[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 341]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             ON IMPEACHMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. PATSY T. MINK

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 6, 1999

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, my constituents who ask me to vote 
for impeachment do so on the assumption that the President has been 
found guilty of perjury.
  They ask me to apply the law to the President the same as I would 
apply for ordinary citizens.
  I have analyzed my views in accordance with this direction.
  I say with no doubt whatsoever, that the Articles of Impeachment or 
the record which accompanied it make no specific finding of facts as to 
exactly what statement was given under oath that forms the basis of the 
crime of perjury.
  There are many suggestions and innuendoes and assumptions, but there 
is no specific listing of proof upon which the Judiciary Committee 
relied to make its recommendation to impeach and remove the President 
from office.
  The Judiciary Committee takes the position that they are not required 
to provide the House with any degree of specificity. They interpret 
their report on impeachment as merely a referral of various and sundry 
allegations to the Senate and accordingly forfeited their duty to 
examine the facts independently and decide exactly what facts support 
the allegations of perjury. I believe that this view of our 
Constitutional duty is an abdication of our sworn responsibility.
  If this House is prepared to remove the President from office it must 
do so on the basis of specific findings of criminal behavior. It cannot 
be on generalized allegations with a hope that the Senate will 
determine whether crimes have been committed.
  I agree with my constituents who ask us to apply the same law to the 
President as would be applied to ordinary people.
  Ordinary citizens would be given the specific basis underlying the 
charge of perjury.
  The President has not been provided this information. He has been 
presumed guilty of perjury because he will not admit to it. How does 
this square with the rule of law?
  I believe that it is the duty of the courts under which the President 
was required to provide sworn testimony to review the statements and to 
make a prompt determination as to which of the charges of perjury is 
sustainable.
  What if the Courts refuse to charge the President of the crime of 
perjury as some commentators suggest? If he is driven out of office 
before the Court makes this finding, how will this House remedy this 
ultimate penalty?
  To vote for these Articles of Impeachment is to vote to remove the 
President from office without any of us knowing what exactly he 
testified to under oath amounted to perjury. At the minimum this must 
be elaborated in the Articles of Impeachment so that the Public and the 
Senate may know what the specific charges are and so that the President 
may defend himself.
  When I vote against these Articles of Impeachment, I will do so 
because I cannot allow this House to avoid its Constitutional duty to 
enumerate its allegations of perjury before recommending impeachment.
  No President is above the law. He is at least entitled to the same 
protection that applies to each of us if we should be charged with 
criminal conduct.
  People who are charged with crimes must be informed of the specific 
charges.
  Without that, the call for the rule of law is an empty and hollow 
gesture.

                          ____________________