This is source I found from another site, main source you can find in last paragraph
REP. HYDE: Thank the gentlelady, and Mr. Bryant, I've restored your five minutes.
REP. JACKSON-LEE: Thank you.
REP. BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm reminded of the biblical quote, and I try to practice it as often as I can in my life, to be quick to listen and slow to speak and slow to anger. And I think that would be something that we could all do a better job of in this committee -- certainly on the "slow to speak" -- we could get this done. We probably should have voted on this amendment some time ago but as you can see, we've diverted from the merits of the amendment and talked and talked and talked about issues we've beaten to death, but certainly that's part of this process and it is a very serious process.
But once you peel away all the package and you continue to take the papers out and you take out the attacks on Kenneth Starr and the unfair process and the attacks on our chairman and political motivations, which, quite frankly, I've never understood why we would want to remove this president to put in a popular vice president to give him an advantage in the next election -- I really resent that thought from our opposition here that thinks we're motivated that way. I believe sincerely that all members of this committee are motivated by the principle. We may disagree on what the principle is, but I think we're all motivated by principle and not politics.
But when you strip away all this package, all the wrappings, and get to the core of it, you still have a president who has perjured himself, and the reason this is separated into three distinct articles is, the reason is, that he perjured himself in the grand jury, number one. Number two, he perjured himself in answering interrogatories and the deposition in the Paula Jones case, number two. And now, number four, he perjured himself in his answers to Congress. Those are very -- three distinct categories and deserve three very distinct articles.
That brings me to an interesting question.
I wonder -- and I don't presuppose the Senate will do anything with this, or convict or have a trial or whatever -- but if the president were to testify and raise his right hand in the Senate and swear "to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God," I just wonder if the Senate would also have to give him an admonition that that "does that mean you're not going to evade, does that mean you're not going to mislead the Senate, does that mean you're not going to give incomplete answers to the Senate?" And it's almost humorous, but it's not. It's that serious. You almost have to do that in this situation. And that's the core of what we're talking about here.
And I think our counsel, David Schippers, summarized this very well when he spoke the other day, and he mentioned about how we have referred back to this income tax case against President Nixon and said we're not going to go down that road, that's not impeachable. And he said what about in future years, when Congresses look at alleged misconduct of the president? Are we now in 1998 taking off the table, just as they did in 1974 the income tax issue -- are we now taking off the table perjury, obstruction of justice? It sounds to me like some in this room would have us do that, just because it's sex.
Folks, this is not about sex. We're not charging him with anything -- adultery or anything like that. We're charging him with making that conscious choice -- and a calculated choice, may I add -- where he had to take a poll from Dick Morris to decide what to do and then decide to go down that road of consistent, persistent perjuries and obstruction of justice. And that's what we're about. Are we going to turn our head as a Congress and take these things off the table for future Congresses and allow a president that leeway to get into that conduct and in 20 years from now come back and say, "You've set the precedent in 1998; you can't call me to order for perjury or for obstruction of justice"?
I don't think we're about that, and I would urge my colleagues to -- let's cut our speeches down, let's vote on this, support this amendment, and move forward with the continued debate.
REP. HYDE: The question occurs on the amendment offered --
REP. ROBERT WEXLER (D-FL): Mr. Chairman?
REP. HYDE: Mr. Wexler, you want -- you want time --
REP. WEXLER: Thank you. Move to strike the last word -- (off mike).
REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
REP. WEXLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have no doubt that history will record today's debate as the Great Dumbed-Down Impeachment Debate. And if I understood Mr. Rogan's objection earlier or concern with my friend Mr. Rothman's comments, I think, in a very genuine and honest fashion, my colleague from my home state of Florida, Mr. Collum (sic) -- McCollum, answered Mr. Rogan's question honestly, genuinely, that at least in part -- and I don't want to paraphrase him, but I believe he said it himself in confirming what he has said many times -- that impeachment is the ultimate censure, the ultimate scarlet letter.
And what I think many of us on this side of the aisle are having such a terrible time with respect to that notion is that impeachment is much more than that. Censure is the scarlet letter; impeachment is the removal of the president. And when the idea of impeachment, being the removal of the president, is combined with the notion and the predicate of what is now or may be Article IV, again, my colleague from Florida Mr. McCollum said that at least one of the answers that is so egregious, that would justify impeachment, that the president gave to this Congress, was the answer to question number 34. And the essence of the answer of number 34 that apparently justifies impeachment and removal -- at least as we see it, impeachment and removal -- is that the president answered, and his quote was, "I believe at the time she filled out this affidavit" -- that's Monica Lewinsky -- "if she believed that the definition of sexual relationship was two people having intercourse, then this is accurate."
Now, I understand the other side when they say this isn't about sex, it's about perjury, it's about obstruction of justice, it's about a whole lot of things, but when it comes right down to it, you cannot -- cannot -- escape the very fact that what this is all about is the definition of a sexual relationship. And what boggles my mind is that we seem to have forgotten the beginning of Mr. Lowell's presentation. We all saw it. The president was sitting up there on all these television sets, and what did we hear at that deposition? We heard the president's lawyers arguing with Paula Jones' lawyers about this definition, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. And then I think they changed the definition twice. I mean, it wasn't Robert Wexler that now is arguing this is confusing, it was the presiding judge. She said that she is concerned that the president may be confused. So then the president went ahead and denied a sexual relationship, and that's what we're impeaching the president about.
Well, I hope Dr. Ruth is getting ready, because she will undoubtedly be an expert witness at the trial in the Senate. But that's what it all comes down to.
And if I could, in conclusion, just offer not a response but maybe a corollary to Mr. Graham's concern about undue pressure, unfair pressure about impeachment. Well, what about a censure vote on the floor of the House? What about a censure vote on the floor of the House? Why won't the Republican leadership, why won't Speaker Gingrich or new-to-be-Speaker Livingston, or Mr. DeLay, why won't they let us vote on a censure vote on the full House? Because it's undue pressure. Because they know very well that if they allow a censure vote, that will create a big dilemma for some Republicans.
So when we talk about undue pressure, and we talk about voting your conscience, but let's talk about the Republican leadership in Congress allowing the free will of this Congress to be expressed.
Don't hide behind parliamentary procedure! Undue pressure? Let us vote on the censure! And then maybe -- maybe the Republicans would have a ground to talk about undue pressure.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. ROGAN: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of personal privilege.
REP. HYDE: The gentleman from California has a point of personal privilege.
REP. ROGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A few minutes ago, my friend from Massachusetts, in his remarks to the Committee, put forth his interpretation of the motivations of the Republican members' votes on articles of impeachment. He then said if any Republicans disagree with that interpretation, they should speak right now.
I asked the gentleman to yield me time. He did not yield to me. He said at the end of his remarks he would yield to me. Regrettably his time expired. I simply don't want a vacant record left months or years from now that when the challenge was issued, there was no response from Republicans. Speaking for myself, I did take issue with his interpretation. I do not know if any of my colleagues join me in that, but I just want to record to reflect the gentleman's time did expire before anybody had an opportunity to engage him further in that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. : Will the gentleman yield? Which friend from Massachusetts? We have three over here.
REP. ROGAN: Well, they're all my friends, and that would be my extra-dear friend, Mr. Delahunt.
REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
REP. CANNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just point out -- I wanted to make a distinction as to what Mr. Delahunt had said, and suggest that conviction -- the conviction that every person of conscience in this House arrives at when he makes a vote, should be based on things other than just personal animosity. I don't think that's any reason to vote in this house, but rather should be based upon the evidence and weighing of many factors, including the gravity of the acts of the president and their effect on their system.
But I think the -- or at least for me the standard should be that those rise to a level that should result in removal from office.
Let me associate myself with the comments of my friend, Mr. Coble, who talked about the gravity that this proceeding has for him, and in particular, he spoke about the difficulty -- or the emotional difficulty, the knots in his stomach. I think this is a trying time for America, a very difficult time, and yet we are called upon to do what I would hope on all sides is the courageous thing, and that is vote our consciences.
I would just make exception that I don't want to go to the parking lot with him because I think he can handle it himself -- for whoever might take him, I just give you fair warning in advance.
I would like to speak to the issue of executive privilege and why I thought it should be in here. It's a difficult issue and one where I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Gekas and his view that executive privilege is easily abused.
But you'll recall that this became rather a prominent item over the president's denial that he knew anything about the assertion of executive privilege in the course of questioning from a reporter from the Washington Post. And in fact, President Clinton said -- the article says:
"Clinton, who has yet to acknowledge publicly even that he is asserting executive privilege, was pressed by reporters to explain why he is trying to block testimony. His voice curt and his expression cold, the president responded as though he were a bystander in the controversy rather than its central character. `All I know is I saw an article about it in the paper today,' said Clinton, referring to the pack of news clippings he gets each morning. `I haven't discussed it with the lawyers. I don't know. You should ask someone who knows.'"
Now that's important because what the president was doing here was cutting off one of the kinds of things in America in our system that keeps him in line -- that's the press. He didn't tell the truth.
The White House came back, through Mr. Ruff, and tried to explain that, saying that -- in fact, cast dispersions on Mr. Starr saying that he misquoted -- misstated that pass. But in fact, in paragraph 44 of Mr. Ruff's affidavit, he referred with particularity to the first lady. And so that being the distinction, that the president had been asked about the first lady, and yet the averment that Mr. Ruff made in his assertion of the executive privilege particularly included the first lady.
Now, I don't think that executive privilege would be -- just based on that would be so significant. But when you take a look at what this White House has done -- in the Nixon case, executive privilege was asserted six times in writing, and I think those were the only assertions of executive privilege. In this case, that is the case of President Clinton, we have 13 assertions of executive privilege in writing. And beyond those, there have been numerous, perhaps hundreds of assertions that haven't been in writing.
And I will just tell you, as a member of the Resources Committee, where we did battle over issues that went right to the core of what we're dealing with here -- that is the president lying in the establishment of a monument in my District -- the president suggested and suggested and suggested executive privilege, and when it came down to a subpoena, refused -- or didn't actually assert it in the case. So, can executive privilege be abused? I think it can.
In closing, let me just say that the heart of the case against the president is lying under oath. At every turn when he was faced with the choice of answering questions honestly or deceptively, the president has chosen deception. Even when he was faced with the prospects of impeachment, the president chose to provide false and deceptive information to the Judiciary Committee, demonstrating contempt for the constitutional duty of Congress. While lying to the American people and his subordinates are extremely serious matters and formed the basis of impeachment charges against President Nixon, the majority is choosing to set the bar for abuse of power in the Articles of Impeachment, as clearly as possible and focusing that on the lying to Congress.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett.
REP. BARRETT (D-WI): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to briefly address this amendment itself. And I listened carefully when Mr. Watt, among others, spoke on this amendment.
And I view this as choosing between supporting our voting for an article that is currently in the draft that I don't support or voting for an article that is not in the draft that I don't support. And I am of the notion that, rather than picking my poison, I am going to vote against both of them for that reason.
I also want to address a comment that my friend Mr. Bryant made -- from Tennessee -- because I think actually there was a lot in his comment that I think deserves discussion because in some ways it goes to the nub of what we are talking about here today. And he said that he felt -- and I don't mean to misstate you, Mr. Bryant, so correct me if I do -- that we should not be lowering the bar, in essence, by saying that perjury and obstruction of justice are no longer impeachable offenses. And that's pretty much what you said, and I would agree with that.
But I don't know that we would say, at least that I would say, that perjury in the context of a personal matter is per se an impeachable offense. And so my feeling on this all along is that you have to look at the underlying offense, first, to determine whether it occurred; second, to determine whether it's an offense against the State; and if it's not an offense against the State, whether it is a crime of such great magnitude that the underlying offense so offends one's morality that the person should be removed from office.
So I think we do have to be careful. And I agree with you; we have to be careful what we are doing with this bar, whether we are lowering it or whether we are raising it, because I think if we did say that perjury per se was an offense, that would mean that you would have someone who committed perjury in a very private divorce matter, for example, susceptible to this. I am not saying that that's right, but that certainly is something that could happen. And so you would not have the underlying civil-rights claim that we have in this case.
You could say that perjury, as I've mentioned before, in a speeding case would be an act that deserved impeachment, and I -- again, I don't know that that's what the framers -- in fact, I don't think that's what the framers had in mind.
I also want to briefly touch on the comments that my good friend, Mr. Graham, referred to when he read from the article dealing with Jay Dickey. I know Jay Dickey, he's a good friend of mine. He can foul and be fouled as well as anybody in the basketball gym downstairs, and he can stand up to pressure from Democrats and Republicans. And I looked at the article, and I want to read another section of the article because it says, "It was not the kind of arm twisting that normally marks a legislative battle," Dickey said. "Rather, it was simply an offer for information." But he isn't sure whether he'll take the White House up on it. Quote, "I will if I can see an application." Quote. Doesn't sound like a man under great duress.
Earlier in the article, this article also states, "The White House feels some confidence that, despite pressure from the Republican leadership, Dickey can be persuaded to vote against the impeachment." What this means in legislative parlance is that Mr. Dickey is in play, and he's getting pressure, apparently from the White House -- although from his own account, it's not the normal kind of arm twisting that goes along with legislative battle, but pressure from the Republican leadership.
I've been under the impression from statements here today that this is solely a vote of conscience.
REP. GRAHAM: Would the gentleman yield?
REP. BARRETT: I'll yield in about 15 seconds, yes, sir.
REP. : Would the gentleman yield to me, too?
REP. BARRETT: And if it's solely a vote of conscience, then we should tell the leaders from both our parties to go home, leave us alone, let us pray and make the decision as our conscience decides -- or dictates that we do it.
And I would yield to Mr. Graham.
REP. GRAHAM: I associate myself with that last statement.
Let me read what Mr. Dickey has released in a press release.
REP. WATERS: Oh, Lord, don't --
REP. GRAHAM: Statement by 4th District -- well, it was brought up by the gentleman from Wisconsin. I have the article, and I think -- I hope something will bring us together, and maybe the idea of your last statement will bring us together. We all have got a job to do, and we've got to live with what we're going to do, and just leave alone and let us do it.
"That statement takes"-- he's referring to the statement that -- the article -- "that statement takes this issue into the political basement --
REP. : -- two additional minutes.
REP GRAHAM: Thank you. Thank you.
REP. HYDE: Without objection
REP GRAHAM: Thank you.
When will they learn there are some people who don't want to serve according to polls, who don't consider their survival more important than the good of the country? This threat encourages me to make this decision in the shallow reaches of pure and simple politics. I will resist that. I don't want to serve just to be reelected. What I want to do is stress to my constituents that this decision should be about protecting, respecting and abiding by the U.S. Constitution and respecting others with opposing views.
Hear this, White House. I am planning on running for reelection in the year 2000. You are trying to influence my vote with the power of the White House. If my decision on impeachment causes you to work even harder for my defeat, as you have in the past, then so be it. In the end, you may finally tear me away from my constituents, but you won't ever tear me away from my conscience.
I hope we all would associate ourselves with that statement --
REP. FRANK: Will the gentleman yield?
REP. GRAHAM: -- from any pressure being applied to anybody.
REP. BARRETT: I would yield to Mr. Watt, but if I could reclaim my time. And again we hear the word "conscience," and we're going to hear that word a lot more today because our plea to you is going to be continuously that we be allowed to vote our conscience, as well. Every one of us, believe it or not -- and maybe the American people don't believe this, but I believe it -- every member of this institution has a conscience, and no member of this institution should be denied the right to vote their conscience.
And I would yield to Mr. Watt.
REP. WATT: I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I just wanted to say on the record that I wanted the record to reflect that I was on the verge of making some disparaging remarks about my friend, Mr. Graham. Mr. Rogan had, in fact, yielded me time to do that.
REP. GRAHAM: And I did give you every -- (inaudible due to cross talk) -- take you up on that.
REP. WATT: And I took a deep breath and took a walk and decided neither to say them publicly nor privately, and that Mr. Graham and I remain friends.
REP. FRANK: Will the gentleman yield to me?
REP. WATT: And I'm happy that I did that.
REP. FRANK: I thank the gentleman.
I would just like to say that any discussion of pressure being put on members which leaves out the name of Tom DeLay is equivalent to debating impeachment without mentioning Monica Lewinsky.
REP. HYDE: The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentlelady from California, Mrs. -- Ms. Bono.
REP. MARY BONO (R-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to address a question that I heard a long time ago in this proceeding, and it was posed by Congressman Schumer. And his question was, how did lying to the American people get here in the first place? Granted, it has been stricken from the article before us, but I want to just read this from something that has come across my desk.
REP. SCHUMER: Will the gentlelady yield, because she didn't quote me correctly.
REP. BONO: I'm sorry. Sure, I will yield.
REP. SCHUMER: "Lying to the Cabinet or to the public not under oath become part of this article."
REP. BONO: Okay. Then I stand corrected, but I think that nonetheless, this is relevant and I'd like to read it. It's something former Secretary of Labor Robert Reisch has written, that "President Clinton's offense of the public lie in this matter poses a great threat to his presidency. It makes it especially difficult for the nation to move on."
What Reisch finds so disturbing is not simply the fact of President Clinton's public lie, but its passionate intensity. Mr. Reisch wrote, quote, "In January, the president told America with stunning conviction that he had not had a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. On August 17th, he looked into the eyes of America and said his January statement had been misleading. Many who witnessed both performances thought the January one more convincing, hence Mr. Clinton's second problem: if he can so convincingly fake a lie, how can the public believe anything else he says, including his current stream of apologies?
"Despite protestations that the Lewinsky affair was his private business, the betrayal was indubitably public because the denials were so passionately public. He spoke to America with the same emotional intensity he has brought to countless public issues. What happens to presidential power when credibility is so blatantly forfeited? It inevitably subsides." End quote.
And that is why lying to the American people was here in the first place. I believe that this side has stricken it because we strongly feel that the first three articles are just so strong that the perjury -- the first two on perjury are so strong.
With that, I'd like to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana.
REP. BUYER: I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I'm going to support the Gekas amendment. I'll vote for Article IV.
The president's response to the 81 Requests for Admissions was a continuation of a pattern, I believe, of perjury and obstruction of justice.
When we bring up the issue about the impeachment of former federal judges Mr. Claiborne and Walter Nixon, what is interesting, at the time we had a Democrat majority here that sat on the Judiciary Committee and they brought forward those impeachments; they passed the House. We had managers that prosecuted them in trial before the Senate.
What I find most interesting is that these judges were prosecuted and one standard was used -- high crimes and misdemeanors. They said one standard would apply -- that applies to the president and vice president will also apply to these federal judges and other civil officers. You see, in the defense of the judge, the defense lawyer's judge (sic) in the trial in the Senate argued that the federal judges should be treated differently; that they should be treated on impeachment for misbehavior, not judged with the same standard with the president. The Democratic majority at the time said no and rejected that, and said no, federal judges and the president should be treated by the same standard.
Well, I agree. I think the Republicans and Democrats at the time in the 1980s, on both those cases, agreed. I think the Judiciary Committee needs to follow the precedent and be consistent, and that's what we're trying to do here.
I also want to express my appreciation to Mr. Coble. Mr. Coble expressed some honesty about his own personal conscience, about his gut and how it was being turned over. And I don't believe anyone should make a mockery about someone describing how they personally feel going through this process, because it is not easy. So I'm going to speak about my conscience. You see, I didn't sleep very well last night, so what I did, about 2:00 a.m. this morning is, I went out and took a jog. Now some may say that may not be a smart thing to do in Washington at 2:00 a.m., but I took a job down the Mall. And as I took the jog down the Mall I first went through the Korean Memorial. I did that because my father -- and then I thought of Mr. Conyers and I thought of others. I then went over to the Vietnam Memorial and I walked slowly. I thought of my time back as a cadet at The Citadel --
REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.
REP. BUYER: I move to strike the last word on my time.
REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
REP. BUYER: A gentleman who was a Vietnam veteran walked up on the blackboard. His name today is Col. Trez (sp); he was a young major at the time. And he wrote this statement on the blackboard and he demanded that these young cadets memorize this statement. He said those who serve their country on a distant battlefield see life in a dimension that the protected may never know. You see, I -- I worked hard to understand that. It wasn't till years later that I understood that myself, in my service in the Gulf War. I had a very dear friend die. I understand the painful tears and I understand the horrors of war.
As I jogged back, I stopped at the Washington Monument. The Mall is beautiful at night. And then I thought about the World War II veterans -- Mr. Hyde and others -- a unique generation. They were truly crusaders. They fought for no bounty of their own. They left freedom in their footsteps. And then I thought about something I'd read in military history. After D-Day, they were policing up the battlefield and laying (sic) upon the battlefield was an American soldier who was dead. No one was around to hear his last words, so he wrote them on a pad. Can you imagine the frustration knowing you're about to die and there's no one around to say your last words? I don't know what you would write, but this soldier wrote, "Tell them, when you go home, I gave this day for their tomorrow."
You see, part of my conscience is driven by my military service.
I'm an individual that not only is principled, but also steeped in virtues, and I use those to guide myself through the chaos. And then I think about people all across America, about our -- America's values and American character, and I wanted to put it in plain-spoken words.
So when I think about America's character and common-sense virtues, I think about honesty. What is it? Tell the truth. Be sincere. Don't deceive, mislead, or be devious, or use trickery. Don't betray a trust. Don't withhold information in relationships of trust. Don't cheat or lie to the detriment of others, nor tolerate such practice.
On issues of integrity, exhibit the best in yourself. Choose the harder right over the easier wrong. Walk your talk. Show courage, commitment, and self-discipline.
On issues of promise-keeping, whole -- honor your oath and keep your word.
On issues of loyalty, stand by, support, and protect your family, your friends, your community, and your country. Don't spread rumors, lies, or distortions to harm others. You don't violate the law and ethical principles to win personal gain. And you don't ask a friend to do something wrong.
On issues of respect, you be courteous and polite. You judge all people on their merits. You be tolerant and appreciative and accepting of individual differences. You don't abuse, demean, or mistrust anyone. You don't use, manipulate, exploit, or take advantage of others. You respect the right of individuals.
On the issue of acting responsibly and being accountable, the issue is to think before you act, meaning consider the possible consequences on all people from your actions. You pursue excellence. You be reliable. Be accountable. Exercise self-control. You don't blame others for your mistakes. You set a good example for those to look up to you.
On the issues of fairness, treat all people fairly. Don't take unfair advantage of others. Don't take more than your fair share. Don't be selfish, mean, cruel, or insensitive to others.
You see, citizens all across America play by the rules, obey the laws, pull their own weight. Many do their fair share, and they do so while respecting authority.
I have been disheartened by the facts in this case. It is sad to have the occupant of the White House, an office that I respect so much, riddled with these allegations. And now I have findings of criminal misconduct and unethical behavior. We cannot expect to restore the office of the presidency by leaving a perjurous (sic) president in office.
I yield back my time.
REP. HYDE: The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas. All those in favor will signify by saying "aye".
AFFIRMING MEMBERS: Aye.
REP. HYDE: Opposed, "no."
DISSENTING MEMBER: No.
REP. CONYERS: (Inaudible.)
REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Michigan requests a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll.
CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
REP. MCCOLLUM: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. McCollum votes aye.
This is source I found from another site, main source you can find in last paragraph
Source : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articleiv121298.htm