HYDE: Let me assure you no one on the committee enjoys this task. Conducting an inquiry of this nature is solemn, sober, serious business. There's nothing enjoyable about it.
There are always appealing voices of convenience and comfort to call on us to look away. It would be easy. We could just look...
We could just look away from this awful mess and let it disappear. But our duty demands that we look further.
It requires that we search out the truth, face it squarely. In insists that we uphold the rule of law. It demands that we assure that both the president and the average citizen stand before the bar of justice equally.
How will we do that work?
In just a moment, I'll announce several steps that we're going to take in the immediate future. I would also note that this list is not necessarily exhaustive, and we will have further announcements in the future.
As you already know, on Monday, November 9th, the Subcommittee on the Constitution will hold a hearing on the history and the precedence of impeachment. We will present a broad range of philosophically diverse scholars who will speak on that topic.
The witness list is available and here today.
On Thursday, November 12th, the Congressional Research Service will conduct a seminar on the impeachment equation, constitutional law, procedure and process. That seminar will be open to all members and congressional staff and it should add to our understanding as we go forward.
We believe the most relevant witnesses have already testified at length about the matters in issue. And in the interest of finishing our expeditious inquiry, we will not require most of them to come before us to repeat their testimony.
The committee will invite Judge Starr to appear in public session on November 19. Judge Starr led the investigation, and we believe his testimony will be helpful to the committee.
Today, I'm sending a letter to the president asking him to admit or deny certain facts that appear to be established by the record now before us. No one should take these requests as establishing our final conclusions. Rather they will simply help us to establish what facts are in dispute and what facts are not.
The president is free to dispute, of course, whatever he wants. But by agreeing to those facts that he does not dispute, he will allow us to narrow the issues and bring this matter to a close more quickly.
This is our agenda for the next few weeks. The committee's activities beyond that time have not been finalized. But I remain committed to trying to complete this inquiry as expeditiously as possible and by the end of the year if possible.
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution provides the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. The House has directed our committee to begin an inquiry of impeachment of President Clinton. Implicit in that mandate is the responsibility to independently investigate and establish all of the relevant facts.
This took the committee nearly six months in the impeachment inquiry of President Nixon; sixteen months in the impeachment inquiry of Judge Hastings; and 13 months in the impeachment inquiry of Judge Walter Nixon.
Clearly, to complete the task before us in less than three months will require the cooperation of the White House. More important in this process than any schedule is the preservation of our constitutional system.
Our system of government demands the full cooperation of the executive branch in an impeachment inquiry. Indeed, the Judiciary Committee reaffirmed that principle in its impeachment inquiry of President Nixon in 1974.
When the Nixon White House failed to cooperate fully, the committee approved an article of impeachment against the president for usurping the authority of Congress.
Our firm intention is to resolve this matter with fairness, honor and expedition. With the president's cooperation, we will meet our goal of finishing by the end of the year. This, of course, is up to the president and his advisers. But we intend to continue as long as it takes to vindicate the rule of law and follow the truth wherever it leads us.
Any questions?
QUESTION: Yes, sir.
HYDE: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: I note all along you said you would want to complete this matter before the end of the year.
HYDE: Right.
QUESTION: And I think the lingering question now that the election is over, how much of this is being influenced by the results of the election?
HYDE: None at all. I said my New Year's resolution was to finish by New Year's.
HYDE: I said that quite some time ago, and we're on schedule.
QUESTION: Mr. Hyde, what do you make of the challenges to the leadership?
HYDE: Well, that would be expected. That doesn't surprise me. But there are always challenges to our leadership. We're a fractious bunch. So it'll be -- it'll be interesting, and we'll see what happens.
QUESTION: What do you think the voters told you, if anything, from this past election about your impeachment proceedings?
HYDE: About the impeachment? I don't think they sent us much about the impeachment proceeding. I had thought it would be a referendum. It really wasn't.
The data I've read, impeachment was about sixth in the hierarchy of concerns people had. I think they appreciate the good times, economically speaking, and it was a status quo election, depending more on local candidates and local issues. We won some; we lost some -- a kind of a mixed bag, but no significant impact on impeachment in my judgment.
Yes.
QUESTION: The fact that impeachment was so low on people's list of concerns, doesn't that say something about this process?
HYDE: Yes. It says people are interested in other things. But that doesn't modify our duty under the Constitution or the law to proceed with what we've begun.
QUESTION: Was there some discussion about moving the deadline up to Thanksgiving? If so, why did you not do that?
HYDE: No. That would be too abbreviated. We wouldn't have time to do a decent job if we tried to finish by Thanksgiving.
QUESTION: Did you have that discussion?
HYDE: No.
QUESTION: Do you think it was a mistake for the Republican Party to make an issue out of the impeachment proceeding?
HYDE: I don't think they did. I think the media did. I'm not taking a whack at the media, but I think the drenching of the body politic with media talk shows almost exclusively concerned with impeachment had a burnout factor with the people. But I don't think Republicans campaigned on it. I certainly didn't, and I didn't see that in Illinois at all.
QUESTION: But Mr. Gingrich even said that people are fed up and that the Republican Party underestimated how fed up people are with the existence of this topic. So is there any -- does that give you any reason to spur forward more quickly?
HYDE: Not more quickly. We're on track, just where I wanted to be. I don't think we need to parade a lot of witnesses to repeat what they've already said under oath that is contained in the transcript of a grand jury or a deposition.
HYDE: This procedure, I like to cut to the chase on everything we do, not just this. And I think we can.
QUESTION: A lot of people are saying they're fed up. Are you personally fed up with the existence of this topic?
HYDE: "Fed up" is a tough word. There are some topics that are more interesting than others. This is very interesting. This is a constitutional challenge.
I wouldn't say I'm fed up with it. I would say I'd like to have it behind me. But I think we have a duty to proceed and we're going to.
Yes.
QUESTION: Congressman, you mentioned the president's cooperation as being tantamount to getting this deadline that you talked about. Now, given what you've seen from the president's actions in the past, do you think he and his lawyers will try to drag this out?
HYDE: I'm forever optimistic and hopeful, and I think when they said they would cooperate, I certainly give them the benefit of the doubt. And we will give them the opportunity to cooperate.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
HYDE: Let me move around the room. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: What kind of cooperation are you looking for from the White House? What do you want explicitly from the president?
HYDE: Well, I would like the notice to admit facts to be answered. That would be very helpful to us. That would tell us what's in dispute and what isn't.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Mr. Chairman, do you have any sense that this can become more than a partisan issue at this point?
HYDE: Ideally we want it to be much more than a partisan issue. I think the partisanship detracts from any success or any historical record. This ought to be a matter of everyone's individual conscience, and it is part of our task -- and it's a formidable one -- to try and lift it out of the partisan swamps and to make this a matter of conscience.
QUESTION: Congressman, it has been suggested by some that there are other options than impeachment. Do you think the Constitution and the House rules give you those options?
HYDE: No, they don't. Our job is to adhere to the Constitution and the independent counsel statute. I think questions of censure or other sanctions are more appropriately left to the -- what we laughingly call the "other body" -- the upper chamber.
QUESTION: You don't believe that you're in the position of calling the president into the well of the House or even -- are you open to a -- some sort of a negotiation that would have him stand there as members delivered a tongue-lashing?
HYDE: Yes, that's Gerry Ford's suggestion and it's an interesting one, and I see one of the major newspapers adopts it. I -- I really haven't thought that far ahead.
QUESTION: What would -- how would you envision...
HYDE: But I do not see any -- I don't see any room in the Constitution for this kind of Gerry Ford process. But you know, predicting is a very hazardous task.
QUESTION: How would such negotiations go forward for something like that? Who would handle that? Would you be the person or would it be Speaker Gingrich?
HYDE: I would not, on my own, undertake such negotiations. I think the import of those is so significant and consequential it ought to be by the direction of the Republican Party. And that -- I don't see that happening.
I see us proceeding with our hearings, getting a bill of impeachment on the table marked up in the Judiciary Committee, a vote called, and then -- if we have the majority votes getting it to the floor -- asking the speaker to call back the members for a vote -- debate and a vote.
That's the most likely scenario. Now, if the bill of impeachment were to pass on the vote, then I think serious discussions of the nature you're suggesting might take place with the Senate. They might want us at the table. I don't know. But I think it's right now premature.
QUESTION: Mr. Chairman...
HYDE: The lady back there.
QUESTION: ... are you only calling Judge Starr because you believe the American public would not stand to hear from Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp and see this parade of people come up?
HYDE: Oh, there are lots of people we're not calling because we don't think they'd be helpful to our inquiry. Those persons you mentioned have already testified under oath. We have their testimony. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.
HYDE: To use a time-honored phrase, I wouldn't rule that out.
(UNKNOWN): Last question.
QUESTION: Congressman, you've sent the letter to the president. You're basically putting the ball in his court in some measure, in terms of...
HYDE: Partially.
QUESTION: ... partially, in terms of the timetable. How do you prevent the perception in terms of asking the president to sign off a letter on the facts? How do you prevent the perception that this is more of a witch hunt -- asking someone to admit to certain things and...
HYDE: It would be a witch hunt if we served him with a subpoena and asked him to come in, get under oath, and testify to a cross- examination from all the members. That would be, in my judgment, pushing the envelope.
We're doing it the most genteel way by sending a series of what we say are factual statements and asking him to admit or deny.
So I think that undercuts the notion that we're on a witch hunt.
QUESTION: Congressman, what was the message on Tuesday? What was -- you've referred to how you know people want this over. What was the message of this election?
HYDE: I think Mitch McConnell said it: You can't win a campaign without issues and without an agenda. And I think we did conduct a status quo, don't rock the boat, stall-ball campaign, and it cost us.
QUESTION: And who's to blame for that? Is it the speaker?
HYDE: Well, leadership takes credit when things go right. They ought to take the blame when things go wrong. But all of us conducted our own campaigns. We all didn't get the attention that the big campaigns did.
I think it would be pretty hard to say Peter Fitzgerald conducted an issueless campaign. I think he and Senator Braun had issues and they debated them. I think governor -- the gubernatorial race similarly.
So I think where you had issues and sharp definitions, you had campaigns that meant something.
HYDE: But overall, I think we lacked the unifying theme that we should have had, and that hurt us.
QUESTION: Do you support Speaker Gingrich and any challenges against him? Would you support the speaker in challenges against him?
(UNKNOWN): Thank you.
QUESTION: What are the facts you're asking the president to acknowledge?
HYDE: I'd rather you get them from the White House.
QUESTION: Should Mr. Gingrich remain speaker?
HYDE: I rather think he will, but that remains to be seen. I haven't been in touch with my colleagues since the election.
QUESTION: Do you think he should? What do you think? Do you think he should?
HYDE: Good morning.
(LAUGHTER)
END