[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 26 (Friday, February 12, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E238-E239]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 TRIBUTE TO HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. PHILIP M. CRANE

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, February 12, 1999

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, as the impeachment trial to President Clinton 
approaches its final act, I want to pay tribute to the managers on the 
part of the House, led by my distinguished friend from Illinois, Henry 
Hyde. I thank them for enduring vitriolic attacks by the media, the 
President's minions, their constituents, and, sadly, some of their 
colleagues as they defended the law. Few of us have been put to a such 
a severe test as these manager-colleagues to prove allegiance to our 
sworn oath to ``protect and defend the Constitution of the United 
States.''
  I worry about the moral health of our country when the modern-day 
justice system seems incapable of holding accountable celebrities who 
murder and presidents who lie. As has been asked so many times in 
recent weeks: ``What do we tell our children?'' Thankfully, we can hold 
up to the children men like our House managers as examples of Americans 
willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of our great nation.
  I was unable to witness the closing arguments made by Mr. Hyde, but 
instead read his script. I consider him to be the House's finest orator 
and, as I read his statement, I imagined with my mind's eye his 
passionate call to duty. I only hope that his speech similarly stirred 
our Senate colleagues to ``Let right be done.''
  I commend the entirety of Mr. Manager Hyde's closing argument to the 
attention of my colleagues.

  Closing Argument of Representative Henry J. Hyde, Impeachment Trial 
                                Manager

       Mr. Chief Justice, learned counsel, and the Senate, we are 
     blessedly coming to the end of this melancholy procedure, but 
     before we gather up our papers and return to the obscurity 
     from whence we came, please permit me a few final remarks.
       First of all, I want to thank the chief justice not only 
     for his patience and his perseverance but for the aura of 
     dignity that he has lent to these proceedings, and it has 
     been a great thrill really to be here in his company as well 
     as in the company of you distinguished senators.
       Secondly, I want to compliment the president's counsel. 
     They have conducted themselves in the most professional way. 
     They have made the most of a poor case, in my opinion.
       Excuse me. There's an old Italian saying, that has nothing 
     to do with the lawyers, but to your case, and it says: ``You 
     may dress the shepherd in silk, but he will still smell of 
     the goat.''
       But all of you are great lawyers and it's been an adventure 
     being with you.
       You know, the legal profession, like politics, is ridiculed 
     pretty much, and every lawyer feels that and understands the 
     importance of the rule of law--to establish justice, to 
     maintain the rights of mankind, to defend the helpless and 
     the oppressed, to protect innocents, to punish guilt. These 
     are duties which challenge the best powers of man's intellect 
     and the noblest qualities of the human heart. We are here to 
     defend that bulwark of our liberty, the rule of law. As for 
     the House managers, I want to tell you and our extraordinary 
     staff how proud I am of your service. For myself, I cannot 
     find the words to adequately express how I feel. I must use 
     the inaudible language of the heart. I've gone through it all 
     by your side, the media condemnations, the patronizing 
     editorials, the hate mail, the insults hurled in public, the 
     attempts at intimidation, the death threats, and even the 
     disapproval of our colleagues, which cuts the worst.
       You know, all a congressman ever gets to take with him when 
     he leaves this building is the esteem of his colleagues and 
     his constituents. We've risked that for a principle and for 
     our duty as we've seen it.
       In speaking to my managers of whom I am terminally proud, I 
     can borrow the words of Shakespeare's ``Henry V,'' as he 
     addressed his little army of longbowmen at the battle of 
     Agincourt, and he said: ``We few--we happy few, we band of 
     brothers. For he who sheds his blood with me shall be my 
     brother. And gentlemen in England now abed will curse the 
     fact that they are not here and hold their manhood cheap when 
     any speaks who fought with us on St. Crispin's Day.''
       As for the juror judges, you distinguished senators, it's 
     always a victory for democracy when its elected 
     representatives do their duty no matter how difficult and 
     unpleasant, and we thank you for it.
       Please don't misconstrue our fervor for our cause to any 
     lack of respect or appreciation for your high office. But our 
     most formidable opponent has not been opposing counsel nor 
     any political party. It's been cynicism--the widespread 
     conviction that all politics and all politicians are by 
     definition corrupt and venal. That cynicism is an acid eating 
     away at the vital organs of American public life. It is a 
     clear and present danger because it blinds us to the nobility 
     and the fragility of being a self-governing people.
       One of the several questions that needs answer is whether 
     your vote on conviction lessens or enlarges that cynicism. 
     Nothing begets cynicism like the double standard--one rule 
     for the popular and the powerful and another for the rest of 
     us.
       One of the most interesting things in this trial was the 
     testimony of the president's good friend, the former Senator 
     from Arkansas. He did his persuasive best to maintain the 
     confusion that this is all about sex.
       Of course it's useful for the defense to misdirect our 
     focus toward what everyone concedes are private acts and none 
     of our business, but if you care to read the articles of 
     impeachment, you won't find any complaints about private, 
     sexual misconduct. You will find charges of perjury and 
     obstruction of justice which are public acts and federal 
     crimes, especially when committed by the one person duty 
     bound to faithfully execute the laws.
       Infidelity is private and non-criminal. Perjury and 
     obstruction are public and criminal. The deliberate focus on 
     what is not an issue here is the defense lawyer's tactic and 
     nothing more. This entire saga has been a theater of 
     distraction and misdirection. Time-honored defense tactics 
     when the law and facts get in the way.
       One phrase you have not heard the defense pronounce is the 
     ``sanctity of the oath,'' but this case deeply involves the 
     efficacy, the meaning and the enforceability of the oath. The 
     president's defenders stay away from the word ``lie'' 
     preferring ``mislead'' or ``deceived,'' but they shrink from 
     the phrase ``sanctity of the oath,'' fearing it as one might 
     a rattlesnake.
       There is a visibility factor in the president's public 
     acts, and those which betray a trust or reveal contempt for 
     the law are hard to sweep under the rug, or under the bed for 
     that matter.
       They reverberate, they ricochet all over the land and 
     provide the worst possible example for our young people. As 
     that third

[[Page E239]]

     grader from Chicago wrote to me: ``If you can't believe the 
     president, who can you believe?''
       Speaking of young people, in 1946 a British playwright, 
     Terence Rattigan wrote a play based on a true experience that 
     happened in England in 1910. The play was called ``The 
     Winslow Boy.'' And the story, a true story, involved a young 
     13-year-old lad who was kicked out of the Royal Naval College 
     for having forged somebody else's signature on a postal money 
     order.
       Of course, he claimed he was innocent, but he was summarily 
     dismissed and his family of very modest means couldn't afford 
     legal counsel, and it was a very desperate situation. Sir 
     Edward Carson, the best lawyer of his time--barrister I 
     suppose--got interested in the case and took it on pro bono, 
     and lost all the way through the courts.
       Finally, he had no other place to go, but he dug up an 
     ancient remedy in England called ``petition of right.'' You 
     ask the king for relief. And so Carson wrote out five pages 
     of reasons why a petition of right should be granted. And lo 
     and behold, it got past the attorney general and got to the 
     king. The king read it, agreed with it, and wrote across the 
     front of the petition: ``Let right be done--Edward VII.''
       And I have always been moved by that phrase. I saw the 
     movie, I saw the play, and I have the book, and I am still 
     moved by that phrase ``let right be done.'' I hope when you 
     finally vote that will move you, too.
       There are some interesting parallels to our cause here 
     today. This Senate chamber is our version of the House of 
     Lords, and while we managers cannot claim to represent that 
     13-year-old Winslow boy, we speak for a lot of young people 
     who look to us to set an example.
       Ms. Seligman last Saturday said we want to win too badly. 
     This surprised me, because none of the managers has committed 
     perjury, nor obstructed justice, nor claimed false 
     privileges. None has hidden evidence under anyone's bed, nor 
     encouraged false testimony before the grand jury. That's what 
     you do if you want to win too badly.
       I believe it was Saul Bellow who once said, ``A great deal 
     of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need 
     for illusion is great.'' And those words characterize the 
     defense in this case--the need for illusion is great.
       I doubt there are many people on the planet who doubt the 
     president has repeatedly lied under oath and has obstructed 
     justice. The defense spent a lot of time picking lint. There 
     is a saying in equity, I believe, that equity will not stoop 
     to pick up pins. But that was their case. So the real issue 
     doesn't concern the facts, the stubborn facts, as the defense 
     is fond of saying, but what to do about them.
       I am still dumbfounded about the drafts of the censures 
     that are circulating. We aren't half as tough on the 
     president in our impeachment articles as this draft is that 
     was printed in the New York Times. ``An inappropriate 
     relationship with a subordinate employee in the White House 
     which was shameless, reckless and indefensible.''
       I have a problem with that. It seems they're talking about 
     private acts of consensual sexual misconduct, which are 
     really none of our business. But that's the lead-off.
       Then they say the president ``deliberately misled and 
     deceived the American people and officials in all branches of 
     the United States government.'' This is not a Republican 
     document. This is coming from here.
       ``The president gave false or misleading testimony and 
     impeded discovery of evidence in judicial proceedings.'' 
     Isn't that another way of saying obstruction of justice and 
     perjury? ``The president's conduct demeans the office of the 
     president as well as the president himself, and creates 
     disrespect for the laws of the land.''
       Future generations of Americans must know that such 
     behavior is not only unacceptable, but bears grave 
     consequences, including loss of integrity, trust, and 
     respect--but not loss of job.
       ``Whereas William Jefferson Clinton's conduct has brought 
     shame and dishonor to himself and to the office of the 
     president; whereas he has violated the trust of the American 
     people (see Hamilton Federalist Number 65), and he  should be 
     condemned in the strongest terms.'' Well, the next-to-the-
     strongest terms--the strongest terms would remove him from 
     office.
       Well, do you really cleanse the office as provided in the 
     Constitution? Or do you use the air-wick of a censure 
     resolution? Because any censure resolution, to be meaningful, 
     has to punish the president--if only his reputation. And how 
     do you deal with the laws of bill of attainder? How do you 
     deal with the separation of powers? What kind of a precedent 
     are you setting?
       We all claim to revere the Constitution, but a censure is 
     something that is a device, a way of avoiding the harsh 
     Constitutional option, and it's the only one you have, either 
     up or down on impeachment.
       That, of course, is your judgment, and I am offering my 
     views for what they're worth. Once in a while I do worry 
     about the future. I wonder if after this culture war is over 
     that we're engaged in, if an America will survive that's 
     worth fighting to defend. People won't risk their lives for 
     the UN or over the Dow Jones averages, but I wonder in future 
     generations whether there'll be enough vitality left in duty, 
     honor and country to excite our children and grandchildren to 
     defend America.
       There's no denying the fact what you decide, will have a 
     profound effect on our culture as well as on our politics. A 
     failure to convict will make a statement that lying under 
     oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided is not all that 
     serious. Perhaps we can explain this to those currently in 
     prison for perjury.
       We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, 
     but only if you are the president. Wherever and whenever you 
     avert your eyes from a wrong, from an injustice, you become a 
     part of the problem. On the subject of civil rights, it's my 
     belief this issue doesn't belong to anyone. It belongs to 
     everyone. It certainly belongs to those who have suffered 
     invidious discrimination and one would have to be catatonic 
     not to know that the struggle to keep alive equal protection 
     of the law never ends.
       The mortal enemy of equal justice is the double standard 
     and if we permit a double standard, even for the president, 
     we do no favor to the cause of human rights. It's been said 
     that America has nothing to fear from this president on the 
     subject of civil rights.
       I doubt Paula Jones would subscribe to that endorsement. If 
     you agree that perjury and obstruction of justice have been 
     committed, and yet you vote down the conviction, you're 
     expending and expanding the boundaries of permissible 
     presidential conduct. You're saying a perjurer and an 
     obstructor of justice can be president in the face of no less 
     than three precedents for conviction of federal judges for 
     perjury. You shred those precedents and you raise the most 
     serious questions of whether the president is in fact subject 
     to the law, or whether we are beginning a restoration of the 
     divine rights of kings.
       The issues we're concerned with have consequences far into 
     the future, because the real damage is not to the individuals 
     involved, but to the American system of justice and 
     especially the principle that no one is above the law.
       Edward Gibbon wrote his magisterial ``Decline and Fall of 
     the Roman Empire'' in the late 18th century. In fact, the 
     first volume was published in 1776. In his work, he discusses 
     an emperor named Septimus Severus who died in 211 A.D. after 
     ruling 18 years. And here's what Gibbon wrote about the 
     emperor: ``Severus promised only to betray; he flattered only 
     to ruin: and however he might occasionally bind himself by 
     oaths and treaties, his conscience, obsequious to his 
     interest, always released him from the inconvenient 
     obligation.''
       I guess those who believe history repeats itself are really 
     onto something. Horace Mann said: ``You should be ashamed to 
     die unless you have achieved some victory for humanity.'' To 
     the House managers, I say your devotion to duty and the 
     Constitution has set an example that is a victory for 
     humanity. Charles de Gaulle once said France would not be 
     true to herself if she wasn't engaged in some great 
     enterprise. That's true of us all. We spend our short lives 
     as consumers, space occupiers, clock watchers, spectators--or 
     in the service of some great enterprise.
       I believe being a Senator, being a congressman, and 
     struggling with all our might for equal justice for all is a 
     great enterprise. It's our great enterprise. And to my House 
     managers, your great enterprise was not to speak truth to 
     power, but to shout it.
       And now let us all take our place in history on the side of 
     honor, and oh yes, let right be done.

     

                          ____________________