strategy of staying quiet, aides said, reflected a
confidence that public perceptions of the case are already
breaking in Clinton's favor, and that Democratic House
members were better positioned to make the case that the
process Republicans are proposing is unfair.
The latest release of documents ``didn't even lead the news
last night. There's no reason to look for opportunities to
elevate this story,'' one White House official said of the
quiet weekend. ``Not that we're uninvolved, but the ball has
now shifted to the congressional realm.''
``Whatever was there hasn't caused a huge stir. Without any
revelations, it hasn't changed the perception of what we have
to do with the Hill and the American public. Our focus is
still on the resolution and the Democratic alternative and
how we can build on it,'' said another Clinton adviser
outside the White House.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank all Senators for their patience. I
thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has sought
recognition earlier.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me associate myself with
the remarks of the most distinguished senior Senator from West
Virginia.
____________________