[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.

                          ____________________