[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2644-2659]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. Chief Justice, the United States Senate has nearly 
concluded only the second impeachment trial of a President in history. 
We fulfilled our promise to conclude the process in an expeditious and 
responsible manner in accordance to the Constitution.
  Americans understand there is really only one person to blame for 
this ordeal: Bill Clinton. He could have prevented the entire 
impeachment process if he had chosen the truth instead of lies and 
obstruction and the well-being of the nation instead of his own 
personal and political needs. He squandered his opportunity to provide 
trustworthy leadership on the important issues facing America.
  The President's actions left the Attorney General with no choice but 
to ask the Independent Counsel to investigate. They left the 
Independent Counsel with no choice but to refer charges to the House of 
Representatives. They left the House with no choice but to impeach him.
  The day Senators took that impeachment oath was one of the most 
serious, solemn times that I have experienced during my 18 years in the 
Senate. Our oath was to do impartial justice, and that oath was in my 
mind as I weighed the facts, the law, and the Constitution.
  The President took an oath too. He took an oath to tell the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
  I believe that clear and convincing evidence presented to the Senate 
demonstrates that President Clinton did indeed commit multiple acts of 
perjury, as alleged in Article I, and multiple acts of obstruction of 
justice, as alleged in Article II, and deserves to be found guilty on 
both articles of impeachment.
  The President made a serious, serious mistake when he went to his 
Paula Jones deposition, raised his right hand and swore to tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then lied 
repeatedly. Following that, he committed more acts of obstruction and 
more lies, culminating in his testimony before the grand jury where he 
lied time and time again. He had obstructed justice and he had perjured 
himself in the Jones case, and he wanted to be consistent, so he 
perjured himself again.
  One of many specifics, concerning his ``conversations'' with Betty 
Currie: ``I was trying to get the facts down. I was trying to 
understand what the facts

[[Page 2645]]

were.'' He wasn't trying to understand the facts. He knew what the 
facts were. He was trying to mislead a witness, and then he lied under 
oath after being begged, ``Don't do it again, Mr. President.''
  I believe the public deserves, and the Constitution permits, that the 
Senate demand a high standard of conduct in its President. Rather than 
find a loophole to excuse the President's behavior, the Senate ought to 
find him guilty.
  The President's counsel have attempted to frame the question before 
the Senate as ``[a]re we at that horrific moment in our history when 
our Union could be preserved only by taking the step that the framers 
saw as the last resort?'' \1\ His lawyers are asking the wrong 
question. In fact, as Manager Canady pointed out, under this standard 
even the deeds of Richard Nixon may not have been worthy of 
impeachment.\2\ The proper question is not whether America would 
survive President Clinton remaining in office: that answer is yes. The 
proper question before the Senate is whether, knowing what we now know 
about his conduct, America should have to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of speech.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Another of the President's lawyers argued that ``[i]f you convict and 
remove President Clinton on the basis of these allegations, no 
President will ever be safe from impeachment again[.]'' \3\ I, for one, 
have a little more confidence that our future leaders will not commit 
felonies, but if a future President commits the same crimes as 
President Clinton, I hope that President will face the same 
constitutional response.
  In fact, one familiar lawyer recognized that there is ``no question 
that an admission of making false statements to government officials 
and interfering with the FBI is an impeachable offense.'' \4\ That 
lawyer was William Clinton, speaking in 1974.


                       PUBLIC OR PRIVATE CONDUCT?

  The President's defenders have argued that his errors were ``private 
acts'' which are irrelevant to the constitutional standards of public 
behavior. But this was not about adultery. These charges would be just 
as valid even if he were never married. Let's also consider a few other 
facts.
  The President utilized his secretary to conceal evidence;
  The President went out of his way to lie to his most senior aides, 
knowing they would repeat those lies to the grand jury;
  The President supervised a massive and coordinated effort to have his 
staff, on government time, repeatedly lie to the public on his behalf;
  The President asserted one of his most precious powers, that of 
executive privilege, to keep government employees from cooperating with 
a federal grand jury; and
  There is evidence that official White House personnel attempted to 
smear Ms. Lewinsky and other witnesses to bolster his bogus defense.
  If this conduct is so private, why has the President dragged so many 
public servants into his web of deceit and lies?
  If the Senate were going to pass a censure resolution, perhaps it 
should include language rebuking his private behavior which even his 
staunchest defenders have recognized as reprehensible, reckless, and 
indefensible. However, we are sitting not as a court of morality, but 
as a court of impeachment which must decide whether the rule of law, as 
Manager Hyde so eloquently explained, is a value so worthy of 
protection that it requires removal of a twice-elected President.


                   ATTACK ON THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

  Even more importantly, the President's conduct was not simply a 
personal matter, but rather an attack on our system of government. Our 
system of justice, both civil and criminal, would collapse if lying 
under oath was tolerated, tampering with witness' testimony was 
permitted or hiding of evidence was customary. Think of all of the 
plaintiffs, defendants, and witnesses who are involved in difficult or 
embarrassing situations involving bad investments, physical 
altercations, substance abuse, or adultery. How can we expect all of 
them to tell the truth, produce the evidence, and abide by society's 
legal standards about these matters when our President refused to do 
so?
  Recognizing that the President still may face the criminal justice 
system, I believe it is entirely appropriate for the Senate to consider 
how our judicial system reacts to perjury. Remember the 1998 quote from 
a federal judge which Manager Buyer recounted:

     [Congress does not] want people lying to grand juries. They 
     particularly don't want people lying to grand juries about 
     criminal offenses. They particularly don't want people lying 
     to grand juries about criminal offenses that are being 
     investigated. They don't like that. And Congress has said we 
     as a people are going to tell you if you do that, you're 
     going to jail and you're going to jail for a long time. And 
     if you don't get the message, we'll send you to jail again. 
     Maybe others will. But we're not going to have people coming 
     to grand juries and telling lies because of their children or 
     their mothers or fathers or themselves. It's just not 
     acceptable. The system can't work that way.\6\


             A DOUBLE STANDARD FOR THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF?

  Of all of the powers trusted to the President, possibly the most 
important is his role as Commander-in-Chief. His ability to lead the 
military in times of war, and during every day of preparation, 
training, and planning which precedes violent conflict, depends in 
large part in the trust and confidence he can inspire in the 
approximately 1.2 million men and women he commands. These men and 
women are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice: the 
President should be grateful he is not, for he likely would be facing 
court martial for his actions. At a minimum, he likely would be found 
guilty of the following offenses:
  False official statements--Article 107;
  Perjury--Article 131;
  Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman--Article 133;
  False swearing--Article 134;
  Obstruction of justice--Article 134; and
  Subornation of perjury--Article 134.
  As Manager Buyer reminded us:

       In every warship, every squadbay, and every headquarters 
     building throughout the U.S. military, those of you who have 
     traveled to military bases have seen the picture of the 
     Commander in Chief that hangs in the apex of the pyramid that 
     is the military chain of command. You should also know that 
     all over the world military personnel look at the current 
     picture and know that, if accused of the same offenses as 
     their Commander in Chief, they would no longer be deserving 
     of the privilege of serving in the military.\7\

  We all remember the publicity surrounding the case of Kelly Flynn, 
forced to resign from the Air Force for adultery and false statements. 
But there are many others, including the pending case of Air Force 
captain Joseph Belli. Captain Belli is currently awaiting trial, and 
faces up to 27 years in military prison, for having an adulterous 
affair with a female airman on the base at Diego Garcia, then asking 
both his wife and his lover to lie about it. Although Captain Belli 
asked to resign and although his wife asked that the charges, which she 
first raised, be dropped, the prosecution goes on. What do you think 
Captain Belli would think of an acquittal of President Clinton?


                  DOUBLE STANDARD COMPARED TO JUDGES?

  One of the bedrock principles of our system of justice is stare 
decisis, that is following precedent. One question before us is whether 
making false statements under oath merits conviction and removal. The 
Senate has clear and recent precedent that answers this exact question. 
In 1986, Judge Harry Claiborne was convicted by votes of 90-7 and 89-8 
for making false statements under oath on his tax returns. In 1989, 
Judge Walter Nixon was convicted by votes of 89-8 and 78-19 for making 
false statements to a federal grand jury. Also in 1989, Judge Alcee 
Hastings was convicted by votes of 68-27, 69-26, 67-28, 67-28, 69-26, 
68-27, and 70-25 for making false statements under oath. The Senate has 
spoken decisively, repeatedly, and recently on this question: making 
false statements under oath is an offense worthy of impeachment and 
conviction.
  As Manager Hyde noted, ``This country can survive with a few bad 
judges, a few corrupt judges; we can make it; but a corrupt President, 
survival is a little tougher there.'' \8\ Legal commentator Stuart 
Taylor phrased it well:

[[Page 2646]]

``While removing him would be uniquely traumatic, his alleged crimes . 
. . are uniquely visible, and thus uniquely menacing to the rule of 
law, to trust in government, and to the national culture.'' \9\
  Moreover, we know what the Founders thought of perjury: the very 
first Congress enacted ``An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes 
Against the United States'' which made perjury a federal crime. Rather 
than creating a lower standard of conduct for the President, I believe 
the Senate should hold the President to the same or even a higher 
standard.
  And we should ask the President, if he discovered that a person he 
was considering for a judicial nomination had committed the acts which 
have been proven in this case, would he still nominate that individual? 
I think we know the answer.


                       DISCUSSION OF THE ARTICLES

                ARTICLE I--PERJURY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY

  I believe the evidence shows a pattern of perjury which deserves 
conviction. In describing how the lies were not few in number or in 
importance, Manager McCollum captured the essence of the President's 
grand jury testimony: ``This is about a pattern. This is about a lot of 
lies.''\10\
  In the weeks leading up to the President's grand jury testimony, 
Americans of all political persuasions offered unsolicited advice to 
the President to ``come clean'' before the grand jury, to admit any 
embarrassing conduct, and, above all, to tell the truth. They advised 
him that testimony which was ``evasive, incomplete, misleading--even 
maddening,'' as the President's own lawyer described his deposition 
testimony, would not suffice before the grand jury.\11\ Rather than 
heed this advice, however, the President decided to ignore his oath 
``to the tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,'' 
and instead, to paraphrase Manager Rogan, decided to tell the evasive 
truth, the incomplete truth, and nothing but the misleading truth.\12\
  It is true, as counsel for the President argue, that the President 
did make many admissions during his appearance which no doubt were 
painful: that he had had an affair with a subordinate employee not even 
half his age, and that he had misled the American people, his family, 
and aides. Sprinkled amidst these admissions, however, were numerous 
lies and half-truths. These statements were obviously under oath, they 
were material to the grand jury's investigation, and they were 
intentional. Thus, they constitute perjury. The claim by the 
President's counsel that ``he told the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth for 4 long hours'' is complete nonsense.\13\
  Simply put, the President decided that his personal and political 
needs were more important than the rights of the grand jury to receive 
truthful testimony or his obligation to comply with federal law. For 
these statements, which deceived a legitimately constituted federal 
grand jury investigating criminal conduct not only of the President, 
but of others, the President deserves to be convicted on Article I.
  For instance, I believe that the President lied when he claimed his 
goal during the deposition ``was to be truthful'' and again when he 
said ``I was determined to work through the minefield of this 
deposition without violating the law, and I believe I did.'' \14\ No 
person who has read or seen the President's deposition can really 
believe that he was trying to be truthful.
  For example, when asked during the deposition, ``at any time have you 
and Monica Lewinsky ever been alone together in any room in the White 
House?'', the President replied `` . . . it seems to me that she was on 
duty on a couple of occasions working for the legislative affairs 
office and brought me some things to sign, something on the weekend.'' 
\15\ No reasonable person could believe that his goal in responding 
this question was to be truthful. And the President, a lawyer, a former 
law professor, and a former attorney general of his state, could not 
have believed that he had not violated the law when he answered 
questions in this manner.
  I need to address briefly the defense argument that the Senate is 
forbidden from considering the Jones deposition because the specific 
article alleging perjury was defeated on the House floor--remember Ms. 
Seligman's claim that the deposition ``answers are not before you and 
the managers' sleight of hand cannot now put them back into article 
I.'' \16\
  On December 11, 1998, when the House Judiciary Committee considered 
the articles of impeachment against the President, subsection 2 of 
Article I read exactly as it does today alleging perjury in the grand 
jury about the ``prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he 
gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.'' No member 
of the Committee offered a motion to strike or amend this provision. 
The subarticle remained unchanged when it was debated on the House 
floor. All 435 Members of the House were on notice that this section of 
Article I clearly charged the President with lying before the grand 
jury about his Jones deposition testimony. The fact that a separate 
article of impeachment dealing solely with the deposition was defeated 
on the House floor has absolutely no impact on the contents of Article 
I.
  Moving to the remainder of Article I, I believe that the evidence 
tends to show that the President was lying when he stated to the grand 
jury that ``I was not paying a great deal of attention to this 
exchange'' when his attorney, Robert Bennett, argued for a lengthy 
period of time that the President should not have to answer questions 
about Monica Lewinsky because of her affidavit, known by the President 
to be false.\17\ The videotape of the deposition clearly shows 
President Clinton staring directly at his attorney when these 
misrepresentations were made, and then closely following the back-and-
forth between Bennett, Judge Wright, and Jones' counsel.
  I also believe that the evidence demonstrates clearly that the 
President perjured himself during his testimony concerning his 
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
  Part Four of Article I concerns the President's grand jury testimony 
concerning the various allegations of obstruction of justice contained 
in Article II. I discuss my views on the substantive obstruction counts 
below, but I also conclude that the President committed multiple acts 
of perjury in discussing and denying his role in these events. For 
those who argue that the allegations of perjury only deal with sex, I 
invite you to read the President's answers to the questions about the 
alleged obstruction: some defy common sense, most conflict with more 
credible accounts provided by other witnesses, and many are perjurious, 
false, and misleading.


                               ARTICLE II

  The evidence concerning certain of the allegations of obstruction is 
strong, and would meet the legal requirements of Title 18 were this a 
criminal trial. While the White House defense would urge us to consider 
the President's ``record on civil rights, on women's rights[,]'' \18\ I 
would urge all Senators to remember that it is easy to talk a good 
game, but when another American citizen sought to exercise her rights, 
the President played a different one. To use a phrase, the President 
wanted to win too badly.
  For instance, the evidence that the President tampered with a 
potential witness, Betty Currie, is convincing. As Manager McCollum 
pointed out, Ms. Currie's testimony in this matter is undisputed.\19\ 
Just hours after he fed the Jones' lawyers numerous lies, the President 
called Currie and demanded that she come to Oval Office on a Sunday. He 
then accosted her with a list of falsehoods, such as ``You were always 
there when she was there, right?'' \20\ The President clearly knew 
Currie was a potential witness in the Jones case, not only because he 
had mentioned her repeatedly during the deposition, but also because he 
knew that the Jones lawyers obviously knew there was some relationship 
between he and Lewinsky and that they would continue to follow that 
lead.
  Even worse, according to Currie's testimony and evidence in the 
record, when it was known that the Office of Independent Counsel was 
investigating,

[[Page 2647]]

the President saw Currie again, and repeated his coaching. By this 
time, Currie was clearly a witness to a grand jury investigating 
federal crimes. Both of these conversations constituted witness 
tampering under Title 18 and warrant conviction.
  Moreover, in attempting to explain away his crime during his 
appearance before the grand jury, the President clearly perjured 
himself. His answers, which included the hilarious claims that he was 
trying to ``refresh my memory'' and ``I was trying to get the facts 
down. I was trying to understand what the facts were'' are perjury.\21\ 
The fact that Ms. Currie was willing to recount these encounters to the 
grand jury does not diminish in the slightest the fact that the 
President illegally tried to coach her.
  But this episode of obstruction was only part of a continuing 
pattern. Clear circumstantial evidence proves that the President 
participated in a scheme to hide evidence under subpoena by Paula 
Jones. The evidence shows that Lewinsky suggested that she make sure 
that the many gifts the President had given her were not at her 
residence, specifically suggesting to the President that Betty Currie 
could hide them from the Jones attorneys. Lo and behold, hours later, 
Currie, having no idea that Lewinsky was under subpoena to turn over 
gifts, called Lewinsky after having seen the President at the White 
House and said something to the effect of ``I know you have something 
for me or the President said you have something for me.'' \22\ The two 
arranged to meet, Lewinsky sealed the gifts in a taped box, handed the 
box over to Currie, who hid it under her bed.
  There are two explanations for how this obstruction happened. One, 
Betty Currie suddenly had a vision that she should call Lewinsky to see 
if she needed help in her plans to obstruct justice. Or two, the 
President communicated, explicitly or obliquely, that Currie should 
call Lewinsky to execute her scheme. Deciding which of these scenarios 
is more plausible is not difficult. Moreover, the idea, advanced by the 
President's defense, that he did not care if Lewinsky produced to the 
Jones attorneys all 24 gifts he had given her, is ridiculous. Can 
anybody really think that the Jones attorneys would have taken a look 
at the pile of gifts and said ``well, there are only 24 gifts--I guess 
there was nothing going on there.''
  I also believe Ms. Lewinsky's testimony that the President suggested 
to her that she could supply the Jones attorneys their long-standing 
``cover stories''--that she was delivering papers or visiting Currie 
when in fact she was coming to visit the President. The President's 
counsel have done their best to confuse this issue by linking it with 
the events surrounding Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit. But her deposition 
testimony is clear that the President reminded her during a 2 A.M. 
phone call, after she was on the Jones witness list, that if she ended 
up testifying--that is, if the affidavit was unsuccessful--that she 
should use the cover stories they had developed:

       Q: . . . did you talk about cover story that night 
     (December 17, 1997)?
       A: Yes, sir.
       Q: And what was said?
       A: Uh, I believe that, uh, the President said something--
     you can always say you were coming to see Betty (Currie) or 
     bringing me papers.
       Q: . . . You are sure he said that that night?
       A: Yes.\23\

  As the Managers pointed out, this scheme, which was ``not illegal in 
its inception--simply trying to keep the relationship private--did in 
fact deteriorate into illegality once it left the realm of private life 
and entered that of public obstruction.'' \24\
  And on the issue of making false statements to top aides, knowing 
these lies would be repeated to the grand jury, the President is guilty 
both of obstruction and perjury. The fact that the President was also 
lying to the American people is irrelevant to this charge. The facts 
are that the President was denying this workplace relationship, that he 
knew the Independent Counsel was attempting to prove it was true, and 
he knew his top aides working in his close proximity would be called 
before the grand jury to find out whether they had seen or heard of the 
relationship. The false information he passed to them, including much 
more than just false denials, clearly obstructed the grand jury's 
investigation.
  I also believe the evidence concerning unusual job assistance 
provided to Monica Lewinsky through the President's close friend, 
Vernon Jordan, and the President's blatant failure to interrupt his 
attorney's unknowing attempt to utilize Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit 
bolsters the Managers' charges of obstruction.
  The Senate has never faced the question whether obstruction of 
justice is an offense worthy of conviction and removal from office. 
Luckily, this is not a difficult question. No less than perjury, 
obstruction of justice and witness tampering interfere with the 
gathering of truthful evidence and testimony that is the lifeblood of 
our civil and criminal courts. Our Federal Sentencing Guidelines 
recognize the detrimental effects of these acts, providing for tougher 
sentences for obstruction than for general acts of bribery.
  In conclusion, consider whether instead of lying and obstructing in 
the Jones case, the President had paid bribes to Lewinsky and Judge 
Wright. Would the President's defenders still claim that this was 
private conduct? No, they could not, and the effect of the perjury and 
obstruction is the same.


                               CONCLUSION

  Throughout these proceedings, the President's counsel and defenders 
have cited his popularity as a new type of legal defense to the 
charges: Senator Bumpers said ``the people are saying `Please don't 
protect us from this man.' '' \25\ In fact, I believe his popularity, 
largely a result of economic factors not of his making, means the 
Senate should give even closer scrutiny to the charges. I would argue, 
as did Manager Canady, that a President able to get away with crimes 
because of his popularity is the greatest danger to our system of 
government, exactly the type of danger that the Framers envisioned when 
trusting the Senate with the power of removal.\26\ Remember how 
Alexander Hamilton spoke of the Senate's role:

       Where else, than in the Senate could have been found a 
     tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? 
     What other body would be likely to feel confidence enough in 
     its own situation, to preserve unawed and uninfluenced the 
     necessary impartiality between an individual accused, and the 
     representatives of the people, his accusers? \27\

  As Manager Graham pointed out, a Senator voting to convict the 
President for his actions is placing a ``burden on every future 
occupant'' of the office of the President to avoid this type of 
conduct.\28\ Asking our Presidents to obey the law and to respect the 
judicial process are burdens that I am willing to place on future 
Presidents.
  President Clinton is guilty of perjury. He is guilty of obstruction 
of justice. He must be removed from office.
  The House and its Managers admirably fulfilled their Constitutional 
and moral responsibilities. I can say confidently that Senate 
Republicans kept their promises to conduct a fair and expeditious trial 
and to protect the Constitution. The just cause of impeachment is 
nearly over.
  Congress will then be able to focus on its full-time job: securing a 
better quality of life for all Americans. During the coming months, 
Congress will move forward with an aggressive agenda to provide an 
across-the-board tax cut, improve educational opportunities for our 
children, strengthen our national security, and ensure a sound Social 
Security and retirement system that provides Americans with the best 
possible return on their investments.
  I am anxious to roll up my sleeves, get to work, and make the most of 
the opportunities ahead in the 106th Congress.

                               Footnotes

     \1\ 145 Cong. Rec. S495 (January 19, 1999) (statement of 
     counsel Ruff).
     \2\ 145 Cong. Rec. S963 (January 20, 1999) (statement of 
     Manager Canady).
     \3\ 145 Cong. Rec. S823 (January 20, 1999) (statement of 
     counsel Craig).
     \4\ Arkansas Democrat, August 6, 1974.
     \5\ See Cong. Rec. S299 (January 16, 1999) (statement of 
     Manager Hyde).
     \6\ 145 Cong. Rec. S283 (January 16, 1999) (statement of 
     Manager Buyer).

[[Page 2648]]

     \7\ 145 Cong. Rec. S286 (January 16, 1999) (statement of 
     Manager Buyer).
     \8\ 145 Cong. Rec. S887 (January 22, 1999) (statement of 
     Manager Hyde).
     \9\ Legal Times, January 18, 1999, at 26.
     \10\ 145 Cong. Rec. S266 (January 15, 1999) (statement of 
     Manager McCollum).
     \11\ House Serial 68, at 11.
     \12\ See 145 Cong. Rec. S879 (January 22, 1999) (statement of 
     Manager Rogan).
     \13\ 145 Cong. Rec. S812 (January 20, 1999) (statement of 
     counsel Craig).
     \14\ House Doc. 105-311, at 532.
     \15\ Clinton Jones deposition at 58.
     \16\ 145 Cong. Rec. S969 (January 25, 1999) (statement of 
     counsel Seligman).
     \17\ House Doc. 105-311, at 511.
     \18\ 145 Cong. Rec. S830 (January 20, 1999) (statement of 
     counsel Mills).
     \19\ See 145 Cong. Rec. S994 (January 26, 1999) (statement of 
     Manager McCollum).
     \20\ House Doc. 105-316, at 559.
     \21\ House Doc. 105-310 at 507-508, 583.
     \22\ 145 Cong. Rec. S1225 (February 4, 1999) (deposition of 
     Monica Lewinsky).
     \23\ 145 Cong. Rec. S1219 (February 4, 1999) (deposition of 
     Monica Lewinsky).
     \24\ 145 Cong. Rec. S275 (January 15, 1999) (statement of 
     Manager Barr).
     \25\ 145 Cong. Rec. S846 (January 21, 1999) (statement of 
     counsel Bumpers).
     \26\ See 145 Cong. Rec. S295 (January 16, 1999) (statement of 
     Manager Canady).
     \27\ 145 Cong. Rec. S296 (January 16, 1999) (statement of 
     Manager Canady) (quoting The Federalist No. 65).
     \28\ 145 Cong. Rec. S289 (January 16, 1999) (statement of 
     Manager Graham).

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. Chief Justice, as I begin, as so many of my 
colleagues have, I would like to thank our leaders for their tremendous 
patience--Tom, for your steady hand and, Trent, for your good sense of 
humor.
  Before I get into the core of my remarks, I would like to say that 
this ordeal has been, indeed, trying for all of us, but I believe it 
has strengthened us individually and as a body. We have come to know 
each other far better. We have gained a deeper appreciation of our 
individual strengths and gifts. And I am more than satisfied, 
particularly in listening to my colleague, Olympia Snowe, that this 
country is in good hands with the men and women here in this chamber.
  Besides gaining a deeper appreciation for each other and for the 
Senate itself, we have also shared a great history lesson. For some of 
us, it has been our first in-depth study of these portions of our 
history; for others, it has been a timely refresher course; and to one 
among us, Senator Robert C. Byrd, I trust a rewarding experience as 
your words and writings on this important constitutional question have 
brought calm and clarity to our deliberations.
  So many excellent points have been made in these last days. And I 
don't want you all to repeat this outside--and I know you can't--
because people would say I am crazy, but I have enjoyed every single 
moment of these last three days. There has been a lot of talk about our 
Constitution and the Framers intent regarding the impeachment clause. 
Many have been mentioned. I will only venture to offer one that has to 
my knowledge not been mentioned yet because it strikes me as 
particularly timely, important and ironic. That is the argument of the 
anti-Federalist faction who fought vigorously for an impeachment 
provision, because they believed according to Madison, ``. . . that the 
limitations of the period of service''--and they were speaking about an 
Executive--``was not sufficient security.''
  They believed that in creating a federal government it would quickly 
get out of control and out of step with the sentiments of the American 
people. Their fears were palpable. According to some scholars, as 
outlined in Senator Biden's brief, this charge of possible 
``corruption, intrigue, tyranny and arrogance'' between elections by 
the chief executive was so strong that it was almost fatal to the 
ratification of the Constitution by the states.
  It is, indeed, ironic that we are in the process of conducting an 
impeachment against a president that seems by all impartial and 
objective analysis--despite his personal failings--to be in step with 
the American people, in step with their wishes and their hopes for this 
country, in step with their ideas for a domestic and an international 
agenda.
  The latest independent analysis by the New York Times and CNN 
published today shows that 70% of the American people--a clear 
majority--believe that the President should not be removed from office. 
I know that people have rejected talk of analysis and polling. When I 
was writing this, I felt some hesitation of even bringing it up because 
I come from a family that wears as a badge of honor the ability to 
stand alone against great odds. In the 1950's, 60's, and 70's, as one 
of nine siblings born to parents who were civil rights leaders, it is 
the only way I knew. I grew up listening to my father tell stories 
about his lone vote against the Jim Crow laws in the Louisiana 
Legislature. I grew up thinking that was the right thing to do. I 
believe at this time, it still is.
  But as the Bible would infer, there is a time to lead and there is a 
time to listen. For those who are still struggling at this last hour 
with your decision, regardless of how strongly you might feel about 
what the President did, I respectfully suggest that you can find 
comfort in the wisdom of the people.
  Should we make all of our decisions based on polls and public opinion 
surveys? Absolutely not. However, this particular situation is 
different. Let me point out two important distinctions.
  One, this is not a regular issue. The people know a lot about this 
case. They have a clear high-tech, 20th century view of the currents 
and events shaping it. All of them: the good, the bad, and the ugly. It 
has been the most publicized and analyzed political/legal case of this 
century and perhaps all of history.
  Two, this is the greatest and most admired democracy on the face of 
the earth. As Patrick Moynihan so eloquently pointed out: One so rare 
and precious, it is truly a treasure. In such a democracy, the people's 
voices should count.
  Thomas Jefferson said, ``Democracy is cumbersome, slow and 
inefficient.'' Over the last twelve months, we can certainly attest to 
that. ``But,'' he said, ``in due time, the voice of the people will be 
heard and their latent wisdom will prevail.''
  As for me, I voted to dismiss both articles at the first appropriate 
opportunity. I did so after careful review of the facts, the evidence 
and a reading of the relevant parts of the Constitution and the other 
appropriate historical documentation. My colleague, Olympia Snowe, and 
others have eloquently gone through many of the details of the case, 
and I will not take time to repeat them now.
  I concluded that the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, 
while serious indeed, overlaid an immoral but not a criminal act 
against the state, one that is essentially private and not a public 
act. Therefore, in my judgment the charges did not rise to the level of 
high crimes and misdemeanors, a high constitutional bar which has 
served us exceedingly well over the last 223 years.
  So today for those same reasons, and in respect for the people of 
this democracy, I will vote to acquit the President on both charges.
  As I said in an earlier statement, which at this time I would like to 
add to this record, this vote should not be interpreted as approval of 
the President's actions which were reckless, irresponsible and showed a 
serious lack of judgment. A sexual dalliance with a White House intern 
and the subsequent breach of the public trust will cast a deep shadow 
over his other notable accomplishments and will forever tarnish his 
presidential legacy.
  I cast this vote and find my comfort in a clear conscience, in the 
Constitution, and in the will of the people.
  In closing, let me make one last appeal. Let us put forth a strong 
censure resolution. One that doesn't attempt to provide cover for 
either political party or to make us feel better or worse about our 
votes. We can all defend our votes, and certainly we will be called on 
to do so. Let us, rather, craft a resolution which could receive a 
majority support of both parties. The wording should condemn the 
President's actions in the strongest terms and call for a national 
reconciliation.


                       Upholding the Constitution

  Several weeks ago the Senate took up the somber Constitutional task 
of sitting in judgment of a president in an impeachment trial. 
Throughout the trial, I have limited public comment to underscore the 
impartiality I have brought to this process. Both sides have now spoken 
and I have reviewed

[[Page 2649]]

all of the evidence as required by the Constitution. My decision has 
been made: the actions of President Clinton, while wrong, indefensible 
and reckless, do not meet the Constitutional standards for removal from 
office. Therefore I have voted to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment 
against the President.
  From the start, I have tried to focus on what the Framers of the 
Constitution had in mind when they carefully crafted the Impeachment 
Clause. It is important to remember that for more than 100 years the 
colonies suffered under the thumb of the tyrannical kings of the 
English monarchy. A principle goal of the Framers was to have a 
mechanism to protect the populace from corrupt and oppressive leaders.
  In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison argued 
that impeachment be used only for ``distinctly political offenses 
against the state.'' Our Founders were trying to guard against tyranny 
and oppression, and not personal actions no matter how reprehensible. 
More than 700 noted legal and historical scholars, both conservative 
and liberal, agree with this constitutional interpretation of the 
impeachment clause.
  The Founders were also rightly concerned that impeachment might be 
employed as a partisan tool to undermine, even destroy, high ranking 
government officials--especially the President. They worried a 
``powerful partisan majority'' might misuse it for public gain. The 
House impeachment vote, which essentially fell along party lines, is 
troubling. Such partisanship was absent during the Watergate 
proceedings. At that time Republicans and Democrats on the House 
Judiciary Committee joined together to vote for impeachment because the 
evidence showed crimes were committed against the government.
  I also voted against calling witnesses because it is clear that a 
complete and fair trial can and should be conducted on this voluminous 
and well-publicized record. Our nation deserves to be spared this 
protracted spectacle, particularly at a time when public 
disillusionment of government is at an all-time high and issues like 
Social Security, education and international crises demand our 
immediate attention.
  Critics of this position will somehow believe that President Clinton 
has avoided punishment. On that issue, let me make two points. First, 
the power of impeachment was never meant to punish the president, but 
to protect the nation. Second, the president has already suffered by 
his reckless behavior and, unfortunately, so has his family. In 
addition, criminal charges could be brought against him once he leaves 
office, and he is still subject to civil charges. Worst of all, his 
inappropriate and reckless behavior and the subsequent breach of public 
trust will cast a permanent shadow over his other notable 
accomplishments and will forever tarnish his presidential legacy.
  In 1868 Senator James G. Blaine voted to convict and remove Andrew 
Johnson, the only other president to be impeached. Twenty years later 
he said he had made a ``bad mistake'' and recanted. Upon further 
reflection he realized that the charges did not warrant the ``chaos and 
confusion'' of removing President Johnson from office. Likewise, these 
charges do not warrant the ``chaos and confusion'' that could occur 
should our last presidential election be overturned.
  At the conclusion of this trial, I plan to cosponsor a strong censure 
resolution of President Clinton concluding that his conduct in this 
matter has brought shame and dishonor to himself and the Office of the 
President. In my opinion, it would bring a sensible end to this 
regrettable chapter in American political history. Finally, the 
ultimate political judgments will be made by the people in future 
elections. And the lasting judgment will be made by the only One who 
can.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. Chief Justice, thank you very much. I 
would certainly give more than a penny for your thoughts on this 
matter. But I am afraid we will probably never know.
  Mr. Chief Justice, I have been proud to be a U.S. Senator ever since 
that day over 8 years ago when I took the oath of office and my 
colleague, Senator Byrd, told me that I was the 1,794th person to serve 
in the U.S. Senate.
  During my tenure in the Senate, I have learned to respect my 
colleagues even when I strongly disagree with them on the issues of the 
day. I have challenged colleagues on issues and maybe at times even 
criticized their votes. But I have never challenged a colleague's 
motives and I never will. I respect each and every one of you and the 
high office you hold.
  I consider it a great honor to serve in this body, and serve with 
some giants here--Senator Helms, Senator Thurmond, Senator Byrd, to 
name a few.
  I remember when I came to the floor of the Senate and signed that 
book as No. 1,794. Senator Byrd reminded me of the significance of 
that. And I have never forgotten it.
  I also sit at the desk of Daniel Webster. It is a constant reminder 
that I am just a temporary steward occupying this seat in the U.S. 
Senate. It is also a reminder that we will move on. But the 
Constitution will not move on. The Constitution will endure forever. 
Our role here in this proceeding is to preserve the Constitution and 
the Presidency. Yes--even if it means we have to remove the President.
  Mr. Chief Justice, when the rollcall is called tomorrow, I will be 
voting ``guilty'' on both of the articles that are now before the 
Senate. It is clear that the Senate will not be finding President 
Clinton guilty on either article. But I just want to say regarding 
censure that my vote is my censure. I think anyone who votes to find 
him guilty does not need to be concerned about censure.
  As I contemplate my vote, I am reminded of a prayer offered in 1947 
by a former Chaplain of the Senate, Rev. Peter Marshall. Reverend 
Marshall prayed: ``Our Father in Heaven . . . help us to see that it is 
better to fail in the cause that will ultimately succeed than to 
succeed in a cause that will ultimately fail.''
  I have faith that the cause in which I believe will ultimately 
prevail, because I believe that history will judge that President 
Clinton is, in fact, guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors that 
warrant his removal from office. I know others respectfully disagree. 
And believe me, I respect that disagreement.
  Many of my colleagues have spoken on the instability a guilty verdict 
would cause for the Nation. We should never remove a President unless 
there is clear and present danger to the Nation, they say. With 
respect, colleagues, I submit to you that the double standard that we 
have set for our leader will ignite a cynicism directed against all of 
us. A cynicism is a clear and present danger to society.
  With a not guilty verdict, you will tell the American people that 
perjury and obstruction of justice for the President are acceptable; 
that those who put their lives on the line for our Nation every day in 
our Armed Forces have a higher standard than the Commander in Chief; 
and that for everyone else in America who lose their jobs because of 
perjury and obstruction, that is not acceptable.
  We reap what we sow. In my view, respectfully, history will judge us 
harshly for this. And I say that in great humbleness. It is my view. A 
not guilty verdict is a short-term victory for the President. It is a 
long-term defeat for truth, for honor, for integrity, for the 
Presidency, and, in my view, for the Constitution.
  As Peter Marshall intimated in his prayer, with a not guilty verdict 
we have succeeded in a cause which I believe will ultimately fail.
  My colleagues, we are all elected officials. And I want to comment 
about this partisanship. I say it in the spirit of bipartisanship. We 
have all been through the same ordeal together here. The nasty 
fundraising, the ad wars, dirty campaign tactics, thousands of miles of 
travel, neglecting our families, hours and hours away from home, much 
to the detriment of our own health and financial well-being. We do it 
all the time. And for anyone inside or outside this institution to 
suggest that my vote, or your vote, or anyone's vote in here is based 
on partisanship

[[Page 2650]]

not only makes me sick, it makes me bristle with anger.
  What are my colleagues really saying when they invoke the word 
``partisanship''? Do you really believe that the impeachment of the 
President of the United States by a majority of the Members of the 
House of Representatives, the body that is elected every 2 years, gives 
closure to the people, and the body elected by the same voters who 
elect one-third of us every 2 years would impeach the President of the 
United States because he is a Democrat? Even to imply that is unworthy, 
it is arrogant, and it is below the dignity of this very seat that you 
now hold. Have you forgotten the ``war'' that James Carville declared 
on Ken Starr a year or so ago, and on the Republicans, to protect the 
innocent Bill Clinton?
  Was that partisan? Was the President totally innocent? Partisanship 
has no place in this Senate, especially when it sits as a Court of 
Impeachment. We are here to do impartial justice, to be unbiased triers 
of fact. Yet, we have allowed that runaway partisan train of White 
House apologists, I might say, to rumble into the Senate with no 
brakes.
  One of my colleagues mentioned the courage of Republicans who voted 
against impeachment in the House. How about the Democrats who voted to 
impeach? Are they, by implication, cowards?
  Alexander Hamilton would be appalled at the notion of partisanship in 
an impeachment trial. Indeed, writing in the Federalist Papers, 
Hamilton said that the impeachment of the President ``will seldom fail 
to agitate the passion of the whole community, and to divide it into 
parties more or less friendly to the accused.''
  ``There will always be the greatest danger,'' Hamilton warned, ``that 
the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the 
parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.''
  Mr. Chief Justice, there was a hero of the Revolutionary War era, Dr. 
Joseph Warren. He was a doctor. He didn't have to serve; he was 34 
years old. His colleagues begged him not to go. But he picked up arms 
at Bunker Hill at 34 years old and he said, ``Our country is in danger. 
On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important 
questions upon which rest the happiness and the liberty of millions yet 
unborn. Act worthy of yourselves.'' He was killed at the Battle of 
Bunker Hill.
  We don't act worthy of ourselves when we let partisanship enter into 
this trial, or even accuse one another of it. Why is it, when Democrats 
march in lockstep on a vote, that we Republicans are the only ones 
being accused of partisanship?
  Why are the House Republicans partisan because they vote out the 
articles, yet the Democrats who vote to block them are not partisan?
  I have served with Henry Hyde in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
and so have many of you. There is not even a remote chance--and every 
single one of you knows it--not even a remote chance that Henry Hyde 
would bring articles of impeachment against the President of the United 
States of any party if he didn't believe they were justified.
  Honorable men and women can disagree on these articles, but leave 
your politics at the door. Act worthy of yourselves.
  If the articles were so outrageous, so political, so partisan, so 
vindictive, and it is nothing more than a private sexual matter, then 
why do those of you who say those things want to censure this President 
using such terms to describe his actions as ``shameful,'' 
``disgraceful,'' ``reprehensible,'' ``false'' and ``misleading,'' and 
so forth?
  Before I leave the matter of partisanship, let me say a few words 
about the case of our former colleague, Senator Packwood. My colleagues 
know I was a member of the Ethics Committee, and I supported the 
expulsion of Senator Packwood. I lost a colleague, and I lost a friend 
over that.
  That case, too, was ``about sex.'' My colleagues and I didn't shrink 
from doing our duty in the Packwood case because this outrageous 
behavior was about sex.
  In addition, those organizations advocating that the Senate take 
strong action against Senator Packwood were, by and large, liberal 
feminist groups, which I disagree with on nearly every issue.
  That, however, did not matter. Instead of being partisan or being 
deterred because the case was about sex, those of us on the Ethics 
Committee painstakingly investigated that case in all of its sordid and 
unpleasant detail. We considered the shameful behavior in which 
Packwood engaged. We considered how his behavior reflected on his 
fitness to serve. We considered his obstruction of the investigation 
with respect to his diaries.
  And in the end, the committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, voted 
to recommend to the full Senate that he be expelled. In doing our duty 
as we saw fit, we were not deterred by the argument that we were 
``overturning an election,'' nor were the Republican members of the 
Ethics Committee--at the time, Senators McConnell, Craig and myself--
deterred by the fact that Senator Packwood was a member of our own 
party, nor were we deterred because liberal feminist groups were 
aggressively supporting many of the women accusers of Senator Packwood. 
The heart of the issue is not who Paula Jones' lawyers are, my 
colleagues, but, rather, did Bill Clinton expose himself in the 
presence of Paula Jones against her wishes? That is at best sexual 
misconduct, and at worst it is sexual harassment. Right wing groups did 
not find Paula Jones. Bill Clinton did. He says he didn't do it. Do you 
really believe him? The women accusers of Senator Packwood received 
justice in spite of those who promoted their cause. Paula Jones 
deserves the same treatment. The Supreme Court agreed 9 to zero. It is 
outrageous to say, as some have on this floor, that it is acceptable to 
expel Senator Packwood and acquit the President. That kind of debate 
should not take place on the floor of the Senate. How can you say that 
Senator Packwood is equal under the law, and yet the President is above 
the law?
  Today, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to do in the impeachment 
case of President Clinton what we did in the ethics case of Senator 
Packwood. Put aside your political affiliation. Put aside your 
friendship or your personal disdain for President Clinton. Put all of 
that aside and do the right thing.
  The House managers have established, I believe, beyond a reasonable 
doubt that President Clinton perjured himself and obstructed justice. 
As such, I don't believe we have any option other than to remove him 
from office and replace him with the Vice President--a fine, decent 
man, as many of his predecessors who have assumed the office of the 
Presidency during difficult times, and the Nation has persevered.
  As I have listened to my colleagues in these final deliberations, I 
have heard time and again that the House managers did not prove their 
obstruction of justice charge because of conflicts in testimony. We 
heard about all these conflicts--conflicts in testimony about the 
hiding of the gifts, conflicts in testimony about the job search, 
conflicts in testimony about the President's coaching of Betty Currie.
  Well, let me ask you, colleagues, if you believed that these 
conflicts needed to be resolved, then why didn't you join some of us 
who signed a letter to call for the President of the United States to 
come here to the Senate and tell the truth? What were you afraid of?
  We could have called President Clinton here to a closed session of 
the Senate. It need not have been a media spectacle. It can and should 
have been a closed session--just the Senate and the President.
  Time and again, I have heard my colleagues say that there should be a 
higher standard for removing a President of the United States than for 
removing a Federal judge or expelling a Senator Packwood. If there is 
such a higher standard for the law, then why not insist on a higher 
standard for the man?
  One of my colleagues mentioned the Iran-contra matter. At an earlier 
time,

[[Page 2651]]

not too many years ago, when impeachment talk was in the air, President 
Ronald Reagan walked to the microphone, and he said, ``I take full 
responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. 
As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, 
I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may 
be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the 
American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I 
find secret bank accounts and diverted funds--well, well, as the Navy 
would say, this happened on my watch.''
  Oh, what a little honesty and candor can do for the soul of the 
Nation. Why didn't we call the President? Why didn't every Member of 
this Senate sign that letter? What would be wrong with having him come, 
either in deposition or in person? I will always regret that we failed 
to do so. We will never know whether the President's own testimony here 
before us could have better enabled us to do our constitutional duty. 
We will never know. The President testified before the grand jury. He 
testified before the Paula Jones case. He should have testified at his 
own impeachment trial so we could get the truth, so those of you who 
want to know whether or not he obstructed justice or committed perjury 
could have heard from him, not his lawyers. It is a permanent black 
mark on this trial, and I believe historians will ask for a long, long 
time: Why didn't the President testify? It could have changed the 
outcome of the trial.
  Speaking of constitutional duty, I am reminded of the President's 
oath. Article II, section 1, clause 7, of the Constitution provides 
that:

       Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall 
     take the following Oath or Affirmation: ``I do solemnly swear 
     (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the 
     President of the United States, and will to the best of my 
     Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the 
     United States.''

  The Constitution considers the oath so important that it requires the 
man or woman who is elected President to take it. So given the 
importance of an oath--it is so important that no one elected can serve 
unless they take it--how can we say that willful violation of that 
oath, being perjury and obstruction, doesn't rise to the level of 
impeachment?
  President Clinton has discredited the oath that the chief law 
enforcement officer of the Nation must take. We have compounded that 
discredit by not holding him accountable.
  Manager Lindsey Graham said that ``we could leap boldly into the 21st 
century by ignoring the rule of law.'' Unfortunately, the Senate opted 
to crawl.
  My colleagues, we all in politics know what a user is. With all due 
respect, Bill Clinton is a user. He used Monica Lewinsky; he used his 
friends; he used his Cabinet; he used the American people; and now he 
is using the Senate.
  The President has never been held accountable. He wasn't held 
accountable for not telling the truth about the draft; he was not held 
accountable for not telling the truth about marijuana; he was not held 
accountable for lying about his relationship with Gennifer Flowers; he 
was not held accountable for his actions towards Paula Jones; he was 
not held accountable for lying about Monica Lewinsky. He will walk away 
from this trial with an acquittal, and yet again he will avoid 
accountability for his actions. He will avoid being held accountable 
for the actions that every American citizen, every teacher, every CEO, 
every military man and woman, would have lost his or her job over, and 
we let it happen. We did. With the greatest respect, that is not a 
profile in courage.
  After the acquittal, I hope we will not be a party to the party. The 
champagne corks will pop; cigars will be lit; maybe even the bongo 
drums will be played. I implore you, colleagues, don't go to the party. 
There is nothing to celebrate. Act worthy of yourselves.
  In 1880, when Dostoevsky, the great Russian author, wrote ``The 
Brothers Karamazov,'' he could not even have dreamed that there would 
ever be a Bill Clinton, but here is what he says, and it goes right to 
the heart of this entire case:

       The important thing is to stop lying to yourself. A man who 
     lies to himself and believes his own lies becomes unable to 
     recognize the truth, either in himself or anyone else, and he 
     ends up losing respect for himself as well as for others.
       When he has no respect for anyone, he can no longer love. 
     And in order to divert himself, having no love in him, he 
     yields to his impulses, indulges in the lowest form of 
     pleasure, and behaves in the end like an animal in satisfying 
     his vices. And it all comes from lying, lying to others and 
     to yourself.

  The rule of law and the President's constitutional oath must pass the 
test of truth. President Clinton, regrettably, failed that test.
  Mr. Chief Justice, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that 
William Jefferson Clinton is guilty of perjury, is guilty of 
obstruction of justice, and must be removed from office. I have only to 
answer to my conscience, to the Constitution, and the judgment of 
history, and I stand ready for that judgment.
  I yield back any time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. Chief Justice, colleagues, I will vote to acquit 
the President on the two articles of impeachment. I will vote ``no'' 
for two reasons. First, the House has failed to allege acts by this 
President which in the context of this case constitute high crimes and 
misdemeanors. And, second, the House managers allege that the President 
committed crimes, but they have failed to establish the elements of 
those crimes.
  The illicit sexual affair which the President engaged in, and the 
President's efforts to conceal that affair, are permanent black marks 
on his Presidency. His actions were deplorable, indefensible, and 
immoral.
  But however reprehensible these acts were, they are not impeachable 
offenses. They did not endanger the Government. They were not the 
``stuff'' which the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they 
used the phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors.''
  I think we should act accordingly. Our duty, as I see it, is to look 
at the record, look at the arguments, judge our own authority as it has 
been given to us in the Constitution, and then vote either to remove 
the President or to acquit the President.
  I want to spend just a minute on this issue of our own authority. As 
I hear some of the discussion, it seems to me we have lost sight of our 
own authority. Some have argued that if a university president were to 
have engaged in these acts, clearly the board of regents of the 
university would fire that president. Some have said if a chief 
executive officer of a corporation were to engage in a course of 
conduct like this, the board of directors of the corporation would fire 
the chief executive officer.
  I was visiting the United Parcel Service facility in Albuquerque 
right before Christmas, and I was talking to various people there. One 
of the men said, ``I hope you throw the President out of office because 
if I did what he has done my boss would sure fire me.'' That is the way 
a lot of us tend to think about this issue. And the discussion here 
this afternoon has been consistent with that. So I think it is worth 
focusing on what is wrong with that argument.
  What is wrong with that argument is that we are not the President's 
boss. We did not hire the President. The American people hired the 
President, just like the American people hired each one of us. And we 
have very limited authority under the Constitution to step in and 
interfere with the decision of the American people in that regard. I do 
not believe that the Constitution intended that we would set ourselves 
up as the judge of the President's character, or to determine whether 
we believe this President is trustworthy enough to remain in office. 
That issue is not for us to decide. That was decided by the American 
people. They have not delegated that decision to us.
  I am reminded of a story from New Mexico politics. We had a mayor in 
Albuquerque many years ago named Clyde Tingley. He was very proud of 
the city zoo, which he had built with city funds. He was showing the 
zoo to a high official in the Catholic Church one day. And the official 
at one point

[[Page 2652]]

said, ``Well, Mr. Mayor, this is an amazing project here. The people of 
Albuquerque ought to canonize you for this.'' The mayor shot back, ``A 
bunch of them tried during the last election. But they didn't get away 
with it.''
  I think a bunch of people tried to throw this President out of the 
White House in the last election because of questions about his 
character, but they didn't get away with it. These are not new 
questions about this President. These are questions which have been 
raised and raised and raised about whether this President is 
trustworthy, whether this President has demonstrated the character 
necessary to serve as President. And we really did already have a vote. 
Every one of us has already voted on whether to remove this President 
from the White House. Each one of us voted on that issue in November of 
1996. I would assume a majority of us in this Chamber voted to remove 
him from the White House. But the American people chose to keep him 
there. The American people judged him to be worthy of the job and chose 
him to be their President for another four years. And they did not 
authorize us to second guess that decision.
  So we need to look at our own job here, and say to ourselves, ``Are 
we here to pass judgment on the President's character, are we here to 
pass judgment on the President's trustworthiness, are we here to 
determine whether he is a proper example for young people, or instead 
are we here to decide whether he has committed high crimes and 
misdemeanors that would justify removing him from office?''
  Senator Joe Biden put it very well by saying that this branch of 
government--the House and Senate--should be very reluctant to reach 
across and remove the head of another branch of government. That is an 
extraordinary act. It has never occurred in the history of this 
country. For good reason it has never occurred. It would be a major 
mistake for us to take that action at this time.
  The framers of the Constitution did not intend Congress to remove a 
duly elected President on the basis of facts such as these, and they 
were right to deny the Senate that authority. The stability of the 
executive branch must not be put at risk by Congress, contrary to the 
``electoral will'', absent a clear showing of ``high crimes and 
misdemeanors'' by the President. There is no such clear showing here. 
The proper remedy for this kind of improper conduct is in the voting 
booth, not here on the floor of the United States Senate.
  In my view, the House misused the power of impeachment when it voted 
these articles of impeachment against the President. It would compound 
the misuse of power if the Senate were to vote to convict and remove. 
My vote will be to acquit.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chief Justice, as I have sat through this trial, I 
have not spent much time on questions of reasonable doubt or where the 
preponderance of evidence lies. Whatever the importance of those 
concepts in a typical court, the constitutional implications of what we 
are considering are much more serious than the issues decided in a 
normal trial. I will not vote to remove a sitting President on the 
turning of a legal issue.
  Accordingly, early in the trial I decided that I would not vote to 
convict under the First Article of Impeachment. It struck me as overly 
legalistic. I listened to the lawyers argue about the proper form of 
the article, and I heard about questions of materiality--not a term I 
use in everyday conversation--and I decided that while the case was 
there, it was shaky. In order to be sure I would render impartial 
justice, I asked myself if I would remove Ronald Reagan in a similar 
circumstance. When I realized I would not, I decided that I could not 
vote to remove Bill Clinton.
  Once I had made that decision, I more or less tuned out further 
discussions on Article One, from either side, and concentrated on 
Article Two.
  Here the issues seemed more disturbing. The Constitution guarantees 
that the most ordinary of citizens has the right to her day in court, 
regardless of her hair or her nose or her choice of attorneys. The man 
she sues, even if he is the most powerful man in the country, does not 
have the right to lie while testifying under oath in her case, to deny 
her truthful discovery just because it would embarrass him. He does not 
have the right to encourage others who are beholden to him, either for 
their jobs or for favors he has done for them, to do the same, even by 
interference. He does not have the right to coach and mislead potential 
witnesses. He does not have the right to use the awesome power of the 
White House public relations apparatus to spread false and malicious 
rumors about people--calling them ``stalkers,'' ``trailer park trash'' 
and ``liars''--just because he thinks they might embarrass him if they 
tell the truth.
  It has been said that it was understandable for President Clinton to 
do all these things because he was just trying to cover up a sexual 
affair, and, after all, everyone lies about sex. Well, not everyone. We 
have had other Presidents whose sexual improprieties have been made 
public at awkward times --Grover Cleveland, while a candidate for 
President, was exposed as having fathered a child out of wedlock. Asked 
by his panicked political allies what to do he said, ``Tell the truth, 
of course,'' and won the election. Bill Clinton should take such notes.
  What finally convinced me to vote for Article Two was the statement 
of my good friend, Dale Bumpers. I thought he was magnificent. He told 
us that the fundamental purpose of the Constitution was to ``keep 
bullies from running over weak people.''
  I was struck by that. I wrote it down. Then I asked myself, ``In this 
case, who is the bully, and who are the weak people?''
  While publicly posing as a helpless victim of a relentless 
prosecutor, it was President Clinton and the people in his famous ``war 
room'' who were the bullies, using presidential powers and presidential 
lies to run over the rights of Paula Jones and, if necessary, Monica 
Lewinsky.
  Any President who is willing to lie and smear and stonewall, whether 
under oath in a courtroom or before a TV camera, speaking 
confidentially to his aides or privately to his family--any President 
who is so ruthless, disdainful of the truth and callous of the rights 
of others that he is willing to do anything to ``just win, then''; any 
President who readily uses the power of his office for his personal 
ends regardless of who is hurt--that President is a bully and, as such, 
a threat to the constitutional liberties of us all.
  Dale Bumpers said that the Constitution was written to keep bullies 
from running over weak people. That's called justice. William Jefferson 
Clinton tried to obstruct that justice. And I decided to vote to remove 
him from office.
  So there I was--ready to vote not guilty on Article One, guilty on 
Article Two. I sat down and wrote a fancy speech outlining these 
conclusions, showed it to a few friends, notified my staff and sat back 
to let things play out.
  As the trial proceeded, however, something was gnawing at me. The 
perjury charge kept creeping back into my mind. That something, as I 
confronted it, was my experience with the Clinton political apparatus 
and its modus operandi. At the heart of everything that apparatus and 
its operatives do, whatever the situation, is the process of lying.
  Some of their lies have been whoppers, some trivial. Most have been 
dismissed as mere ``spin,'' relatively few have been under oath, but 
the continuing pattern of distorting, avoiding and, when necessary, 
simply denying the truth goes back to the 1992 campaign. It has carried 
through the three Senate investigations in which I have participated. 
On a parochial note, it defined the process of creating a stealth 
National Monument in my state. It has permeated the entire PR campaign 
connected with the Lewinsky affair. The New York Times calls it 
``habitual mendacity.''
  If this were a standard trial, as juror I would not know any of that. 
I would have to make up my mind solely on the basis of the evidence 
presented here. Some would say I still should.

[[Page 2653]]

  I believe that the Framers of the Constitution dictated otherwise. 
They chose the Senate as the trial court of impeachment deliberately, 
giving us extensive powers as both judge and jury, and they were not 
naive enough to think that we would check our understanding of the 
history of the accused President at the door as we took up this burden. 
They intended for this to be different than a typical trial court.
  When I realized that, I began to rethink my earlier decision. With 
such a pattern of ``habitual mendacity'' running through his entire 
public career, could I really say that Bill Clinton's perjurious 
testimony before the Grand Jury didn't warrant removal?
  I made my decision to change my vote to ``guilty'' on Article One 
during the closing arguments when Charles Ruff, the President's 
attorney, asked us a question with respect to an alleged high crime or 
misdemeanor. He asked, ``would it put at risk the liberties of the 
people?''
  As I watched a replay of the President's testimony repeating obvious 
lies while under oath, I realized that the answer is yes. A President 
who has demonstrated a capacity to lie about anything, great or small, 
whether or not under oath, does threaten our liberties. We cannot be 
sure of anything he says, we cannot trust his word, whatever the issue. 
We will always be fearful of where that trait of his could take us, and 
we should be.
  So now I will vote guilty on both Articles, with a clear conscience 
that I have done my duty. And I would vote the same if the President's 
name were Ronald Wilson Reagan.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chief Justice, for the past six weeks, the Senate has 
been engaged as a Court of Impeachment to try President William 
Jefferson Clinton--the first trial of an elected President in the 
history of the United States. Our deliberations will bring to a close 
more than a year of controversy which has left the American people both 
frustrated and dismayed. And, hopefully, our decision will serve as a 
means of rededicating the energies of our Government to the service of 
the American people.
  In this endeavor, our solemn duty to the Constitution is paramount.
  Conscious of these responsibilities and based on the evidence in the 
record, the arguments of the House Managers and the counsels for the 
President, I conclude as follows. The President has disgraced himself 
and dishonored his office. He has offended the justified expectations 
of the American people that the Presidency be above the sordid episodes 
revealed in the record before us. However, the House Managers failed to 
establish that the President's conduct amounts to ``high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors'' requiring his removal from office in accordance with the 
Constitution. Moreover, the House Managers also failed to prove, beyond 
a reasonable doubt, that the allegations in the Articles would 
constitute the crimes of perjury or obstruction of justice.
  The Constitutional grounds for Impeachment, ``Treason, Bribery, or 
other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' indicate both the severity of the 
offenses necessary for removal and the essential political character of 
these offenses. The clarity of ``Treason'' and ``Bribery'' is without 
doubt. No more heinous example of an offense against the Constitutional 
order exists than betrayal of the nation to an enemy or betrayal of 
duty for personal enrichment. With these offenses as predicate, it 
follows that ``other high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' must likewise be 
restricted to serious offenses that strike at the heart of the 
Constitutional order.
  Certainly, this is the view of Alexander Hamilton; one of the trio of 
authors of the Federalist Papers which is the most respected and 
authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, 
Hamilton describes impeachable offenses as ``those offenses which 
proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words from the 
abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may 
with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate 
chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ See footnotes at end of speech.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  This view is sustained with remarkable consistency by other 
contemporaries of Hamilton. George Mason, a delegate to the Federal 
Constitutional Convention, declared that ``high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors'' refer to ``great and dangerous offenses'' or ``attempts 
to subvert the Constitution.'' \2\ James Iredell, a delegate to the 
North Carolina Convention which ratified the Constitution and later a 
justice of the United States Supreme Court, stated during the 
Convention debates:

       The power of impeachment is given by this Constitution, to 
     bring great offenders to punishment. . . . This power is 
     lodged in those who represent the great body of the people, 
     because the occasion for its exercise will arise from acts of 
     great injury to the community, and the objects of it may be 
     such as cannot be easily reached by an ordinary tribunal.\3\

Iredell sustains the view that an impeachable offense must cause 
``great injury to the community.'' These interpretations strongly 
indicate that private wrongdoing, without a significant, adverse effect 
upon the nation, does not constitute an impeachable offense.
  Later commentators expressed similar views. In 1833, Justice Story 
quoted favorably from the scholarship of William Rawle in which Rawle 
concluded that the ``legitimate causes of impeachment . . . can have 
reference only to public character, and official duty. . . . In 
general, those offenses, which may be committed equally by a private 
person, as a public officer, are not the subject of impeachment.'' \4\
  This line of reasoning was manifest in the careful and thoughtful 
work of the House of Representatives during the Watergate proceedings 
in 1974. The Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee 
concluded that:

     [b]ecause impeachment of a President is a grave step for the 
     nation, it is to be predicated only upon conduct seriously 
     incompatible with either the constitutional form and 
     principles of our government or the proper performance of 
     constitutional duties of [the President's] office.\5\

  This view was echoed by many of the Republican members of the 
Judiciary Committee when they declared:

     . . . the Framers . . . were concerned with preserving the 
     government from being overthrown by the treachery or 
     corruption of one man . . . [I]t is our judgment, based upon 
     this constitutional history, that the Framers of the United 
     States Constitution intended that the President should be 
     removable by the legislative branch only for serious 
     misconduct dangerous to the system of government.\6\

  This authoritative commentary on the meaning of ``high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors'' is supported by the structure of the Constitution which 
makes impeachment independent from the operation of the criminal 
justice system. Regardless of the outcome of an impeachment trial, the 
accused ``shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, 
Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.'' \7\ The 
independence of the impeachment process from the prosecution of crimes 
underscores the function of impeachment as a means to remove a 
President from office, not because of criminal behavior, but because 
the President poses a threat to the Constitutional order. Criminal 
behavior is not irrelevant to an impeachment, but it only becomes 
decisive if that behavior imperils the balance of power established in 
the Constitution.
  The House Managers argue that we should apply the same reasoning to 
the removal of the President that we have applied to the trial of 
Federal judges. They make their argument with particular urgency in 
regard to Article I and its allegations of perjury since several judges 
have been removed for perjury.\8\
  This reasoning disregards the unique position of the President. The 
President is elected and popular elections are a compelling check on 
Presidential conduct. No such ``popular check'' was imposed on the 
Judiciary. They are deliberately insulated from the public pressures of 
the moment to ensure their independence to follow the law and not a 
changeable public mood. As such, impeachment is the only means of 
removing a judge. And, the removal of one of the 839 Federal judges can

[[Page 2654]]

never have the traumatic effect of the removal of the President. To 
suggest that a Presidential impeachment and a judicial impeachment 
should be treated identically strains credibility.
  Moreover, the Constitution requires that judicial service be 
conditioned on ``good Behavior.'' This adds a further dimension to the 
consideration of the removal of a judge from office. Although ``good 
Behavior'' is not a separate grounds for impeachment, this 
Constitutional standard thoroughly permeates any evaluation of judicial 
conduct. Judges are subject to the most exacting code of conduct in 
both their public life and their private life.\9\ Without diminishing 
the expectations of Presidential conduct, it is fair to say that we 
expect and demand a more scrupulous standard of conduct, particularly 
personal conduct, from judges.
  The House Managers' argument is ultimately unpersuasive. Rather than 
reflexively importing prior decisions dealing with judicial 
impeachments, we are obliged to consider the President's behavior in 
the context of his unique Constitutional duties and without the 
condition to his tenure of ``good Behavior.''
  Authoritative commentary on the Constitution, together with the 
structure of the Constitution allowing independent consideration of 
criminal charges, makes it clear that the term, ``high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors,'' encompasses conduct which involves the President in the 
impermissible exercise of the powers of his office to upset the 
Constitutional order. Moreover, since the essence of impeachment is 
removal from office rather than punishment for offenses, there is a 
strong inference that the improper conduct must represent a continuing 
threat to the people and the Constitution, and not simply an episode 
that either can be dealt with in the Courts or raises no generalized 
concerns about the continued service of the President.
  Measured against this Constitutional standard, the allegations 
against the President do not constitute ``high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors.'' The uncontradicted facts of the case paint a sordid 
picture of the President's involvement in a clandestine, consensual 
affair with a young woman. His attempts to disguise this affair 
collided with the Jones lawsuit; a lawsuit filed against him in his 
capacity as a private citizen, and not in anyway directed at his 
conduct as President. Over many months, he misled and he dissembled 
about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He lied to his family, he 
lied to his colleagues, and, on January 26, 1998, he lied to the 
American people. All of these lies were designed to disguise his 
illicit but consensual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Only after being 
compelled to testify before a Federal Grand Jury in August of 1998, did 
the President finally admit his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
  The House Managers take this tale of deception and betrayal, more 
soap opera than high drama of State, and urge that it rises to behavior 
evidencing an impermissible exercise of his powers as President or an 
impermissible failure to discharge his duties as President which 
threatens the Constitutional balance of government and can only be 
remedied by the removal of the President. They urge too much. The 
allegations, even construed in the most favorable light to the House 
Managers, do not constitute ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' as that 
term has been consistently interpreted over the course of American 
history.\10\
  One could confidently stop at this point and reach a judgment to 
acquit the President. Such a judgment does not forgive the disreputable 
behavior of the President. Rather, it does, as it must, keep faith with 
the Constitution.
  However, to stop at this juncture and ignore the allegations of 
criminal conduct could leave several misper-
ceptions. First, such an approach could be criticized as failing to 
afford the House of Representatives in appropriate recognition as the 
proponent of Articles of Impeachment. The House of Representatives 
acted in the discharge of its exclusive Constitutional prerogative to 
impeach the President. They cast these Articles as criminal violations, 
and due deference must be given to the decision of the House. Second, 
failing to examine the allegations of criminal conduct may leave the 
erroneous impression that criminal activity by the President can never 
rise to the level of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' And, finally, 
failing to examine these allegations leaves in doubt charges of 
criminal misconduct against the President. Although the Senate does not 
sit as a criminal court, a condemnation or exoneration ``by silence'' 
would be unfair to both the President and to the American people.
  The House Managers argue in Article I that the President committed 
the crime of perjury while testifying before the Federal Grand Jury on 
August 17, 1998. They argue in Article II that the President committed 
the crime of obstruction of justice in the Jones case. After 
considering the evidence and the arguments of the House Managers and 
the White House counsels, I believe that the House Managers have not 
shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the President is guilty of the 
alleged crimes.
  It is without dispute that the House Managers have the burden of 
proof. It is also without dispute that each Senator has the right 
individually to determine what constitutes the appropriate burden of 
proof. Because of the gravity of this impeachment process, but, more 
significantly, because of the urging of the House Managers,\11\ I 
believe that a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt should be 
used.\12\ This is the standard used in the prosecution of criminal 
cases.
  Article I alleges that the President committed perjury before the 
Grand Jury by knowingly making false, material statements. The first 
great hurdle that the House Managers must overcome is the fact that the 
House refused to adopt an article of impeachment regarding the 
President's testimony at the Jones deposition. However one 
characterizes these two statements under oath, no one can argue that 
the President was more truthful at the Jones deposition. Most, if not 
all, would argue that he was considerably less truthful at the Jones 
deposition. This discrepancy fatally undercuts the contention that this 
Article constitutes ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' and it seriously 
erodes the claim that the President committed the crime of perjury 
before the Grand Jury. Unlike the Jones deposition, the President 
admitted up front in his Grand Jury testimony that he had engaged in 
``inappropriate intimate behavior'' with Ms. Lewinsky while they were 
``alone.''
  Confronted with this preemptive statement by the President, the 
Article generally alleges perjury without citing specific statements 
from the Grand Jury testimony and leaves the House Managers with the 
task of sifting through the record to suggest examples of the 
President's alleged perjury. They suggest four general areas.
  First, they point to discrepancies between the testimony of the 
President and Monica Lewinsky about intimate details of their 
relationship. This is a difficult proposition to prove without 
corroborating evidence, and the House Managers offer none. Moreover, 
some of these details, such as the number of times they engaged in 
sexual banter on the phone, are just not material.
  Second, the House Managers attempt to ignore the President's 
preliminary statement and argue that he adopted the ``perjurious'' 
testimony of his Jones deposition. This is simply not true. To make 
this assertion, the House Managers use the President's Grand Jury 
testimony that ``I was determined to walk through the mine field of 
this deposition without violating the law, and I believe I did.'' \13\ 
But, the President's peremptory statement clearly indicated that he was 
not vouching for the facts of his Jones deposition. The President's 
statement expresses his state of mind. It is not an affirmation of the 
Jones testimony. Not even Independent Counsel Starr alleged that the 
President committed perjury in this way.
  Third, the House Managers allege that the President's silence, while 
his counsel made representations about the Lewinsky affidavit, 
constitutes perjury. This novel theory of

[[Page 2655]]

``unspoken perjury'' fails from the lack of any conclusive evidence 
concerning the President's state of mind at this time. Such evidence is 
necessary to prove the specific intent to establish the crime.
  Fourth, the House Managers alleged that the President committed 
perjury when he denied his involvement in the obstruction of justice, 
particularly his alleged involvement in the exchange of gifts between 
Monica Lewinsky and Betty Currie. This topic will be discussed in more 
detail with respect to Article II. At this juncture, it is sufficient 
to note that the House Managers have not presented evidence to indicate 
beyond a reasonable doubt that the President committed perjury.
  Fifth, the House Managers allege that the President committed perjury 
when he denied ``coaching'' Betty Currie. Again, this issue will be 
addressed in more detail with respect to Article II. But, this 
allegation also fails from the absence of persuasive evidence 
establishing the President's specific intent in conducting this 
conversation with Ms. Currie.
  Finally, the House Managers allege that the President committed 
perjury when he gave false information to his aides about his 
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. This too raises the issue of the 
President's state of mind. His Grand Jury testimony expressed his 
belief that he tried to say things that were true. He acknowledged that 
he misled, but he asserted that he tried not to lie. To prove that 
these statements are perjurious, the House Managers had to prove that 
the President had the necessary specific intent. They have not done so.
  Article II alleges that the President obstructed justice. The article 
sets forth seven ``acts'' which the House Managers argue the President 
used to implement this ``scheme.''
  Three of these alleged ``acts,'' encouraging Monica Lewinsky to file 
a false affidavit, urging her to give false testimony, and finding her 
a job to obtain her silence, crash on an immovable evidentiary rock: 
Monica Lewinsky's uncontradicted and often repeated statement, ``no one 
ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence.'' 
\14\ The House Managers offered other circumstantial evidence, but this 
too failed to be persuasive.
  The fourth ``act'' involves the transfer of gifts between Ms. 
Lewinsky and Ms. Currie. Although Ms. Lewinsky's testimony strongly 
suggests that the President directed Ms. Currie to retrieve gifts, the 
two parties to this suggested transaction, the President and Ms. 
Currie, flatly deny any such conversation. Certainly, there is more 
than a reasonable doubt based on this conflicting testimony; 
particularly, since no one has ever impeached Ms. Currie's credibility.
  The fifth ``act'' recharacterizes the President's silence, while his 
attorney made representations about Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, as 
obstruction of justice. This allegation fails based on the lack of any 
conclusive evidence of the President's state of mind.
  The sixth ``act'' involved the purported coaching of Betty Currie by 
the President after his Jones deposition. This allegation too turns on 
the President's state of mind. The House Managers argue that the 
President's intent was to influence the testimony of Ms. Currie as a 
potential witness. White House counsels argue that the President had no 
reasonable anticipation that she would be a witness. But, more 
decisively, they argue that his intent was to confirm his story in 
anticipation of a media onslaught. The lack of persuasive evidence 
about his state of mind also undercuts this allegation.
  Finally, the last allegation involves the President's purported 
attempt to influence the testimony of his aides. Again, the House 
Managers have not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the President 
intended to make his statement to influence their testimony. There is 
an equally plausible inference that the President was simply continuing 
his public campaign to deny his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. This 
campaign led him to lie to the American public and no one suggests he 
was then tampering with witnesses. Indeed, as a result of these public 
statements, it seems unlikely that he would tell his aides anything 
else.
  The House Managers have not sustained their burden of proof in regard 
to Article II.
  It is clearly evident that the facts of the case require acquittal. 
As such, serious questions can and should be raised about the 
unwarranted extension of the trial. Given the significant doubts 
surrounding the case of the House Managers, a motion to dismiss, 
followed by a debate on censure should have been utilized to properly 
put an end to these proceedings. Instead, a majority of the Senate 
accommodated the desire of the House Managers to excessively pursue 
allegations that were politically damaging to the President. Indeed, 
had members of the House of Representatives been allowed to consider 
censure this matter may never have reached the Senate.
  We, as a nation and as the Senate, have come to the end of a long and 
wearisome road. It has wandered through scandal and deception. Many of 
those who have trod this road, both individuals and institutions, have 
seen their reputations besmirched. The journey emanated from the 
reckless conduct of William Jefferson Clinton. But, the passage has 
also exposed vicious political partisanship and the reckless and 
relentless exploitation of the powers of the Independent Counsel. In 
the midst of this dishonor, deception, and rancor, we could have easily 
lost our way. But, we reached this moment because we have been guided 
by the Constitution and inspired by the common sense and common decency 
of the American people, and with such a guide and such inspiration, we 
will do justice with our votes, whether they be to convict or acquit.
  And for my part, the Constitution and the evidence compels me to vote 
to acquit the President on both Articles of Impeachment.


                               footnotes

     \1\ The Federalist Papers, No. 65 (Hamilton) at 396 (Clinton 
     Rossiter, ed., 1961) (emphasis in original).
     \2\ Max Farrand, ed., The Record of the Federal Convention of 
     1787, at 550 (1966).
     \3\ Jonathan Elliot, Debates on the Adoption of the Federal 
     Constitution, at 113 (emphasis added).
     \4\ Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution Sec. 799 
     at 269-270 quoting William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 
     of the United States at 213 (2d ed. 1829).
     \5\ Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, 
     Report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry, House Comm. 
     On Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. at 26 (1974).
     \6\ Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United 
     States, Report of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 93rd 
     Cong., 2d Sess., H. Rep. 93-1305 at 364-365 (Aug. 20, 1974) 
     (Minority Views of Messrs. Hutchinson, Smith, Sandman, 
     Wiggins, Dennis, Mayne, Lott, Moorhead, Maraziti, and Latta).
     \7\ U.S. Const. Art. I Sec. 3. Cl. 7.
     \8\ For example, both Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr. and Judge 
     Alcee L. Hastings were convicted based on charges of perjury.
     \9\ The Judicial Conference of the United States publishes a 
     Code of Conduct for United States Judges, as prepared by the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Cannon 2 
     of the Code requires federal judges to ``avoid impropriety 
     and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.'' 
     (March, 1997.) This Cannon requires a Judge to at all times 
     act in ``a manner that promotes public confidence in the 
     integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.'' Perceived 
     violations of the Code could result in a complaint to the 
     Judicial Conference, which can make referrals to the House 
     Judiciary Committee.
     \10\ These allegations are a far cry from the most relevant 
     historical precedent, the Watergate affair of President 
     Richard M. Nixon. For example, President Nixon attempted to 
     cover up a burglary of the Democratic National Committee by 
     enlisting the authority and the assistance of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency. The precipitating event of this crisis 
     was a direct attack on a fundamental Constitutional tenet, 
     the right to free and fair elections unimpeded by the 
     criminal attempts to steal information and wiretap 
     telephones. Moreover, President Nixon liberally exercised the 
     formal powers of his office to impede the investigation.
     \11\ Mr. Manager McCollum stated, ``none of us, would argue . 
     . . that the President should be removed from the office 
     unless you conclude he committed the crimes that he is 
     alleged to have committed.'' 145 Cong. Rec. S260 (daily ed. 
     Jan. 5, 1999) (Statement of Mr. Manager McCollum). The House 
     Managers invited the Senate to arrive at a conclusion beyond 
     a reasonable doubt before voting to convict the President. I 
     take them at their word.
     \12\ The adoption of a standard of ``beyond a reasonable 
     doubt'' in this matter should not be construed as implying 
     that the same standard must be utilized in each and every 
     impeachment proceeding. Conduct of ``civil officers'' in the 
     performance of their official duties might pose such an 
     immediate threat to the Constitution that a less exacting 
     standard could properly be used. Any choice of a standard of 
     proof must, at a minimum, consider the nature of the 
     allegations and the impact of the alleged behavior on the 
     operation of the government.
     \13\ Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton on 8/17/98 as 
     cited in the House Managers' Trial Brief, p. 60.
     \14\ Part I, Appendices to the Referral to the U.S. House of 
     Reps., Communication from The Office of the Independent 
     Counsel, Kenneth W. Starr, 105th Cong. 2d Sess., H. Doc. 105-
     311 (September 18, 1998) at 1161. (Ms. Lewinsky responding to 
     a question from a juror). See also Counsel to the President's 
     Trial Brief, p. 57.


[[Page 2656]]

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. Chief Justice and Colleagues of the Senate.
  This has been a month long ethics and Constitution class--with 
mandatory attendance. That should have value for each of us.
  I'm getting more mail each day than I normally get in a month--and 
most of it is from your constituents. That's right. Out of every 1000 
letters I get, only 30 are from Wyoming. I have some ideas what your 
constituents are saying. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not going to present any 
legal arguments. Most of my constituents aren't lawyers. I notice that 
most of your constituents aren't either.
  I've only served on one jury before and we didn't even get to render 
a verdict. A boy was being tried for poaching deer out of season--shot 
with a twenty-two. He was caught red-handed in the barn with the 
twenty-two and two of the six deer hanging to be butchered. The boy's 
argument began claiming he hadn't been properly read his rights. His 
dad, supporting from the audience, stopped the trial by asking the 
judge if he could speak with his son. They went into the hall a couple 
minutes. A boy freshly chastised said, ``I want to plead guilty. In our 
family we don't believe in getting off on technicalities.'' A 
successful trial. I watched a boy become a man.
  I thought about propounding a unanimous consent that anything already 
said couldn't be repeated as testimony even though it could be 
submitted. I thought that would speed up the proceedings. I will not 
propound it but will attempt to follow it. Instead of the smooth 
transitions and brilliant arguments, you will only hear what is left. I 
trust you will rush to get a copy of my whole statement. Here goes!
  The President was so thorough in denying any relationship with Monica 
Lewinsky, that Janet Reno believed him. Janet Reno is the person who 
expanded the investigation into the Monica Lewinsky matter. The 
President told all of us he had done nothing wrong. His own Attorney 
General believed him. Janet Reno was helping to clear the air on these 
ludicrous charges when she gave Ken Starr the approval, direction and 
budget.
  When our country was founded oaths meant everything. A man's word was 
his bond. Their oath was honor and duels were fought to defend honor. 
When this trial started you and I had to take an oath. It struck me 
that I might be taking an oath to determine if oaths still mean 
anything.
  The White House argues that the President's actions will not have an 
affect on anyone. I am hearing from judges who say people before their 
court are asking for the same treatment given the President. They do 
not feel their situation is as blatant as the President and they are 
more repentant and remorseful. Some have even taken action to correct 
their wrong. All feel they should get a suspended sentence.
  I was disappointed with the White House failure to explain all of the 
charges. Their rebuttal was focused on those charges for which they 
felt they could answer or, more accurately use to create the most 
confusion. Skipping the tough issues is not an answer. This is not an 
issue of spin or even polls.
  Impeachment is the most serious indictment a President or judge can 
get. The President was impeached by the House of Representatives. His 
reaction was to celebrate in the Rose Garden of the White House--spin 
again--more spin than a kid's top. Truth was needed. Dizzy deception is 
what we've gotten.
  The President's Counsel admit he lied, was evasive, misleading. The 
words and adjectives used by the White House Counsel during the trial 
should be enough to condemn the President. But they still expect us to 
trust the President with the country? Do you think he will only lie 
about sex? This man sends our children into war. He has to be held to 
the highest standard. I would feel more comfortable if even one person 
would have said, ``He didn't do this.'' Only the President said that, 
and we all know he wasn't truthful.
  Last year an Air Force pilot, an officer, was forced to resign. She 
was having a consensual sexual affair. It was adultery. She didn't lie 
about it. She was forced to resign--removed from office--because we 
couldn't trust her with deadly weapons. The President pushes the button 
on the whole world--not just on one plane. Oh, that's right, this isn't 
about personal sex. No one would ever be removed from office for that.
  But the President is doing a great job. Job performance cannot be the 
defense for perjury or obstruction of justice or sexual harassment or 
any other crime. If a bank president embezzled even a little money from 
his bank would we leave him alone? Would we say, ``That's okay because 
the bank was doing well''?
  We had a hypothetical situation posed to us--an employee who 
controlled the whole computer system and he did what the President did. 
If there is any parallel, you'd fire him! You'd fire him because you 
have been cross-training a vice president of computer systems. I've 
listened to the arguments about world peace and I've got to say, that's 
a terrible indictment of the capabilities of the Vice President.
  When the video evidence was countered, White House Counsel had one 
presentation on Ms. Lewinsky's testimony. A second presentation was 
made on Vernon Jordan's testimony. Why didn't White House Counsel 
counter Sidney Blumenthal's testimony at all? Charges made, charges 
unanswered. If you have enough votes, I guess you only need to look 
credible.
  Presidents have power. Power draws loyalty. Are we a country with one 
set of standards for the rich, famous, or powerful? Is that the way we 
want our country to be? This isn't even a popularity contest. 
Popularity cannot be a defense in an impeachment trial.
  House manager Rogan said he would risk his political future for the 
Constitution. He said, ``Dreams come and dreams go, but conscience is 
forever.'' We are supposed to be the collective conscience of our 
nation. Are we trying instead to salve our conscience?
  We talk of censure? Isn't that just another way to salve our 
conscience. When this trial is over we better come together as a 
nation--undivided and behind whoever is the President--not debating 
again to what degree he is bad.
  Some have been wrestling with whether the offenses ``rise to the 
level of impeachment''. The founders may have been a lot tougher than 
we are. We've talked about a guilty vote by a two thirds majority 
removing from office. The founders provided for a second vote--a vote 
that takes away more rights and honor--the right to hold public office 
ever again. Should we suggest the offenses, especially in the 
cumulative, rise to the level of impeachment and then wrestle with the 
question and vote on ``forever''? Judges are appointed for life. 
Presidents have the title for life.
  I heard a suggestion that we can't remove the President for sexual 
harassment because we are not his boss or because he has such a 
critical position. The founders recognized both those circumstances. We 
are not the President's boss--but we have been given that 
responsibility through impeachment. He holds a critical position, 
that's why the founders established the succession. And remember, that 
was when impeachment could put another party into the presidency. And 
that was when the Senate was appointed, not elected.
  ``The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire'' was a book we were 
introduced to in high school. Rome went through this phase too. Free 
lunches for the masses, an emphasis on entertainment, and no 
accountability for the powerful. We have seen the rise of America. Will 
we be listed in history as the start of the fall? Our society is 
eroding. Our values are disappearing. If you watch the news, many 
nights the main lead even during this trial is about the multiple 
murders right around us.
  We've been talking about ``an impeachable standard''. We've talked 
about the ``Reagan Test''. I'm going to suggest two more tests. The 
``Mom Test'' and the ``Spouse Test''. When you were growing up, did 
your mom need proof ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' before punishment? 
Did she ever say, ``Don't put yourself in a position where it even 
looks like you did something wrong.'' Circumstantial evidence was 
enough. Did your mom ever

[[Page 2657]]

say, ``Watch out who you hang out with. It reflects on you.'' Did your 
mom say, ``Watch your actions--they reflect on you and your family''? 
Did your mom ever say, ``Act so I won't be embarrassed tomorrow reading 
the front page of the paper about what you did today.'' The President 
has complained that others are out to get him. That he is the most 
investigated President in history. Perhaps he ought to apply the ``Mom 
Test''.
  What about the ``Spouse Test''? My wife has applied that test. She 
said, ``If this were a Republican President, I would have already 
chained myself to the White House fence until he resigned.'' She is 
absolutely stymied that women's groups haven't done that. For years she 
and I fought the accusations that women's groups were only about 
allowing abortion--but their silence on the President has changed my 
mind. I will not defend them as they have not defended any woman 
defamed by the actions and the words of the President. And a final 
``Spouse Test''--when you are playing games with sex definitions ask, 
``What would my spouse think I was doing?''
  While we may have a country doing well economically we are headed 
toward moral bankruptcy if the trend is not reversed. We are becoming 
``De-Moralized''.
  With this case we are all in a ``no-win'' situation. We have heard 
the media and the Democrats note that the Republicans are committing 
political suicide. But just as many mention the Democrats are filing 
moral bankruptcy. History will be the judge of us all. Our constituents 
just expect us to do ``What is right''! They will expect us to do what 
is right based even on what comes out in the future. Yes, what is right 
based on the books and future disclosures of the participants. They 
will judge us even based on the future actions of this President. Our 
words will be forgotten, our verdict won't.
  This isn't about politics. It's about our country. It's not about 
Bill Clinton. It's about the future of the Presidency. The process is 
on trial. The Senate is on trial. No, truthfully, Truth is on trial!
  As we enter into our final deliberations on whether or not to convict 
President Clinton on the two articles of impeachment presented to us by 
the House of Representatives, I think it is imperative that we remember 
the oath each of us took at the outset of this historic process. Each 
one of us took an oath before God to do ``impartial justice according 
to the Constitution and the laws.'' That oath should guide our thoughts 
and actions for it reminds us of the gravity of this process and the 
weighty responsibility we assumed by our own free will. We must finally 
remember that we answer not only to future generations who will judge 
whether we did right by the Constitution we swore to uphold, but also 
to that eternal witness of our most solemn oath.
  I will be the first to admit that striving to be impartial has been 
very difficult. To be a good juror is a heavy burden. That duty is 
heightened when one is also called to wear a judge's robe when sitting 
as a silent juror weighing the evidence, probing the credibility and 
motives of the various witnesses, and ascertaining the appropriate law 
which applies to the facts before you. There are few duties we will 
face in our life as grave as this one: to decide the political fate of 
the President of the United States.
  Before the trial started I read everything I could find that dealt 
with impeachment history. As the trial progressed, I read volumes of 
published evidence including the prior testimony of the witnesses in 
this proceeding. I have attended all of the proceedings in the Senate 
from start to finish. I have carefully watched all of the videotaped 
depositions. I have read all of the transcripts of these depositions. I 
watched many parts of the depositions several times to be sure I 
understood exactly what each witness was saying and how that testimony 
fit with that witnesses' prior testimony and with the testimony of 
other witnesses who testified under oath. These depositions were very 
helpful in focusing the key points of this trial and deciding who was 
testifying truthfully and who was lying in instances where the 
testimony is in conflict. In short, I believe I have taken into account 
nearly all of the pertinent information in this case in coming to my 
final decision.
  This case challenges us to consider whether, in light of all the 
evidence, President Clinton's actions indicate that he has, in the 
words of Alexander Hamilton, ``abused or violated some public trust.'' 
In making this determination, we must first decide whether allegations 
presented by the House Managers do in fact constitute ``high crimes and 
misdemeanors'' as contemplated in Article II, Section 4 of the 
Constitution. I have come to the conclusion that they do.
  I believe that perjury and obstruction of justice demonstrate 
intentional, pre-meditated violations of an indispensable public trust. 
In taking the oath of office, President Clinton twice raised his right 
hand and placed his hand on the Bible swearing to uphold and defend the 
Constitution and to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. 
By this oath, he took upon himself the duty to be the chief law 
enforcement officer of the United States. Actions which undermine this 
high duty, whether they involved committing perjury in a judicial 
proceeding or obstructing justice, strike at the very heart of the rule 
of law.
  There is no contradiction that perjury and obstruction of justice are 
serious crimes for the average citizen in the United States. Both of 
these offenses presented by the House managers are felonies under the 
federal criminal code, and both carry equivalent or even higher minimum 
sentences than bribery under the federal sentencing guidelines. Nor is 
the seriousness of these crimes simply a matter of abstract 
speculation. We heard video testimony of a real, live citizen who has 
paid a very heavy price indeed for the crime of perjury. In July of 
1995, Dr. Barbara Battalino, a physician who worked for the Veterans 
Administration, lied under oath about an encounter she had had with one 
of her patients. As a result of this perjury, Dr. Battalino was fired 
from the Veterans Administration, she lost her license to practice 
medicine, she was prohibited from ever practicing law (she also had a 
law degree), and she was required to wear an electronic ankle bracelet 
for 3 years. Those who argue that perjury about sexual matters is not 
serious owe Dr. Battalino a heartfelt apology. Dr. Battalino lied one 
time about one consensual act of oral sex.
  Moreover, both perjury and obstruction of justice were counted among 
the list of ``public wrongs'' as opposed to private wrongs under Common 
Law at the time of the American founding. These are the very kind of 
crimes the founders contemplated when they included the impeachment and 
removal mechanism in the Constitution. These crimes were not considered 
to be private offenses by the Common Law, nor by the Founding Fathers. 
The pre-eminent commentator on the English Common Law at the time of 
the American founding, William Blackstone, described perjury, or false 
swearing in a judicial proceeding, as an ``offense against public 
justice.'' As with perjury, obstruction of justice was considered a 
``high misprision'' or ``high misdemeanor'' at the time of the drafting 
of our own Constitution.
  It should be remembered that this Senate has convicted and removed 
federal judges for perjury. In the 1980s alone, this body removed three 
federal judges for lying under oath. Many in this chamber had occasion 
to vote in those cases and voted to remove these judges because they 
saw that the act of perjury, even if it involved lying about one's 
taxes, was incompatible with a judge's duty to uphold the constitution 
and laws of the United States.
  When confronted with these very recent precedents, the White House 
lawyers have argued that this Senate should apply a lesser standard to 
the President than to federal judges. They argue that federal judges 
should be held to a higher standard because they are given life tenure 
under Article III of the Constitution. I must admit, that this is an 
argument that I cannot square either with the plain language of the 
Constitution or with common

[[Page 2658]]

sense. Do we really want to hold our President to a lower standard than 
the federal judges he appoints? It is our President, after all, who 
appoints all the United States attorneys and the federal marshals, who 
names all the cabinet officials, who has the authority to send American 
troops into battle, and who can sign treaties with foreign nations. A 
corrupt federal district court judge can work injustice on the 
litigants who enter his courtroom. A corrupt President, by contrast, 
has the power to wreak havoc on the entire political order.
  The President's oath forbids him to selectively decide whether to 
follow the laws of the land based on a calculation of political 
expediency or determination of personal gain or loss. He is bound to 
follow the Constitution and the laws of our country in and out of 
season. By intentionally violating this duty, the president's actions 
display the tendencies of an unbridled monarch rather than a 
constitutional executive who must bow before the law he swore to 
faithfully execute.
  On the specific article of perjury, there is abundant evidence that 
President Clinton violated his oath to ``tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth'' on several occasions. As the chief 
law enforcement officer of the United States, the President was bound 
to ``tell the whole truth'' and act in a manner becoming of the dignity 
of his office. President Clinton did not do this. When asked before the 
federal grand jury on August 17, 1998 whether he understood that he had 
an obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth in his prior deposition of January 17, 1999 in a federal civil 
rights suit, the President testified that ``his goal was to be 
truthful, but not particularly helpful''. He later admitted that his 
testimony had been ``misleading''. For any plain speaking American, to 
be misleading is the same as lying. In short, the President violated 
his oath to ``tell the whole truth'' when he misled the court.
  The facts indicate that President was not attempting to be truthful 
and was not truthful in his deposition in the Jones federal civil 
rights case. Moreover, he lied about the nature of his relationship 
with a subordinate employee before the federal grand jury. The 
President also allowed his attorney, Robert Bennett, to file a false 
affidavit on his behalf denying his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. 
The President continued this pattern of deception by lying to his top 
aides with the knowledge that they were likely to be called as 
witnesses before the federal grand jury. He then attempted to cover up 
these lies by claiming he had possibly ``misled'' his aides, but he did 
not lie to them since he knew they were likely to be called as 
witnesses before the federal grand jury. These were lies. They were 
lies under oath. They were lies that adversely impacted the rights of a 
United States citizen to obtain relief in a civil rights case in 
federal court. They were lies under oath in a federal grand jury after 
he had been begged by his aides, his friends, and some in this chamber 
to finally tell the truth. They were lies of a public character and 
they were unbefitting the chief law enforcement officer of our country.
  What is perhaps most disturbing about these lies, is that the 
President's actions indicate he had no intention of ever telling the 
truth of his relationship. He had already lied under oath in a federal 
civil rights action, he lied to his top aides and cabinet officers, he 
lied to his friends and political allies, and he lied with perfect 
calculation to the American public, including myself. I remain 
convinced that the only reason the President admitted his relationship 
at all was the discovery of the now famous ``blue dress''. Only when it 
became clear that he could no longer continue his pattern of judicial 
and public deception did the President admit that he had in fact had an 
``improper relationship'' with Monica Lewinsky. Unfortunately, the 
President's deception did not end with the revelation of the DNA. 
Rather, it graduated to legal hairsplitting, attempts to torture plain 
English language, and statements which degraded the judicial process 
and insulted the intelligence of the American public. The President has 
not carried out the public trust the American public entrusted to him 
when he was twice elected President.
  When the President's actions became public, the President even turned 
his sword of deception against his partner in perjury. Once the 
Washington Post broke the story on the President's extra-marital affair 
and his possible perjury and obstruction of justice, the President 
called in his top aides to deny the story and destroy the character of 
Monica Lewinsky. We have seen and heard the video testimony of one of 
President Clinton's top aides, Sidney Blumenthal. Immediately after the 
story broke, President Clinton called Sidney Blumenthal into the Oval 
Office and denied the entire story. He went on to say that Monica 
Lewinsky was a troubled young woman who was called the ``stalker'' by 
her peers. He said that she came on to him and made a sexual demand of 
him, but he rebuffed her. The President went so far as to claim that 
Ms. Lewinsky had threatened to tell people that she had had an affair 
with him, even though it was not true. In the words of Mr. Blumenthal, 
the President ``lied to him.'' As expected, Mr. Sidney Blumenthal 
repeated these lies before the federal grand jury. There is also 
growing evidence that Mr. Blumenthal, or other key White House aides, 
circulated these lies to the popular media. Such conduct further 
establishes that the President was willing to go to all lengths to 
prevent anyone from discovering the truth about his illegal conduct in 
a federal civil rights case.
  The President's lawyers argued that the President could not have 
intended to corruptly influence the grand jury proceeding since the 
lies the President told his top aides were no different than the lie 
the President told the American people when he adamantly denied having 
``sexual affairs, with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.'' If this is the best 
defense the White House lawyers can wage for their client, it speaks 
volumes about the President's character. Unfortunately, it is also 
false. The President never told the American people that Monica 
Lewinsky was a stalker, or that she wore her skirts too tight, or that 
she came on to him and made sexual demands on him. This is exactly what 
the President told his aide, Sidney Blumenthal. The President never 
enumerated the sexual acts he ``did not commit'' with Monica Lewinsky. 
He did deny with great specificity, these acts when questioned by his 
assistant chief of staff, John Podesta. The President did lie to the 
American public. However, he also told other lies to his top aides, 
knowing that they were likely to be called as witnesses before the 
criminal grand jury.
  There is also substantial evidence that the President attempted to 
obstruct justice in both the civil rights case brought against him and 
the federal criminal investigation conducted by Judge Starr. It should 
be noted that Judge Kenneth Starr's investigation was not the creature 
of President Clinton's political enemies, as some have asserted. 
President Clinton's own Attorney General, Janet Reno, directed Judge 
Starr to expand his investigation to include the allegations in this 
case. If Janet Reno is a member of the vast right wing conspiracy, then 
that operation is very vast indeed.
  We now know that Monica Lewinsky filed a false affidavit in the Jones 
civil action. We also know that the President called Ms. Lewinsky at 
home at 2:30 in the morning to inform her that she had been named on 
the witness list in the Jones civil rights case. We also know that in 
this conversation, the President also suggested Ms. Lewinsky could file 
an affidavit to avoid testifying. Finally, we know that the President 
reminded Ms. Lewinsky of their agreed upon ``cover stories'' to conceal 
their relationship. While the President's lawyers have made much over 
Ms. Lewinsky's statement that ``the President never asked me to lie'', 
they are unable to put a positive spin on the cover stories and the 
President's attempts to encourage Monica Lewinsky to file an affidavit 
in the first place.
  It stretches the bounds of credulity beyond recognition to believe 
that the President intended Ms. Lewinsky to tell the truth when: 1) he 
himself lied under oath about their relationship, 2)

[[Page 2659]]

he reminded Ms. Lewinsky of their cover stories in the same 
conversation in which he suggested that she file an affidavit, and 3) 
he relied on Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit in his own testimony 
denying their relationship. Finally, when Ms. Lewinsky asked President 
Clinton if he wanted to see her signed affidavit, he said he didn't 
need to see it because he had ``seen fifteen others like it''. This 
response remains one of the more puzzling in this case and leaves open 
the possibility that the President tampered with other witnesses in the 
Jones civil rights case.
  We also now know that the President's personal secretary, Betty 
Currie, hid presents under her bed that had been subpoenaed in the 
Jones case. These are the gifts the President had given to Monica 
Lewinsky during their relationship. Ms. Lewinsky has testified that 
Bettie Currie definitely called her about the gifts, and the only way 
Ms. Currie could have known about the gifts is if the President 
instructed her to pick them up. While the President's lawyers deny this 
explanation, the only phone record we know about is a phone call made 
from Betty Currie to Ms. Lewinsky on the day she picked up the gifts. 
The President's lawyers have failed to produce any concrete evidence to 
contradict this explanation. Concealing gifts that are under subpoena 
in a legal proceeding is illegal and it obstructs the administration of 
justice.
  Moreover, the conclusion that it was in fact President Clinton who 
directed Betty Currie to conceal the presents is bolstered by the fact 
that the President corruptly attempted to influence Ms. Currie's 
testimony in a federal civil rights suit. President Clinton made 
several false statements to Betty Currie on Sunday, January 18, 1997, 
the day after he testified in the Jones lawsuit. Ms. Currie, who 
explained that it was very unusual for the President to ask her to come 
in to work on a Sunday, testified that President Clinton made a series 
of false statements to her as if asking for her consent. Specifically, 
the President stated to Ms. Currie: 1) ``You were always there when she 
[Monica Lewinsky] was there, right? We were never really alone.'' 2) 
``You could see and hear everything.'' 3) ``Monica came on to me, and I 
never touched her, right?'' 4) She wanted to have sex with me and I 
couldn't do that.'' All of these statements were false, and all of them 
occurred the day after Judge Wright had expressly forbidden any of the 
parties deposed or their attorneys from discussing the deposition with 
anyone.
  The President's lawyers have argued that the President made these 
statements to refresh his recollection or to find out what Ms. Currie 
knew in the event of a press avalanche. Neither of these explanations 
is plausible. It is impossible to refresh one's recollection with 
false, leading questions. It is also impossible to find out what 
someone else knew if you tell them what they are supposed to believe. 
The plausibility of either of these explanations is entirely discounted 
when you consider that the President called Betty Currie in a second 
time, on January 20th to ``remind'' her of these statements. The most 
likely explanation for these statements is far more sinister. That 
President was intending to influence the testimony of a likely witness 
in a federal civil rights proceeding. President Clinton was, in fact, 
trying to get Betty Currie to join him in his web of deception and 
obstruction of justice.
  The inescapable conclusion I have come to is that the President of 
the United States set upon a deliberate, premeditated plan to deceive 
the court in two separate legal proceedings and to encourage others to 
deceive the court as well. The President first defended himself by 
claiming to be the unfortunate victim of a vast right wing conspiracy. 
Only after the physical evidence uncovered the truth about his affair 
did the President claim he was only trying to protect his family from 
these embarrassing revelations. Neither of these excuses justifies the 
President's actions. A defendant in a legal proceeding does not have 
the right to perjure himself because he questions the motives of the 
plaintiff. There are proper legal procedures and remedies available to 
any defendant who believes he has been the victim of a lawsuit 
predicated on frivolous legal theories or springing from personal 
malice. It is, however, never legitimate to respond to even a frivolous 
lawsuit by lying under oath.
  There has been a great debate on how the President's actions will 
impact our nation, especially if those actions go unpunished. Last year 
I read of a town in Midwestern America that had experienced a number of 
killings in the first two months of the year. A consultant was hired to 
find the cause of these brutal acts. I believe the findings in his 
report should cause all of us to take pause. He explained that first a 
window is broken and nobody fixes it. That leads to a lawn that isn't 
mowed. Through a series of similar instances, the kids think nobody 
cares about them. If we let the President off for intentionally 
violating the rule of law, what do we tell our children when they are 
caught breaking the law? That we have one law for the rulers and 
another for the ruled? Do we tell them they have to follow the law 
until they become powerful enough, or clever enough, or rich enough to 
violate the law with impunity? What do we tell the federal judges who 
have lost their robes and gavels for committing perjury? What do we 
tell military officers who have lost their livelihood for violating 
their oaths and rules of their office? What do we tell average citizens 
who have lost their jobs, their freedom, and their fortunes for 
violating their oaths to tell the truth in a court of law? If the 
legacy we leave to our children is one of cynical duplicity, I fear 
that even an ever-increasing Dow Jones' average will be incapable of 
salvaging our next generation, or even, I fear, our civilization.
  I must conclude that while the power of impeachment and removal is a 
strong measure and one that should never be taken gently, it is an 
indispensable remedy in our government for those public officers who 
have so violated their public trust as to be unworthy to continue 
holding offices of public trust. The great Supreme Court Justice and 
Constitutional scholar Joseph Story perhaps best summarized the 
impeachment mechanism as one which ``holds out a deep and immediate 
responsibility, as a check upon arbitrary power; and compels the chief 
magistrate, as well as the humblest citizen, to bend to the majesty of 
the laws.'' Those who would disregard this rule of law for their own 
personal or political ends must not be allowed to remain in offices of 
public trust. For this reason, I will vote to convict President Clinton 
on both articles of impeachment.
  I thank the chair and yield the floor.

                          ____________________