[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 155 (Saturday, December 19, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H11968-H11975]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--IMPEACHING WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the further
consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 611), impeaching William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high crimes and
misdemeanors.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, December 18, 1998, the resolution is debatable for 1 additional
hour equally divided between the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the previous question is
ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rogan).
Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming. The question is
elementary. The President was obliged under his sacred oath faithfully
to execute our Nation's laws. Yet he repeatedly perjured himself and
obstructed justice, not for any noble purpose but to crush a humble
lone woman's right to be afforded access to the courts. Now his
defenders plead for no constitutional accountability for the one
American uniquely able to defend or debase our Constitution and the
rule of law.
When they are old enough to appreciate today's solemnity, I want my
young daughters to know that when the last roll was called, their
father served in a House faithful to the guiding principle that no
person is above the law. And he served with colleagues who counted it a
privilege to risk political fortune in defense of the Constitution.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose these articles of
impeachment and this very flawed and undemocratic process. This process
and this action are the real crimes against the American people and our
democracy. This march to impeachment is an attempt to undo and
overthrow a duly elected President and ignores the will of the people.
Denying a vote on censure creates the appearance of a one-party
autocracy which we condemn abroad and which history has proven can lead
to authoritarian rule. This Republican Party coup underscores that
their only goal is to turn back the clock on an agenda that puts people
first; an agenda that will want to cancel policies that value and
support basic human rights, such as a woman's right to choose, a good
public education instead of vouchers; that insists on a living wage for
working men and women; that protects our environment; that supports the
Patient's Bill of Rights and that preserves Social Security.
The Republican process is cynical and it is dangerous. It will be
recorded that they stood on the wrong side of history. We must restore
the public trust and establish a Congress which communicates respect
for the people of the United States, the Constitution and democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose these articles of impeachment.
I join my Democratic colleagues in speaking out against this flawed,
undemocratic process.
This process and this action are the real crimes against the American
people and our democracy.
This Republican Congress is marching this country into an impeachment
of President Clinton in an attempt to undo and overthrow a duly elected
President. This ignores the will of the people.
We condemn single party rule abroad. But this Republican Congress
refuses to allow the minority party to vote on censure. But squelching
the minority's requests for debate, for fairness, and for reasonable
alternatives, this Republican Congress demonstrates its contempt for
the Presidency, for the democratic process, and for the will of the
people of this nation.
It abridges the Constitution by restricting and closing off
legislative options, and creates the appearances of a one-party
autocracy, which history has proven can lead to authoritarian rule.
This Republican party coup underscore that their only goal is to turn
back an agenda that puts people first. To cancel a program that values
basis human rights. That values a woman's right to choose, and that
supports good public education instead of vouchers. Their goal is to
cancel an agenda that insists that working women and men have a right
to a living wage. An agenda that protects our environment. An agenda
that fights for a Patient's Bill of Rights and preserves Social
Security.
Today's vote is one of the most important votes in American history.
The Republican's process is cynical and dangerous. It will be recorded
that the Republicans have stood on the wrong side of history. As
Americans who value an open and just society, we must reject this
madness and say yes to openness. Say yes to fairness.
We must restore public trust and establish a Congress which
communicates respect for the people of the United States, the
Constitution, and democracy. A vote on a censure motion will allow the
opinion and the voice of millions of Americans to be heard.
[[Page H11969]]
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham).
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, this long and difficult process for all of
us in the House is almost to a conclusion. Twenty-five years ago a
Democratic-controlled Judiciary Committee with a minority of
Republicans reported articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon.
Why? Nixon cheated. He cheated the electoral system by concealing
efforts of a political break-in. And his people thought the other side
deserved to be cheated. They thought his enemies deserved to be
mistreated. Ladies and gentlemen, they were wrong.
Today Republicans, with a small handful of Democrats, will vote to
impeach President Clinton. Why? Because we believe he committed crimes
resulting in cheating our legal system. We believe he lied under oath
numerous times, that he tampered with evidence, that he conspired to
present false testimony to a court of law. We believe he assaulted our
legal system in every way. Let it be said that any President who cheats
our institutions shall be impeached.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues I spent a great deal
of time carefully reviewing the Judiciary Committee testimony and
evidence. Let me make it absolutely clear I do not in any way condone
the President's behavior. But the framers made clear that the
constitutional act of impeachment is not meant to punish a President
for deplorable behavior, but to protect our Nation from acts which
jeopardize our democratic system. What the President did was wrong,
both personally and morally. But his acts did not threaten our
democracy and thus do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses as
defined by our Founding Fathers in our Constitution.
{time} 0930
I do believe that the President should be held accountable for his
actions, and support an alternative to impeachment that will both
condemn his actions and fine him. The Committee on the Judiciary
considered a censure resolution which we in the full House are being
denied the opportunity to debate and vote on today.
Our Founding Fathers designed impeachment specifically to protect the
Nation from grave harm from a Chief Executive who clearly endangers our
constitutional democracy. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the President's
actions meet this test. The penalty for his misconduct should not be
exacted through impeachment, but through indictment in our criminal
court system and a stern censure by this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues, I have spent a great deal of
time carefully reviewing the Judiciary Committee testimony and
evidence. Let me make absolutely clear that I do not in any way condone
the President's behavior. But the Framers made clear that the
constitutional act of impeachment is not meant to punish a president
for deplorable behavior but to protect our nation from acts which
jeopardize our decmoratic system. What the President did was wrong,
both personally and morally, but his acts did not threaten our
democracy and thus do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses as
defined by our founding fathers in the Constitution.
As Mr. Burce Ackerman, a constitutional law and impeachment expert at
Yale University, testified before the Judiciary Committee, ``Once we
lower the impeachment standard to include conduct that does not amount
to a clear and present danger to our constitutional order, we will do
grevious damage to the independence of the Presidency. [T]here can be
little doubt that the present case falls short of the standard set by
the Framers when they insisted on `high crimes and misdemeanors against
the state.' ''
I do believe that the President should be held accountable for his
actions, and support an alternative to impeachment that would both
condemn his actions and fine him. The Judiciary Committee considered a
censure resolution which we in the full House are being denied the
opportunity to debate and vote on today.
Many of my constituents have called and been resolute in their belief
that the President should be held accountable for his actions, and I
could not agree more. President Clinton is not above the law and is
still subject to indictment, trial, and sentencing in the same manner
as all other citizens who do wrong. He will be fully subject to
criminal prosecution for his wrongful acts when he leaves office.
Our founding fathers designed impeachment specifically to protect the
nation from grave harm from a Chief Executive who clearly endangers our
constitutional democracy. I do not believe the President's actions meet
this test. The penalty for his misconduct should not be exacted through
impeachment, but through indictment in our criminal court system and a
stern censure by the Congress.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. Accountability
comes not from opinions; really in a way it does not even come from
votes. It comes from those three great pillars of our society that are
the basis for the rule of law. It is our laws, the Criminal Code of the
United States of America, which based on exhaustive evidence this
President has violated pursuant to a pattern of activity. It is based
on the evidence, the evidence accumulated, considered at great length
and voted on, and available to every Member of the House by the
Independent Counsel, and as summarized in the report of our very able
staff on the Committee on the Judiciary; and finally, the smallest yet
most profound document that we have before us in all of our
deliberations, the Constitution of the United States.
Today our votes and our consciences must be based on these three
great pillars of the rule of law: the law itself, the evidence and the
Constitution.
God bless the United States of America.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, as our Commander in Chief
battles the problems in Iraq he is also battling for his presidency in
the people's House. This could have waited. Wrong day, wrong way.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the articles of impeachment before this
House this morning. I urge Members to step outside the passion of their
convictions and think about our obligations to the Constitution, to our
constituents and the American people before we cast this vote.
Mr. Speaker, I had hoped this moment could have never come and the
members of the Committee on the Judiciary, after carefully examining
the evidence, history and their conscience, could recognize that these
charges do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. However,
with this vote we have the opportunity by censure to live up to the
Framers' vision and honorably close a sad chapter in our Republic's
history, or we can open a new one that is perilous.
I will say to my colleagues that the American people and history will
judge us. Yes, we have the votes to impeach, but can our conscience
withstand the scrutiny that history will bring to bear on our vote?
What a sad day in the history of America.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston).
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise with the fondest hopes that the
bitterness engendered in this debate will at its conclusion be put
aside, and that all Members will return to their families for the
holidays mindful of what has been done here by we as agents of
principle. We have fulfilled our duty to our magnificent Constitution.
Yes, our young men and women in the uniformed Armed Services have in
these last few days set about the task of ridding the earth of the
threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of an enemy of
civilization, Saddam Hussein, and they have performed their tasks with
valor and fortitude, that we may freely engage in this most unpleasant
aspect of self government as was envisioned by our forefathers.
I very much regret the enmity and hostility that has been bred in the
Halls of Congress for the last months and years. I want so very much to
pacify and cool our raging tempers and return to an era when
differences were confined to the debate and not of personal attack or
assassination of character.
I am proud to serve in this institution, and I respect every Member
of this body. Each of us stands here because a majority of roughly
600,000 people had the confidence to vest us with
[[Page H11970]]
this authority to act as their agents in a representative democracy.
When given the chance, we often find that aside from political and
partisan differences we have much in common with one another. But we
never discover what that common ground may be with the gulf between the
sides of this narrow aisle.
The debate has done nothing to bring us together, and I greatly
regret that it has become quite literally the opening gambit of the
intended Livingston speakership. I most certainly would have written a
different scenario, had I had the chance.
But we are all pawns on the chessboard, and we are playing our parts
in a drama that is neither fiction nor unimportant. Indeed, it is of
utmost significance in the course of American history, and my desire to
create an environment for healing must take lesser precedence than must
the search for responsibility, duty and justice within the format
provided by the U.S. Constitution.
I believe we are in active pursuit of these goals, and I give great
credit to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and Mr. Tom Mooney and all the members and
staff, majority and minority, of the Committee on the Judiciary for
their deliberate and conscientious effort on this most difficult task.
We are nearing completion, and however the vote turns out, no one may
say that we did not own up to our constitutional responsibility as
Members of Congress in a careful, respectful and insightful debate.
Much credit is due our presiding officer, the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. LaHood), who has done an outstanding job.
Mr. Speaker, we differ on process. The minority believes that we
acted too hastily in view of the troops in the field, and that we
omitted an alternative from the options available for consideration. We
in the majority believe we have properly begun the debate after setting
aside a whole day to honor and praise our troops and the effort that
they are extending on our behalf. General Schwarzkopf, the commander of
the troops in Iraq several years ago, agreed with us on the Brian
Williams Show on MSNBC just two nights ago. We believe, we believe that
the Constitution envisioned that censure not be a part of the debate on
whether or not to impeach the President, and we are supported there by
comments by then majority leader Tip O'Neill during the Nixon
impeachment proceedings.
So there are differences in process; what about substance? The
minority has maintained that the President has not perjured himself and
that even if he did, such perjury was not intended within the term
``high crimes and misdemeanors'' delineated in Article 2, Section 4 of
our Constitution.
Surely no President has been impeached for perjury, but at least
three Federal judges have been impeached and convicted under the
perjury statutes, and so perjury, a felony punishable by up to 5 years
in the penitentiary, is a crime for which the President may be held
accountable, no matter the circumstances.
Perjury is a felony, as I have said, and fully 116 people are serving
time in Federal prison as we speak for perjury today, and, yes, there
have been several instances of people going to prison following
convictions for perjury involving lies under oath under sexual
circumstances.
The average citizen knows that he or she must not lie under oath. Ms.
Christine Simms of Rockville, Maryland, wrote to the Committee on the
Judiciary just 2 weeks ago and said, and I quote:
I too was called upon to give answers under oath in
interrogatories during a civil proceeding. Truthful answers
to those questions would be embarrassing to me, and what I
knew exposed me to criticism and had a potential to ruin my
life, particularly as it related to my children whom I love
very much. In short, I was scared to tell the truth. However,
I did just that. I could not lie when I was sworn to tell the
truth, no matter what the risks nor the degree of temptation
to take the easy way out. Parts of my life have been
difficult since that time because elements of that testimony
have been used to scorn me. But I as a common citizen was
compelled by my conscience to tell the truth.
Yes, our Nation is founded on law, not on the whim of man. We are not
ruled by kings or emperors, and there is no divine right of Presidents.
A President is an ordinary citizen, vested with the power to govern and
sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States. Inherent in that oath is the responsibility to live within its
laws with no higher or lower expectations than the average citizen,
just like Ms. Simms.
When the President appeared at the deposition of Ms. Jones and
secondly before the Federal grand jury, he was sworn to a second oath,
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help
you God. This, according to witnesses to the Committee on the Judiciary
and before the Special Counsel, he did not do. For this I will vote to
impeach the President of the United States and ask that his case be
considered by the United States Senate, that other body of this great
Congress, uphold their responsibility to render justice on these most
serious charges.
But to the President I would say:
Sir, you have done great damage to this Nation over this past year,
and while your defenders are contending that further impeachment
proceedings would only protract and exacerbate the damage to this
country, I say that you have the power to terminate that damage and
heal the wounds that you have created. You, sir, may resign your post.
And I can only challenge you in such fashion if I am willing to heed
my own words.
To my colleagues, my friends and most especially my wife and family:
I have hurt you all deeply, and I beg your forgiveness.
I was prepared to lead our narrow majority as Speaker, and I believe
I had it in me to do a fine job. But I cannot do that job or be the
kind of leader that I would like to be under current circumstances, so
I must set the example that I hope President Clinton will follow.
Mr. Speaker, I will not stand for Speaker of the House on January 6,
but rather I shall remain as a back bencher in this Congress that I so
dearly love for approximately 6 months into the 106th Congress,
whereupon I shall vacate my seat and ask my Governor to call a special
election to take my place.
I thank my constituents for the opportunity to serve them; I hope
they will not think badly of me for leaving. I thank Allen Martin, my
chief of staff, and all of my staff for their tireless work on my
behalf, and I thank my wife most especially for standing by me. I love
her very much.
God bless America.
{time} 0945
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, continuing the business under the
incredible turn of events that has occurred, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jose Serrano).
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks).
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, it is a tough time to follow, but I must
stay the course and be true to myself. The Republican right wing in
this country does not like it when we say coup d'etat, so I will make
it easier for them, golpe de estado. That is Spanish for overthrowing
the government.
From day one they wanted to get rid of Bill Clinton. From day one
they stood on him and tried to make him out to be the number one
villain in this country. They have been blinded by hate then and they
are blinded by hate today. This place is full of hate because of what
they tried to do to our president.
My constituents do not hate Bill Clinton, they love him, and they are
praying for him right at this very moment. That side may have the votes
today to impeach them, but they do not have the American people.
Let me tell the Members something, I grew up in the public housing
projects of the South Bronx. I can tell a bunch of bullies when I see
them. The bullies get theirs, and these Members are getting get theirs,
too. The people are going to rise up from California to New York. They
are going to rise up from Texas to Florida, everywhere in this country,
and they are going to tell us, do not do this to him. By the way, do
not ask him to quit. He will never quit.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would ask all
[[Page H11971]]
Members to respect the time constraints under which we are operating.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I really do not know how to begin,
following Bob Livingston's astounding announcement, except to say that
our prayers are with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Bob Livingston).
His decision must be respected, but we are all profoundly distressed.
His action only underscores what I was prepared to say before the
gentleman from Louisiana made his announcement. I was prepared to say,
and now more than ever insist, that ``These are the times that try
men's souls.'' Indeed it was on this date, December 17, 1776, that
Thomas Paine published that essay. We all share in the emotional
trauma, getting back to our subject, of this constitutional crisis in
which we are all ensnared.
But this cup cannot pass us by. We cannot avoid it. We took an oath
of office, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the Constitution under our democratic
system of government, separation of powers, and checks and balances. We
must fulfill that oath and send the articles of impeachment to the
Senate for a trial.
I want to say personally, and all who know me, and many do, I have
served in this House a long time, I bear no personal animosity towards
the President. But we in the House did not seek this constitutional
confrontation. It was thrust upon us by a series of legal maneuvers and
denials.
Let me stress, going back to the President again, that the articles
of impeachment are not about sex or the privacy of the President and
his family. Those personal matters, which even his supporters deplore,
are between him, his God, and his family.
These charges are about perjury before a grand jury and obstruction
of justice. It is about whether the President is above the laws that
apply to all Americans.
We must vote to send this evidence reported by the Judiciary
Committee to the Senate for trial.
So the Congress and the American people can determine, in the words
of Abraham Lincoln, whether--``This Nation or any other nation so
conceived and so dedicated can long endure''.
This is our solemn obligation. History will judge us. We owe it to
our children and grandchildren.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair asks that all Members respect the
rights of others while they are speaking, and we will try and stay
within the time constraints. We have a limited amount of time here.
Request For Call of the House
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to have a call of the
House at this point? I call for a quorum call.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Chair's discretionary authority,
the Chair would prefer not to do that. The Chair appreciates the
suggestion of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), but the Chair
would prefer to proceed.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to pause here for a
moment. There is a songwriter who wrote a song that says, give me a
higher love.
Mr. Speaker, the Framers of the Constitution did not entrust this
House with the power to impeach the President of the United States in
order to establish this body as a court of personal morality.
Impeachment was supposed to be a constitutional shield, not a moral or
political sword.
For all of these reasons, we should step back from this edge of this
dangerous cliff. Serious crimes have been committed that this Congress
needs to address. Every morning children across the Nation go to school
and sit in overcrowded classrooms and deteriorating and crumbling
facilities, and Congress turns a blind eye. That is a serious crime.
Every afternoon people find themselves lacking access to affordable
health care, trying to figure out how to afford the prescription drugs
they need. People are suffering, and even dying, even as we debate
today. That is a serious crime.
Every evening people sit at their dinner tables wondering how they
will afford a college education for their children, whether they need
or even if they will be able to get a second job. That is a serious
offense.
We should be leaving personal and moral sanctions to the courts, the
branch of government where they properly belong. We should be doing the
job we were elected to do. The wisdom of history, not the passions of
this moment, must guide our actions.
As David cried out to the Lord in the Book of Psalms--``For I know my
transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only,
have I sinned, and done that which is evil in thy sight, so that thou
art justified in thy sentence and blameless in thy judgement.''
The President has asked for the forgiveness of his family, his God
and the American people. Let us not continue to persecute a person who
has sought to make his peace.
I pray to God that wisdom will prevail.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
(Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, the example that the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Bob Livingston) has set for us has completely changed
what I was going to say. Let me offer these words instead. He has shown
us the importance of trust. If we cannot trust our leaders, they cannot
govern. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Bob Livingston) has led by
example.
Our Constitution was amended in 1967 to allow removal for
incapacitation. Prior to that, the only way to remove a person who was
physically incapacitated was impeachment. Today we deal with
incapacitation of a different kind; a person who, by his conduct under
oath in a Federal criminal grand jury, demonstrated that he would not
tell the truth if it was in his interest not to tell the truth. He has
incapacitated himself from being president.
The voters of our country elected Al Gore to be president if Bill
Clinton were incapacitated. That day has arrived.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, while the world is rocked by war and the
spectacle of removing a president, our drama here is not about
impeachment, it is what we have done to ourselves. We have managed to
squeeze the life out of what is the most important vote we will ever
cast, the overturning of a presidential election. Gone is any pretext
of fairness or nonpartisanship, rendering us unable to do what a
majority of the public and what a majority of this House wants to do,
issue a harsh statement of condemnation and censure.
In the final death throes of this Congress we have debased our
powers, we have frayed our fragile bases for bipartisan cooperation,
making the impeachment process just one more pathogen in the medical
chest of toxic politics. We will long be judged by our failure to deal
fairly, quickly, and decisively with the President's shameful behavior.
It is with great sadness that I vote to oppose this flawed, tragic
symbol of the continued unraveling of our political process.
Mr. Speaker, the experts tell us there are five stages of grief from
denial to bargaining then anger, followed by depression, and
ultimately, acceptance.
Most of us as Americans have been experiencing this sequence of
emotions as we react to this tangled national soap opera. For some time
now, I like many Americans, have been trapped somewhere between the
stages of anger and depression. We have been in a large echo chamber
dominated by many angry and frustrated voices, but are now at the
central issue: ``What does Congress do?'' A vote to impeach the
President is simply not warranted by the facts. It is, rather, a
dangerous precedent that is completely inconsistent with our
requirements and responsibilities under the Constitution.
The President can and will be punished for his conduct. In part, that
has already happened. No one in history has been the object of such
world-wide scorn, anger and ridicule as Bill Clinton. The details are
all known to anyone who cares to know about them as well as many who
really don't have the slightest interest. Nor is the President, by any
stretch of the imagination, through being punished. The public
humiliation continues in Congress, in the press and on the late night
comedy shows. As he leaves office he can be subject
[[Page H11972]]
to perjury and further lawsuit just like any other citizen. The
President has expended millions of dollars in legal fees with no end in
sight. Of course, there has been a permanent loss in his reputation.
Congress can and should censure his conduct and express the deep
disappointment of the American people in his behavior.
The reality is that it is not our role in Congress to deal with
America's anger and sense of betrayal by adopting a very dangerous
standard for impeachment.
My research and consultation with constitutional experts convinces me
that impeachment for ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' would not include
an act that did relate to the official duties of the Office of the
President. For example, one of the articles of impeachment that was
drafted but not presented to the House Judiciary Committee in the
Watergate Inquiry was Richard Nixon's alleged tax evasion. In that case
Nixon would have been subjected to prosecution like any other citizen,
after he left office.
This is a difficult concept at best. It grates on us. We in Congress
would like to right the wrongs of the world, especially if they are
somebody else's wrongs.
Yet there are some things that the Constitution does not permit us to
do. It is with good reason that this threshold of what constitutes an
impeachable offense should remain higher rather than lower. A lower
standard of what constitutes an impeachable offense would severely
weaken future Presidents of either party, allowing them to be
manipulated for political purposes. I must agree with the
constitutional experts that under the lower standard credible inquires
into impeachment could have been launched against President Roosevelt
about Lend Lease operations with Britain, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon
about Vietnam, and Reagan and Bush about the Iran Contra scandal.
I fear the use of impeachment not just for the paralytic effect it
would have on the Executive Branch. It would have a corrosive effect on
Congress, with the possibility of being constantly in a state of
attack, because there will always be determined minorities who will be
able to pursue these actions due to this dramatically reduced standard.
Congress should guard the process of impeachment for the future of
the Presidency, the integrity of Congress and the possibility of
getting on with the business of running the Government. I cast my vote
against impeachment with the hope to be able to express the will of my
constituents that the President's conduct be severely censured.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, there are very few values
and legal obligations that are fundamental, the foundation on which all
else rests. But personal responsibility, a responsibility that each of
us bears to tell the truth under oath, is such a fundamental
responsibility.
If we treat perjury lightly, the only path to truth can be blocked by
the instinct to lie, to cover up shame, or the determination to do harm
to others. In either case, regardless of the motivation to lie, the
result is the same. The path to truth is blocked.
Mr. Speaker, there can be no justice without the truth. That is just
profoundly so, and that is why perjury matters. Had the President been
able to face up to the truth a year ago, we would not be here. If he
had faced up to the truth a month ago, he could have taken
responsibility for the impact of that on our Nation and individuals.
Our Nation can survive a transition better than it can survive the
erosion of our fundamental values.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sentiment that I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Chris Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, after Judge Starr's report to Congress in
September and his presentation to the Judiciary Committee in November,
I concluded that impeachable offenses were not proven and that the
proven offenses were not impeachable.
{time} 1000
But the President's continued failure to come to grips with his
actions; the sincerity and arguments of members of the Judiciary
Committee from both sides of the aisle; the change of heart and
conviction by Members on my side of the aisle who originally opposed
impeachment and who now support it; and the strong and powerful opinion
of so many of my constituents who oppose my position and wanted the
President impeached, caused me to rethink my position.
Like you, I listened to my constituents: those who supported
impeachment and those who opposed it. I revisited the evidence,
reexamined the documents, and even looked at documents I had not seen
earlier. I spoke to people who were truly experts on these issues--
people who I have immense respect for.
Yesterday morning, before I visited with the President, I concluded
that my original position was the correct one--for me. I believe that
the impeachable offenses have not been proven and that the proven
offenses are not impeachable. But they are close. And that's why I
understand why Members who happen to be primarily Democrats concluded
that the President should not be impeached and Members on my side of
the aisle--Republicans believe he should be impeached.
With no exception, I truly believe that every Member of Congress is
voting his or her conscience. In a few minutes, the President of the
United States, William Jefferson Clinton, will be impeached. But he
will not be impeached with my vote. I cast my vote with no criticism of
those who think differently and who will vote differently. We've all
tried to do our best. And we will all have to live with our vote the
rest of our lives.
My prayers are for this country and its people, our President and his
family, and for the House of Representatives and its Members, all of
whom I dearly love. I pray the President of the United States will be
able to do the right thing in the days and weeks and months to come.
And I pray Republicans and Democrats in Congress will find common
ground and do the work of the people of this great and prosperous land
during the next two years.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, there are those who would have the American
people believe that my colleagues and I have been threatened by our
party to fall into line. We have seen this morning this is not about
falling into line. It is about honor.
I have only been here 5 months. The New Mexico that I love is more
Democrat than Republican. And not once, not once has any leader of this
House even so much as asked me how I will vote.
No, Mr. Speaker, the line that I will fall into today is the line of
legislators who are doing in our hearts what we believe to be right,
even if it would be easier to do otherwise.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
(Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my friends, and many are
indeed my friends in the majority, would recognize that in their
attempt to get Bill Clinton, they have at least lost one Speaker and
one Speaker to-be. They could be almost accused of being the gang that
could not shoot straight.
This effort, this effort to get Bill Clinton, first it was
Whitewater, then it was campaign finance, FBI files, Travelgate. We
come to the floor today and they are going to vote to impeach this
President for having an affair and not telling the truth about it?
This is something that is, I think for the majority of people in this
country, a nonsensical issue. On one hand we have 16 million new jobs,
a balanced budget, better education, we have a President committed to
protecting the environment and preserving Social Security. On the other
hand we have a party determined to do nothing other than to attack and
investigate and now to finally impeach Bill Clinton. We deserve better.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, after careful review of the evidence, I
will vote today to impeach President William Jefferson Clinton. I
believe the evidence is overwhelming that the President committed
perjury before a Federal grand jury and in other settings, that he
obstructed the administration of justice, and that he abused his office
by lying under oath to Congress.
[[Page H11973]]
``The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me
God.'' Like the Pledge of Allegiance, those words are ingrained in
every American from an early age. They are the foundation of our legal
system which is the foundation of a civil society.
If America's chief law enforcement officer sought to compromise the
integrity of that legal system, it is a matter of the highest
consequence and requires us to invoke our most serious of
constitutional prerogatives, impeachment, and refer this matter to the
other body for trial. No individual, not even the President, is above
the law.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
(Ms. STABENOW asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, as an American who cares deeply about our
Constitution, I rise in opposition to this impeachment process.
This is a difficult time for our Nation. The impeachment of a
president has happened only once before in history. I cast my vote
against impeachment solemnly, after serious study and many hours of
soul searching. It has been especially difficult to watch this issue
come before the House of Representatives while our American troops are
at war against Saddam Hussein.
Impeachment is the most constitutional power given to Congress. It is
the first step in overturning a democratically held election and
removing the President. When Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and
the other framers of our Constitution adopted the impeachment
mechanism, they spoke of it as an alternative to assassination or a
military coup, to be used only for treason, bribery of other high
crimes against the government. I believe that the President's actions,
while immoral and irresponsible, were not treasonous, and do not meet
the high test of impeachment as intended by our Founders.
Make no mistake. The President's behavior is indefensible. He did not
tell the truth about his actions, and he should be held accountable for
his behavior. I strongly believe that the best way to do this--in fact
the only constitutional alternative--is through censure and a stiff
fine. Once President Clinton has completed his term in office, he
should be charged with perjury before a court of law, just as any other
private citizen would be.
I am disappointed that the Republican leadership refused to allow a
vote on censure. Although opponents are correct that censure is not
specifically mentioned in the Constitution, there is nothing that
prohibits this action. There are at least four instances of
Congressional censure involving Presidents--Presidents Jackson (1834),
Tyler (1842, Polk (1848) and Buchanan (1860). Subsequent sessions of
Congress have continued to consider censure resolutions. Former
President Gerald Ford, former Senator Bob Dole and other Republicans
have called on Congressional leaders to permit a censure vote. Do they
not understand the Constitution? It is tragically unfair that the
opportunity for at least half of our Members to vote our conscience
will not be allowed.
We have many important issues that we need to consider in the coming
months, and I intend to keep my focus on the important matters that
affect our families. I pray that we can come together in the new year
and begin the healing process for our nation. This is a sad day for our
country and our Constitution.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam
(Mr. Underwood).
(Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a serious debate,
a serious matter for all Americans, even for those Americans that I
represent who cannot vote for President. But he is our President as
much as any American community, and I and my constituents stand against
the impeachment of the President.
With weighty and eloquent words, we have been told that this is a
matter of conscience, that Members of this body should vote their
conscience based upon their understanding of the Constitution, the
charges, and evidence presented against the President.
But this view of conscience is a limited one. One can only vote their
conscience if they have the conscience of the Republican Majority
leadership, if they accept only the majority's view of the
Constitution, and only if they accept the majority's view of the
charges and options available.
Yes, this is a vote for one's conscience, but only if one's
conscience is exactly that of the Republican Majority. The debate today
will not allow for that one option, that of censure, which meets the
conscience of most Americans and probably a majority of Members of this
House. The conscience option of censure is absent and its failure to be
included is fundamentally unfair and a blemish on this Nation's
democratic tradition.
Mr. Speaker, We are obviously in the midst of one of this nation's
most serious debate; a serious matter for all Americans, even those
that I represent, Americans who can not vote for President because they
live in a territory of this country. Nevertheless, President Clinton is
our President as much as he is the President of any other American
community.
President Clinton is a great President. He has been a good President
for schools, for the environment, for the economy, for health care and
for the well-being of the ordinary citizen of this great and diverse
nation. As the leader of the free world, he pushes for peace and
reconciliation throughout the world while demonstrating that force can
and will be used as a last resort as he is doing today. It is tragic
that we bring this matter before the people's House at a time when our
men and women in uniform are engaged in military action on distant
shores. Some may question the timing, but it is the mark of Bill
Clinton's presidency that he does what is right at the right time.
I say all of this because no matter what we may hear, President
Clinton's record as a leader is important factor in this debate. The
energy to remove him is motivated by discontent and disdain for Bill
Clinton just because he occupies this office. And for me, his record of
achievement must be considered against any proof of harm to the
Constitution, to our system of government and to our country if we are
to remove him. And based on my review of the facts, I conclude that his
offenses, as wrong as they are, are not a threat to our system of
government and simply do not rise to the standard of impeachment
outlined in the Constitution.
With weighty and eloquent words, we have been told that this is a
matter of conscience; that members of this body should vote their
conscience based upon their understanding of the Constitution and the
charges presented against the President. But this view of conscience is
a limited one. One can only vote their conscience if they have the
conscience of the Republican majority leadership; if they accept only
the majority's view of the Constitution and only if they accept the
majority's view of the charges and possible options available to deal
with the matter.
Members are being asked to vote yea or nay on the articles of
impeachment. To vote your conscience is to vote yea or nay on their
view of what is Constitutionally permissible, to vote yea or nay on
their view of the punishment. Despite the reality that members of this
body, members with as good a conscience as any one here, may be willing
to vote for censure, this option is not within the conscience of to the
majority. Despite the fact that the majority of the American public,
that it is to say the conscience of a majority of Americans, wants
censure included and, in fact, passed as the ultimate remedy of this
procedure, censure is not an option.
Yes, this is a vote of one's conscience, but only if your conscience
is exactly that of the Republican majority. The debate today will not
allow for the one option, that of censure, which meets the conscience
of most Americans. Today's debate does not include all options and if
fundamentally unfair and a blemish on this nation's democratic
tradition.
Yesterday's session began with a prayer of St. Francis of Assisis;
let us truly bring light to darkness and allow all options to
illuminate these proceedings and allow every member a vote which
reflects their conscience.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, there is no joy sometimes in
upholding the law. It is so unpleasant sometimes that we hire other
people to do it for us. Ask the police or judges. It is tiring and
thankless. But we know it must be done, because if we do not point at
lawlessness, our children cannot see it. If we do not label
lawlessness, our children cannot recognize it. And if we do not punish
lawlessness, our children will not believe it.
So if someone were to ask me, ``J.C., why did you vote for the
articles of impeachment?'' I would say I did it for our children. How
can we tell our children that honesty is the best policy if we do not
demand honesty as a policy? How can we expect a Boy Scout to honor his
oath if elected officials do not honor theirs? How can we expect a
business executive to honor a promise when the chief executive abandons
his or hers?
Whether it is a promise or a truth or a vow or an oath, a person's
word is the
[[Page H11974]]
firm footing our society stands upon, and the average kid understands
that. They do not need a grand jury to enforce it. They say ``cross
your heart, hope to die''; ``pinkie promise''; ``king's X''; ``blood
brother.'' These are the childhood instincts that seek to draw a line
between the honest and the dishonest, between the principled and the
unprincipled.
Ask the children. The kid who lies does not last and they do not
bicker over what is and what is not a lie. They know. So do I. So do
the American people.
Time and again, we wanted the essence of truth and we got the edges
of the truth. We hear, ``Let's get on with the business of our
country.'' What business is more important than teaching our children
right from wrong? Some say it is all about politics and party lines. If
that were true, I would have given in to popular opinion. But what is
popular is not always what is right.
Some say polls are against this. Polls measure changing feelings, not
steadfast principle. Polls would have rejected the Ten Commandments.
Polls would have embraced slavery and ridiculed women's rights.
Some say we must draw this to a close. I say we must draw a line
between right and wrong; not with a tiny fine line of an executive
fountain pen, but with the big, thick lead of a Number 2 pencil. We
must do it so every kid in America can see it.
The point is not whether the President can prevail, but whether truth
can prevail. We need to cease the cannibalizing of Members of Congress.
We need to cease the attacks on the President and his family because,
friends, this is not about the President of the United States. He is
not the injured party. Our country is.
In this moment, our children's future is more important than our
future. If our country looks the other way, our country will lose its
way.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the record of the House on something as important as
impeachment should be as clear and accurate as it can be, and after
yesterday's considerable misstatements by Members of the majority, I
rise to set the record straight.
Mr. Speaker, they say these articles show high crimes. The record of
historians who wrote the committee say they are low crimes and do not
justify the drastic remedy of impeachment.
As to Article I, impeachment is not justified. They say the President
committed perjury in the grand jury, but the actual record is that he
did not deny an inappropriate relationship with Miss Lewinsky during
his grand jury appearance. They are complaining only because of a lack
of specificity, if my colleagues can believe that, in the President's
testimony about who touched who and where and when it happened.
They claim that there is a clear and convincing evidence of grand
jury perjury, but ignored is the panel of experienced prosecutors who
testified that no reasonable prosecutor in the land would have brought
a perjury case arising out of these facts.
As to Article II, the impeachment is not justified. They say the
President's testimony deprived the plaintiff, Paula Jones, of her day
in court. Not so. The record shows that a Federal judge ruled three
times that Monica Lewinsky's allegations were not relevant to the core
issues of the Jones case and refused to permit the Jones lawyers to
pursue the allegations.
{time} 1015
They say the President lied when testifying about his understanding
of the definition of sexual relations. The record shows that three
lawyers and a judge spent a half an hour debating the meaning of that
contorted phrase, with the judge concluding, ``I am not sure Mr.
Clinton understands all these definitions anyway.''
They say the President perjured himself when he testified to the
truthfulness of the Lewinsky affidavit. The record shows that Ms.
Lewinsky stated that her denial of sex was not untruthful because she
defined sex as intercourse.
As to the third article of impeachment, it is not justified either.
They say the President obstructed justice by, one, asking Ms. Lewinsky
to lie in the Jones case; two, engineering the return of gifts he had
given her; three, trying to buy her silence with a job; and, four,
directing Ms. Currie's testimony.
The record is that Ms. Lewinsky stated over and over again that the
President never asked her to lie. She said this in the grand jury and
in her written statement. The record shows that Ms. Lewinsky and not
the President or Ms. Currie initiated the return of the gifts. The
record shows that the President gave her more gifts after she had been
subpoenaed. The record is that the job search began months before Ms.
Lewinsky showed up on the witness list in the Jones matter. The record
shows that the President made no extraordinary effort to get her a job.
The record shows that Ms. Currie was never a witness on any list. Ms.
Currie testified no fewer than 9 times and stated repeatedly that she
did not feel pressured by the President's remarks.
Finally, to article 4, the President, they say, abused his power by
failing to answer the 81 questions. But the record shows the President
answered the 81 questions completely, but that the alleged abuse of
power lies in the fact that the majority disagrees with the answers.
The majority has simply tried to dress up its perjury allegations in
the clothes of the Watergate's abuse of power language, and I know
something about that, in an effort to make its case against the
President seem more serious.
They say the President has to be impeached to uphold the rule of law,
but we say the President cannot be impeached without denigrating the
rule of law and devaluating the standard of impeachable offenses.
Mr. Speaker, during the course of our proceedings, President
Clinton's attorneys rebutted each and every charge of impeachment
leveled against him. If there is any doubt as to that the Members
should review the following materials (which are hereby incorporated by
reference):
1. Preliminary Memorandum of the President of the United States
Concerning Referral of the Office of the Independent Counsel and
Initial Response of the President of the United States to Referral of
the Office of the Independent Counsel, Communication from the Committee
on the Judiciary, 105th Congress, 2d Session, House Document 105-317
(57 printed pages).
2. Submission by Counsel for President Clinton to the Committee on
the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives,
Impeachment Inquiry Pursuant to H. Res. 581, Committee on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives, 105th Congress, 2d Session,
Committee Print Serial No. 16 (404 printed pages).
Memorandum Regarding Standards for Impeachment dated October 2, 1998,
transmitted with cover letter addressed to Chairman Hyde and Rep.
Conyers dated 10/2/98 signed by Charles F. C. Ruff, Counsel to the
President, and David E. Kendall of Williams & Connolly (31 typed pages,
published House Judiciary Democratic Web Page).
4. The testimony of the witnesses called by the White House including
in particular the fourth panel called by the White House on December
9th dealing with prosecutorial standards (Thomas P. Sullivan, Richard
Davis, Edward Dennis, Jr., and William F. Weld). (Printing
forthcoming).
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can make this speech, but
I am going to try.
Believe it or not, I have been very depressed about this whole
proceeding. When I came to work yesterday, it really hit me what we
were about to do. But after this morning, it made me realize even more
what this is all about. I feel great about it, because no matter how
low we think we are or depressed we are, this country shows us time and
time again how great it is.
There is no greater American in my mind, at least today, than the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Bob Livingston) because he understood
what this debate was all about. It was about honor and decency and
integrity and the truth, everything that we honor in this country. It
was also a debate about relativisim versus absolute truth.
The President's defenders have said that the President is morally
reprehensible, that he is reckless, that he has violated the trust of
the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of President
and dishonored the office which they have entrusted him, but that it
does not rise to the level of impeachment.
[[Page H11975]]
What the defenders want to do is lower the standards by which we hold
this President and lower the standards for our society by doing so.
I cannot in good conscience, after watching Newt Gingrich put the
country, his caucus, his House above himself and resign, and I cannot
stand before you watching Bob Livingston put his family, and I hope you
will think about his family, his friends, his House and his country
above any ambitions that he may have. He thought he could do a good job
as Speaker. I think he would have. But for some it is no longer good
enough to make a mistake, confess that mistake and accept the
consequences of that mistake and change the way you live your life and
keep moving and make a contribution to this country. I think you ought
to think about that, both sides.
So, Mr. Speaker, we will proceed. We will elect another Speaker. This
country will be better for it. I cannot say this strong enough: This is
God's country, and I know He will bless America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair announces that the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 14 minutes remaining, and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 15 minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), an outstanding member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am even more depressed today than I
thought I would be yesterday. I believe the resignation of the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), while offered in good faith,
was wrong. It is a surrender, it is a surrender to a developing sexual
McCarthyism.
Are we going to have a new test if someone wants to run for public
office: Are you now or have you ever been an adulterer? We are losing
sight of the distinction between sins, which ought to be between a
person and his family and his God, and crimes which are the concern of
the State and of society as a whole.
On one level we could say, I suppose, that you reap what you sew, but
that gives us no joy, and it gives me no joy. I wish that the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) would reconsider, because I do not
think that on the basis of what we know he should resign. But the
impeachment of the President is even worse. Because, again, we are
losing the distinction, we are losing track of the distinction between
sins and crimes. We are lowering the standard of impeachment.
What the President has done is not a great and dangerous offense to
the safety of the Republic. In the words of George Mason, it is not an
impeachable offense under the meaning of the Constitution.
As we heard from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the
allegations are far, far from proven. And the fact is, we are not
simply transmitting evidence, transmitting a case with some evidence to
the Senate, as evidenced by the fact that we already heard leaders in
this House say he should resign. God forbid that he should resign. He
should fight this and beat it.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, we are gathered here to deal with
a problem that none of us wants and we are agreed upon much more than
we admit.
The censure resolution, not the articles of impeachment, but the
censure resolution states that William Jefferson Clinton has violated
his oath of office, damaged and dishonored the presidency, engaged in
reprehensible conduct with a subordinate and wrongly obstructed
discovery of the truth. This debate, therefore, is not about whether
the President has abused his office. He has. And both Democrats and
Republicans acknowledge it.
Some have said we should not deal with this question now while our
troops are in the Gulf. It might be added that they are also in Bosnia,
in Kosovo, and nose to nose with North Korean soldiers in the DMZ. A
quarter million American soldiers are positioned at trip wires of
global conflict, and they will be there long after this debate ends.
They are protecting our freedom and our democracy. It is for them as
much as for any Americans that Congress meets today.
Every one of our soldiers is held to a code of conduct. None of them
could keep his or her job, the privilege of being ordered into battle,
if they had committed the crimes of our Commander in Chief. For
committing just the underlying acts, the so-called personal elements of
the Commander in Chief's offenses, the Clinton administration has
prosecuted no fewer than 67 American officers and enlisted men and
women. Hundreds of Americans who have served their country in the Army,
the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps have lost their careers,
even though they did not once lie under oath to a judge or to a grand
jury or obstruct justice or tamper with a single witness. They were
dismissed because of a more simple reason: They failed in their duty.
Every single man and woman in operation Desert Fox at this very
moment is held to a higher standard than their Commander in Chief.
Let us raise the standard of our American leader to the level of his
troops. Let us once again respect the institution of the presidency.
Let us see to it indeed what the censure resolution says merely in
words, that no man is above the law. Let us not fail in our duty. Let
us restore honor to our country.
____________________