U.S. REPRESENTATIVE HENRY HYDE (R-IL): Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I call up House Resolution 611, and ask for its immediate consideration.

SPEAKER: The clerk will report the resolution.

CLERK: House calendar number 281, House Resolution 611: Resolved that William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America against William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

CLERK: Article One. In his conduct while president of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of president of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that on August 17, 1998 William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a federal grand jury of the United States.

Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: One, the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee; two, prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a federal civil rights action brought against him; three, prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a federal judge in that civil rights action; and four, his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the presidency, has betrayed his trust as president, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

CLERK: Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Article 2: In his conduct while president of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of president of the United States and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration impeding the administration of justice in that:

1) On December 23, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton, in sworn answers to written questions asked as part of a federal civil rights action brought against him, willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a federal judge concerning conduct and proposed conduct with subordinate employees.

2) On January 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton, swore under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a deposition given as part of federal civil rights action brought against him. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a federal judge concerning the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee; his knowledge of that employee's involvement and participation in the civil rights action brought against him; and his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of that employee.

CLERK: In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the presidency, has betrayed his trust as president, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice to the manifest injury to the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Article III. In his conduct while president of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of the president of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice and has to that end engaged personally and through is subordinates and agents in a coarse of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover-up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

CLERK: The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

One -- on or about December 17th, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

Two -- on or about December 17th, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a federal civil rights actions brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

Three -- on or about December 17th, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a federal civil rights action brought against him.

Four -- beginning on or about December 17th, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14th, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

Five -- on January 17th, 1998, at his deposition in a federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a federal judge characterizing an affidavit in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge.

CLERK: Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

Six, on or about January 18 and January 20 and 21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

Seven, on or about January 21, 23, and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office; has brought disrepute on the presidency; has betrayed his trust as president; and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Article Four. Using the powers and influence of the office of president of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of president of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

*** Elapsed Time 09:42, Eastern Time 18:42 ***

CLERK: And in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care tat the laws be faithfully executed has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth- seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding in that as president William Jefferson Clinton refused and failed to respond to certain written request for admission, and willfully made perjurious false and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States.

William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond and in making perjurious false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives, and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the presidency, has betrayed his trust as president, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

SPEAKER: The resolution constitutes a question of the privileges of the House and may be considered at this time. The chair would like to read an announcement to all members.

Today the House will embark upon a resolution of impeachment of the president of the United States. The chair would take this occasion to make an announcement regarding proper decorum during debate in the House, during the pendency of the impeachment resolution.

As the speaker announced, with the concurrence of the minority leader on September 10, 1998 during the pendency of proceedings in the -- in impeachment as the pending business on the floor of the House, remarks and debate may include references to personal misconduct on the part of the president.

While limited references and debate to the personal conduct are allowed, the stricture against personally offensive references is not totally disabled. The contrary, this exception to the general rule against engaging in personality, admitting references to personal conduct when that conduct is the very question under consideration by the House, is not limited.

The point was well stated on July 31, 1979 in the analogous circumstances of a disciplinary resolution including a sitting member. While a wide range of discussion is permitted during debate, Clause 1 of Rule 14 still prohibits the use of language which is personally abusive.

This is recorded in the Detchler-Brown (ph) Procedure in the House of Representatives in Chapter 12 at Section 211. While the impeachment matter is pending on the floor, the chair would remind members that although the personal conduct of the president is at issue, the rules prohibit members from engaging in generally personal, abusive language toward the president and also from engaging in comparisons to personal conduct of sitting members of either...

(GROANS)

... House of Congress.

SPEAKER: The chair asks and expects the cooperation of all members in maintaining a level of decorum that properly dignifies the proceedings of the House.

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration. And I ask unanimous consent during consideration of House Resolution 611, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion except one.

Debate on the resolution shall be extended to -- now I have four hours here, Mr. Conyers, but that's certainly negotiable. And I would welcome any suggestions you might have on time.

But for purposes of this motion, I -- I ask that the debate be extended to four hours equally divided at the outset and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. And one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, which if including instructions shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

BONIOR: Reserving the right to object.

SPEAKER: The gentleman from Michigan.

BONIOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleague for his request although I don't thank him that much.

The gentleman has just handed to us on our side of the aisle the request that has just been -- he has just read and we have just looked at it.

BONIOR: And we have a number of concerns about it, and if I might proceed for just a second, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to enumerate our concerns, and then yield, if I could, to my distinguished colleague Mr. Conyers for any comments that he might have.

We're concerned obviously because we don't believe we should be here today while our men and women are fighting abroad. And we have expressed that in the first motion of the day with respect to adjournment. We don't believe this is a proper time to be debating removing the commander-in-chief while thousands of men and women are fighting abroad.

(APPLAUSE)

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Hyde, the gentleman asked for four hours of debate. I've just done the math briefly here. That comes out less than 30 seconds per member. We don't think that is a reasonable amount of time for members of this body to express themselves on perhaps one of the most important issues that they will face in their lifetime.

And thirdly, it runs -- this time problem that the gentleman has raised, the four hours -- runs to the fairness issue. And we note that in your unanimous consent request, there is nothing here to give the American people a chance to see this Congress vote on the option that they would like to see that would bring this country together -- the option of censure.

(APPLAUSE)

Much of my argument -- our argument -- goes to the question of fairness, and we will have grave, grave concerns about agreeing to this request based on the arguments that have just been made. And I would yield, if I could, for -- to my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.

CONYERS: First of all, I want to indicate my concurrence in the position raised by Mr. Bonior. But is there any reason why, Chairman Hyde, we could not wait for two days before proceeding with this very serious undertaking, until at least our brave soldiers may be out of harm's way before we proceed?

HYDE: Well, if the gentlemen is yielding to me for an answer, I would like to say first of all on the time, the four hours, I said that's negotiable. I wouldn't expect to limit it to four hours. Limit it to some reasonable sum. We offered a lot of hours last night that you rejected, so we're trying to be fair, and on the time I asked you for your suggestions.

As to holding this for a couple of more days, that's a decision that our conference has made. We felt the quicker we could go ahead the more we could show the world our democracy works.

CONYERS: I object, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The objection is heard. Gentlemen from Illinois.

(OFF-MIKE) Is there -- objection to general leave for all members?

Without object the gentlemen from Illinois is recognized.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield to customary one-half time to Mr. Conyers, and all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and I yield to Mr. Sensenbrenner.

SPEAKER: Gentlemen from Wisconsin is recognized.

SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is moved, I intend to vote against it so that I may be recognized to control time under the hour rule in order to continue to debate on House Resolution 611.

SPEAKER: The gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: I yield myself such time as I may consume.

SPEAKER: The gentleman is recognized.

HYDE: I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

SPEAKER: Without objection. The gentleman is recognized.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues of the people's House, I wish to talk to you about the rule of law. After months of argument, hours of debate, there is no need for further complexity. The question before this House is rather simple. It's not a question of sex. Sexual misconduct and adultery are private acts and are none of Congress' business.

It's not even a question of lying about sex. The matter before the House is a question of lying under oath. This is a public act, not a private act. This is called perjury. The matter before the House is a question of the willful, premeditated, deliberate corruption of the nation's system of justice. Perjury and obstruction of justice cannot be reconciled with the office of the president of the United States.

The personal fate of the president is not the issue. The political fate of his party is not the issue. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is not the issue. The issue is perjury -- lying under oath. The issue is obstruction of justice, which the president has sworn the most solemn oath to uphold.

HYDE: That oath constituted a compact between the president and the American people. That compact has been broken. The people's trust has been betrayed. The nation's chief executive has shown himself unwilling or incapable of enforcing its laws for he has corrupted the rule of law -- the rule of law -- by his perjury and his obstruction of justice.

That and nothing other than that is the issue before this house.

We have heard ceaselessly that, even if the president is guilty of the charges in the Starr referral, they don't rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

Well, just what is an impeachable offense?

One authority, Professor Stephen Presser of Northwestern University Law School said, and I quote, "Impeachable offenses are those which demonstrate a fundamental betrayal of public trust. They suggest the federal official has deliberately failed in his duty to uphold the Constitution and laws he was sworn to enforce." Close quote.

SPEAKER: Now the chair realizes that members will want to conduct conversations on the floor, and I would ask those members to take their conversations to the cloakroom because I know when members are speaking, they will want to be heard.

SPEAKER: The gentleman may proceed.

HYDE: And so we must decide if a president, the chief law enforcement officer of the land, the person who appoints the attorney general, the person who nominates every federal judge, the person who nominates to the Supreme Court and the only person with a constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, can lie under oath repeatedly and maintain it is not a breach of trust sufficient for impeachment.

The president is the trustee of the nation's conscience and so are we here today. There have been many explosions in our committee hearings on the respective role of the House and Senate. Under the Constitution, the House accuses and the Senate adjudicates.

True, the formula language of our articles recites the ultimate goal of removal from office, but this language doesn't trump the Constitution, which defines the separate functions, the different functions, of the House and the Senate.

Our Founding Fathers didn't want the body that accuses to be the same one that renders final judgment, and they set up an additional safeguard of a two-thirds vote for removal. So despite protests, our job is to decide if there is enough evidence to submit to the Senate for a trial.

That's what the Constitution says, no matter what the president's defenders say. When Ben Franklin, on September 18, 1787, told a Mrs. Powell, that the founders and framers had given us a republic if you can keep it, perhaps he anticipated a future time when bedrock principles of our democracy would be mortally threatened as the rule of law stands in the line of fire today.

*** Elapsed Time 00:56, Eastern Time 09:56 ***

Nothing I can think of more clearly illustrates that America is a continuing experiment, never finished; that our democracy is always a work in progress. Then this debate today -- for we sit here with the power to shake and reconfigure the charter of our freedom, just as the founders and framers did. We can strengthen our Constitution by giving it content and meaning, or we can weaken and wound it by tolerating and thus encouraging lies under oath and evasions and breaches of trust on the part of our chief executive.

The president's defenders in this House have rarely denied the facts. They have not seriously challenged the contention of the independent counsel that the president did not tell the truth in two sworn testimonies. They have not seriously attempted to discredit the facts brought before the committee by the independent counsel. They've admitted, in effect, he did it. But then they've argued that this does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

This is the "so-what" defense, whereby a chief executive, the successor to George Washington, can cheapen the oath, and it really doesn't matter.

*** Elapsed Time 00:58, Eastern Time 09:58 ***

HYDE: They suggest that to impeach the president is to reverse the result of national election, as though Senator Dole would become president.

They propose novel remedies like a congressional censure that may appease some constituents and certainly mollify the press but, in my judgment, betray a lack of seriousness about the Constitution, the separation of powers and the carefully balanced relationship of checks and balances between Congress and the president that was wisely crafted by the framers.

A resolution of censure, to mean anything, must punish if only to tarnish his reputation. But we have no authority under the Constitution to punish the president. It's called separation of powers.

As you know, we've been attacked for nor producing fact witnesses. But this is the first impeachment inquiry in history with the Office of Independent Counsel in place, and their referral to us consisted of 60,000 pages of sworn testimony, grand jury transcripts, depositions, statements, affidavits, video and audio tapes.

We had the facts and we had them under oath.

We had Ms. Lewinsky's heavily corroborated testimony under a grant of immunity that would be revoked if she lied.

*** Elapsed Time 00:59, Eastern Time 09:59 ***

HYDE: We accepted that and so did they. Else why didn't they call any others whose credibility they questioned as their own witnesses? Now there was so little despite on the facts, they called no fact witnesses and have even based a resolution of censure on the same facts.

Let's be clear. The vote that all of us are asked to cast is, in the final analysis, a vote on the rule of law.

Now the rule of law is one of the great achievements of our civilization, for the alternative is the rule of raw power. We here today are the heirs of 3,000 years of history in which humanity slowly, painfully, at great cost evolved a form of politics in which law, not brute force, is the arbiter of our public destinies.

We are the heirs of the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic Law, a moral code for a free people, who, having been liberated from bondage, sought in law a means to avoid falling back into the habits of slaves.

We are the heirs of Roman Law, the first legal system by which peoples of different cultures, languages, races and religions came to live together in a form of political community.

We are the heirs of the Magna Carta, by which the free men of England began to break the arbitrary and unchecked power of royal absolutism. We're the heirs of a long tradition of parliamentary development in which the rule of law gradually came to replace royal prerogative as a means for governing a society of free men and women.

*** Elapsed Time 01:01, Eastern Time 10:01 ***

HYDE: We're the heirs of 1776 and of an epic moment in human affairs, when the founders of this Republic pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors. Think of that -- sacred honor -- to the defense of the rule of law.

We are the heirs of a hard-fought war between the states, which vindicated the rule of law over the appetites of some for owning others. We are the heirs of the ah century's great struggles against totalitarianism, in which the rule of law was defended at immense cost against the worst tyrannies in human history.

The phrase "rule of law" is no pious aspiration from a civics textbook. The rule of law is what stands between all of us and the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. The rule of law is the safeguard of our liberties. The rule of law is what allows us to live our freedom in ways that honor the freedom of others, while strengthening the common good.

The rule of law is like a three-legged stool. One leg is an honest judge, the second leg is an ethical bar, and the third is an enforceable oath. All three are indispensable to avoid political collapse.

In 1838, Abraham Lincoln celebrated the rule of law before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, and linked it to the perpetuation of American liberties and American political institutions. Listen to Lincoln, from 1838: "Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of '76 did to support the Declaration of Independence, so the support of the Constitution and laws, let every American pledge his life, his property and his sacred honor. Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father and to tear the character of his own and his children's liberty.

*** Elapsed Time 01:03, Eastern Time 10:03 ***

HYDE: "Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap. Let it be taught in the schools, seminaries, colleges. Let it be written in primers, spelling books, almanacs. Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls and enforced in the halls of -- in the courts of justice."

So said Lincoln.

My colleagues, we have been sent here to strengthen and defend the rule of law -- not to weaken, not to attenuate it, not to disfigure it. This is not a question of perfection; it's a question of foundations.

This isn't a matter of setting the bar too high; it's a matter of securing the basic structure of our freedom -- which is the rule of law.

No many or woman, no matter how highly placed, no matter how effective a communicator, no matter how gifted a manipulator of opinion or winner of votes, can be above the law in a democracy. That is not a counsel of perfection. That is a rock-bottom, irreducible principle of our public life.

There's no avoiding the issue before us, much as I wish we could. We are, in one way or another, establishing the parameters of permissible presidential conduct.

In creating a presidential system, the framers invested that office with extraordinary powers. If those powers are not exercised within the boundaries of the rule of law, if the president breaks the law by perjury and obstructs justice by willfully corrupting the legal system, that president must be removed from office.

*** Elapsed Time 01:05, Eastern Time 10:05 ***

HYDE: We cannot have one law for the ruler and another law for the ruled. This was once broadly understood in our land. If that understanding is lost or if it becomes seriously eroded, the American democratic experiment and the freedom it guarantees is in jeopardy. That and not the fate of one man, or one political party, or one electoral cycle is what we're being asked to vote on today.

In casting our votes we should look not simply to ourselves, but to the past and to the future. Let's look back to Bunker Hill, Concord, Lexington. Let's look across the river to Arlington Cemetery where American heroes who gave their lives for the sake of the rule of law lie buried. And let us not betray their memory.

Let's look to the future, to the children of today who are the presidents and members of Congress of the next century. And let's not crush their hope that they too will inherent a law-governed society.

Let's declare unmistakably the perjury and obstruction of justice disqualify a man from retaining the presidency of the United States.

There is a mountain of details which are assembled in a coherent mosaic in the committee report. It reads like a novel, only it's non- fiction. It really happened. And the corroboration is compelling. Read the report and be convinced.

What we're telling you today are not the ravings of some vindictive political crusade but a reaffirmation of a set of values that are tarnished and dim these days, but it is given to us to restore them so our founding fathers would be proud.

Listen, it's your country. The president is our flag bearer.

*** Elapsed Time 01:07, Eastern Time 10:07 ***

HYDE: He stands out in front our people when the flag is flowing. Catch the falling flag as we keep our appointment with history.

I yield back.

Back | Next

Friday, December 18, 1998

• House poised to impeach Clinton
• Poll: Americans remain opposed to impeachment
• Highlights from the House impeachment debate
• Transcript: House debates articles of impeachment
• Miller won't return to Washington, calls impeachment vote 'foregone conclusion'
• Is censure a constitutional possibility?
• Analysis: Clinton's post-impeachment strategy
• Supporters rally behind Livingston
• Clinton mood said to be 'very good'
• Mrs. Clinton: 'Bring our country together'
• Design by sculptor of Vietnam Women's Memorial selected for coin
• Profile of Speaker-elect Bob Livingston
• Nixon wanted Baker for court seat

ARCHIVES

Search CNN/AllPolitics by           Enter keyword(s)       go    help