[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2622-2623]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    UNFINISHED IMPEACHMENT BUSINESS

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I hadn't intended to speak today, but given 
the fact that we have a little bit of time, I thought I would share one 
of the things that is on my mind as we come back to work following the 
Presidents' Day recess and almost a month of impeachment proceedings, 
which is what we were doing the last time I sat at this desk a week 
ago.
  There is one bit of unfinished business relating to the impeachment 
proceedings. Because the President was not removed from office, a lot 
of my constituents, over the course of this last week--people I visited 
with throughout the State of Arizona during the Presidents' Day 
recess--wondered what would happen, what would the precedent be, what 
would the standard be in court proceedings? What was the lesson, in 
other words, to be learned from the fact that the President was not 
removed?
  I had to stop and think about what I was answering them with. I said: 
We should not take from that the fact that you can lie or that you can 
obstruct justice, that you can engage in conduct that is designed to 
subvert justice, to take the law into your own hands. That would be the 
wrong lesson. I spoke to schoolkids. One of the questions that kept 
recurring was: If the President is not punished, then won't that lower 
the standard for the rest of the country in the future?
  My response, I think, is that we have to go back to what Henry Hyde 
was talking about when he first appeared before the Senate at the 
beginning of the impeachment trial, and that we need to talk to the 
American people about this as a piece of unfinished business. The 
Senate trial has come to a conclusion; the President will remain in 
office; the impeachment proceeding is behind us. And that is all as it 
should be. But it seems to me that because there is a perception that 
the President was not punished--I will come back to that in just a 
moment--that, therefore, somehow there will be a different standard 
applied in the future, perhaps in sexual harassment or sexual 
discrimination cases specifically, but more broadly within the criminal 
justice system.
  I think the piece of unfinished business is for all of us to commit 
ourselves to the proposition that the rule of law will not be 
diminished in the United States, that not only the lawyers and the 
judges in the judicial process but also all Americans, parents and 
teachers, talking to our children, and all of us working within 
whatever part of society we work, will recommit ourselves to the rule 
of law in the United States and ensure that this case does not create a 
bad precedent; that we treat this case, rather, as an aberration, as 
the exception that proves the rule, as a situation which is unique 
because it involved one person, the President, and an impeachment 
proceeding which is unique under our Constitution; but that we not 
accept it as a precedent that you can, as I said, take the law into 
your own hands, subvert justice, and then get away with it.
  In one sense, President Clinton has not really gotten away with his 
bad conduct. He was impeached by the House of Representatives, he was 
tried in the Senate, and half of the Senate voted on one of the 
articles to remove him from office. History will certainly judge that 
his reputation has been diminished as a result of his conduct. And for 
a person in political life, a President in particular, that is 
certainly some degree of punishment. In addition to that, the trust of 
his office has been diminished and he clearly has suffered some public 
opprobrium as a result of his conduct.
  Therefore, I think what we have to do is tell young people that, even 
though his conduct was not perceived by two-thirds of the Senate as 
sufficiently serious to warrant his removal from office, it does not 
mean that he wasn't punished. So, in that sense, the lesson to be 
learned is there will be bad consequences from bad action but they may 
not be the most severe consequences that can attach to the action.
  In one of the schools I spoke to, I said, ``You have a yearbook here, 
don't you?'' And they said, ``Yes.''
  And I said, ``Suppose you did something pretty bad, but it wasn't 
quite bad enough to be kicked out of school. But the yearbook has your 
picture on it and it says below it: This person lied and did something 
bad in class and everybody thought he should not be trusted anymore. 
But it wasn't quite serious enough to kick him out of school.''
  I said, ``That would be a pretty bad thing, for everybody who reads 
that yearbook for 50 years later to see that written under your picture 
in the yearbook. But it's not quite bad enough to throw you out of 
school.''
  So, let's understand that what has happened to the President here is 
not good, it is bad, because he did something wrong. I am sure that 
people on both sides of the aisle will concede that his conduct was 
inappropriate. So in that sense he has been punished.
  But in a larger sense, because he was not removed from office, there 
is still this perception hanging out there that

[[Page 2623]]

perhaps the rule of law has been diminished; that now it is no longer 
the case that one will be able to prosecute for perjury or obstruction 
of justice; that perhaps in a sexual harassment or discrimination case 
there will be some new precedent established, the ``Clinton standard,'' 
that you can actually walk very close to the line of telling the whole 
truth, and if you choose not to do it and you are clever enough about 
the way you phrase things, maybe you will be able to escape punishment. 
Perhaps people who were punished for perjury in sexual discrimination 
cases ought to be no longer punished under those same circumstances.
  That is what I am saying is our unfinished business. Every one of us 
who has something to say about it should say: No, this case does not 
stand for that. This was the President of the United States whom the 
Senate chose not to remove from office, the most severe thing that 
could occur to a President. And there were a lot of reasons for that. 
Some of our colleagues felt it would simply be too much of a disruption 
for our country. Some thought that the particular activity in this case 
was just not quite serious enough to warrant his removal.
  Those of us who disagreed with that did so, among other reasons, 
because we believed that allowing the President to remain in office 
would subvert the rule of law; that this would be used as an excuse for 
people to lie in the future; that there would not be as much adherence 
to the precedents in the past, of ensuring that people who take the law 
into their own hands are appropriately punished. That is one of the 
reasons that many of us voted guilty in this case.
  But I think even though we did not prevail and the President was not 
removed, that everyone in the Chamber would agree--all 100 of us would 
agree--that we do not want this case to stand for the proposition that 
you can subvert justice by impeding discovery or by lying, by giving 
false testimony; that you cannot do those things and expect that the 
rule of law in the future will be any less severe with respect to its 
consequences.
  As I said, this case must be deemed the exception that proves the 
rule because of its unique circumstances. In every way that those of us 
who are permitted to do so, we must uphold the rule of law in the 
country.
  Specifically, that means we must teach this to our young people. We 
must talk about it as lawmakers here, when we speak to the local Lions 
Club or local Rotary Club, wherever we may be speaking, that lawyers 
and judges in the country must strictly adhere to the law. Anyone who 
appears before a court as a litigant must themselves strictly adhere to 
these principles and never violate the law as it exists. And anyone who 
teaches with respect to what this means should take the position that 
it does not mean that one can take the law into one's own hands and 
succeed in subverting justice simply because of what did or did not 
happen to the President of the United States in this particular case.
  The rule of law is important to this country because it distinguishes 
us from almost every other country in the world. There are certainly 
other countries in which one can expect to get relatively fair justice, 
but in the United States we consider ourselves unique. We have, for 
over 210 years, protected the rule of law in this country. We have 
ensured that even the least among us can get equal justice under law. 
And this country has done a great deal to ensure that principle is 
true, whether it is in the Federal courts or the local courts of the 
country; whether it is with respect to the rich and the powerful and 
the famous or, as I said, the least among us. In our system, the law 
applies equally to everyone.
  We must ensure that remains the case. How many of us would want to 
submit our lives or our fortunes to the justice system--oh, let's just 
take one of the many countries south of us, for example--in the 
southern hemisphere? Or in Russia today, where one cannot even engage 
in commerce because there is not a rule of law which ensures that 
dispute resolution in commercial dealings will be done fairly? How many 
of us would want to be accused of a crime in one of those societies and 
have to defend ourselves or be sued in one of those societies and be 
assured that we would be dealt with in a fair way? In many of those 
countries today, unless you have the ability to bribe someone or to pay 
someone off, you cannot be assured of fair justice.
  In the United States today, even though we do not want to go to 
court, every one of us knows that if we have to go to court, we can at 
least expect that we will be dealt with fairly because truth-telling is 
at the bottom of the judicial process and truth-telling will be 
enforced.
  It will be maintained because it will be enforced, and we can point 
to many cases in which people who lied are now serving in jail because 
of their perjury.
  That is why it is important to maintain the rule of law in our 
country. That is what the rule of law is all about. That is why it is 
important, and that is why we have to sustain it.
  So, Mr. President, as I reflected on what my constituents were asking 
me, as I talked to them over the course of this last Presidents' Day 
recess in Arizona, and I thought about the importance of the rule of 
law in the United States to each one of us, and the questions that had 
been raised as a result of the fact that the President was not removed 
from office, I dedicated myself to talking about this, to writing about 
it, and to ensuring my constituents back home and, hopefully, people 
around the country will understand how important it is for all of us 
over the next weeks, months, and years to ensure that the rule of law 
is not diminished, is not subverted as a result of the Senate's action 
with respect to the impeachment of President Clinton.
  One could draw that conclusion, but we must not permit that 
conclusion to be drawn. It is up to us to maintain the rule of law in 
the United States, and I believe that because of the dedication to the 
principle of the rule of law and the fact that everyone in this country 
wishes it to remain strong, and the fact that all 100 of us in this 
Chamber, I am certain, and the Members in the House of Representatives 
as well, are dedicated to that proposition and do not want to see the 
result of this case diminish the rule of law; that all of us will 
rededicate ourselves to that principle and will do everything we can 
over the course, as I said, of the ensuing months and years to ensure 
the rule of law in this country remains strong and we will continue to 
provide in this country, as we have in the past over 200 years, equal 
justice for all.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, is 
recognized.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. Con. 
Res. 12 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of concurrent 
and Senate resolutions.'')
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, seeing no one seeking the floor, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________