Clinton Accused Special Report
Navigation Bar
Navigation Bar

 Main Page
 News Archive
 Key Players

  blue line
Dec. 11: Debate and Vote on Article I

  • More Transcripts From the Hearings

  • By Federal News Service
    Friday, December 11, 1998

    REP. HYDE: (Sounds gavel.) The committee will come to order. (Pause.)

    The resolution now before us has been read and opened for amendment, and we're going to do it article by article. So as to Article I, are there any amendments to Article I?

    REP. ROBERT SCOTT (D-VA): Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Virginia.

    REP. SCOTT: Move to strike the last word.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

    REP. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, did you get a response from Mr. Starr, could I inquire?

    REP. HYDE: Yes. We were told all of the answers -- we have the answers for you to your questions, and the rest they hope to have this afternoon.

    REP. SCOTT: I will at this point yield back the balance of my time to -- or reserve the balance of my time, if that's possible.

    REP. HYDE: May all your requests be as speedily answered! (Laughter.)

    REP. SCOTT: Thank you.

    REP. HYDE: All right, I'm told there are no reservations under the five-minute rule.

    In any event, there are no amendments to Article I? The clerk will call the --

    REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TX): Strike the last word.

    REP. HYDE: Does someone wish to strike the last word?


    REP. HYDE: The gentlelady from Houston, Texas is recognized for five minutes to strike the last word.

    REP. JACKSON LEE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we have all had an opportunity to hear this morning from passionate Americans who have disagreed. In so doing, Mr. Chairman, we have confirmed what this nations stands for. It is a democracy. It does abide by the rule of law. It is a constitutional government.

    And frankly, I think that we do a disservice to this process by suggesting to the American people, any of us, that the process does not work. But it is for these reasons that I must counter and oppose Article I of the Constitution (sic). I have noted earlier that -- of the impeachment. (Laughter.) You see, I am wrapped in the Constitution and was hoping we might follow it today. (Laughter, cross talk.)

    But in any event, I have participated in this process and noted earlier in my remarks, that it has been a shortened process, and the chairman has aptly said that many of us, many Americans, commented that they wanted to see this process move expeditiously.

    But in so doing, I hope that my remarks would not have been attributable the idea that I did not want to get the facts; that I did not want an Article of Impeachment to be grounded in the facts, particularly as it relates to what every American now can recite but may not understand, perjury. And then later we'll discuss obstruction of justice and abuse of power.

    Many, many scholars and many, many experts on the issue of perjury have already said to us how undefined it is, how unclear it is. And I cannot find in all of the chief counsel's presentation yesterday, Mr. Schippers', anywhere where he convinced us that the president believed he was making false statements. Of course, we know that there was a lot of mishmash, a lot of "who said what?" My understanding of the word "is" is "is."

    But impeachment is precise. It is nonappealable. It is ultimately the removal of a president from the United States of America. And frankly, Mr. Chairman, it is a serious and momentous occasion, one that I would not want to be part of today and for history to report; not because the vehicle is not one that can be used and we should ignore. It was put there by the framers, but for a very grave concern.

    So, Mr. Chairman, I am with great dilemma, frankly believing in the Constitution, believing in its promise and recognizing that it keeps this country together.

    But I cannot hold to the fact that allegations, discrepancies, the basis of a long judgment on a witness whose credibility has not been, if you will, confirmed in this proceeding -- bar an immunity being given, bar statements made to a grand jury, bar the fair prosecution, it has not been made such in this setting.

    And so as someone who recognizes that my very existence, the fact that I am now a whole person and not two-thirds of a person, is wrapped in this Constitution, it makes me very much tied to the need to be precise when I act on anything that I claim to be constitutionally grounded, which would be this article based on perjury, to remove a president. And it is not there.

    We have too many in this nation, as I close, Mr. Chairman, who hold on for their existence -- whether their religion is different, whether their sex is different, whether they've just come to this nation as a new immigrant, seeking freedom, they know that they can trust the Constitution to protect them, the oppressed. And frankly, the president, however claimed to be a powerful man, is a human being, and we must as well give him the protection of the Constitution. It is not here, Mr. Chairman. It is not in this article. This article does not warrant a conviction. It does not warrant leaving this committee.

    REP. HYDE: The gentlelady's time --

    REP. JACKSON LEE: It is in fact, Mr. Chairman, an article that we should defeat.

    I thank the chairman for his kindness.

    REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): Mr. Chairman, point of information.

    REP. HYDE: Who is -- who seeks a point of information?

    STAFF: Nadler.

    REP. HYDE: Mr. Nadler?


    REP. NADLER: Yes. Mr. Chairman, my question is that this Article I that we're discussing now alleges that the president committed perjury. It is basic that we should be told before voting the specific words that are alleged to be perjurious. And I was -- and my point of information is, what are those words? What words specifically, for the four sub-units or the four allegations in Article I, are alleged to be perjurious? Could we have that -- could we have those words, please, so that we can discuss them as to whether they are perjurious and so that the Senate, should these -- should this article, God forbid, pass the House, so that the Senate will know what the allegation is, and the defense attorneys will know what they must defend against?

    And I would -- in connection with the question, with my point of information, I would ask unanimous consent to insert into the record an article from today's L.A. Times raising the same question.

    REP. HYDE: I can only refer you to Mr. Schippers' report yesterday discussing this, and I'll try to get a copy of it and re- read it to you.

    REP. NADLER: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, Mr. Schippers' report, and I listened carefully, made many multiple allegations, many multiple statements, many -- many multiple many -- (laughing) -- inferences and it is unclear to me from reading that which of those statements are the subject of these specific four points. There are four specific points here; for each one of them we should list, in a committee document, what the allegedly perjurious words are. Failing that, there is no due process and, I think, no ability to vote intelligently or to discuss intelligently, this Article.

    REP. HYDE: The words were set out in detail in the presentation yesterday --

    REP. NADLER: Then you ought to be able to tell me what they are.

    REP. HYDE: Well, I'm looking for a copy. My copy -- I didn't commit them to memory; I'm not quite that acute and I'm waiting for somebody --

    REP. NADLER: I mean, Mr. Chairman, I'm not --

    REP. HYDE: We know your question; we're trying to find the answer, now. Just somebody here on our staff has an answer.

    REP. SENSENBRUNNER: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Wisconsin.

    REP. SENSENBRUNNER: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Article of Impeachment.

    REP. : Wait a second!

    REP. : Wait a minute!

    REP. FRANK (?): You can't -- Mr. Chairman, point of order! Until we have --

    REP. HYDE: No -- I thought the gentleman was going to help on the point of order. He's not recognized to debate yet.

    REP. NADLER: I don't think we can proceed until we know and have in front of us exactly the words that are alleged to be perjurious so that we can debate them and measure them against the allegation.

    REP. : Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: I'll read to you from the book we have prepared, and perhaps it will supply your answer.

    During his deposition in the case of Jones vs. Clinton --

    REP. SCHUMER: Deposition?

    REP. HYDE: We're not doing the deposition --

    REP. SCHUMER: I thought this one was on the grand jury.

    REP. HYDE: President Clinton testified before the grand jury that he does not believe his conduct with Ms. Lewinsky falls within the definition of sexual relations he was given in the case of Jones vs. Clinton. Grand jury testimony of President Clinton, 8/17/98, page 11; House Document 105-311, page 463: When he was specifically asked whether "oral sex performed on you is within that definition as you understand it, the definition in the Jones", close quote, the president responded, "quote, "As I understand it, it was not, no."

    Grand jury testimony of President Clinton, 8/17/98, page 92; House Document 105-311, page 544: The president conceded that he considered the kissing or touching of breasts or genitalia of another person would be covered by the definition of sexual relations utilized at his deposition in the case of Jones vs. Clinton. After making this concession, the president testified, quote, "You are free to infer that my testimony is I did not have sexual relations, as I understood this term to be defined."

    There's so much here that I really don't care to read, but it's available and you --

    REP. NADLER: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: Yes?

    REP. NADLER: Mr. Chairman, my question, then, is you have just read a paraphrase of what the president allegedly said, then you read a quote beginning, as I understand it, "No." Then you read a paragraph about a concession -- or what is characterized as a concession the president made. And then you read a quote, "You are free to infer" -- I forget the rest of the sentence.

    Are you including those paraphrases as part of the allegation? If --

    REP. HYDE: Yes, yes. The paraphrases are part of the allegation.

    REP. NADLER: Then would we have the exact terminology, please? You cannot base a perjury indictment or a perjury article on a paraphrase; you have to know the exact words to judge it. That's black letter, hornbook law. And I would ask that before we consider any allegation of perjury, we have before us in writing the text which is the alleged subject. We have here --

    REP. GOODLATTE: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. NADLER: We have here four things; the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee. That's one allegation. What quotes or words are we --

    REP. GOODLATTE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. NADLER: We have here prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a federal civil rights action. What is that referring to? And so forth. We need the exact words, otherwise you can't talk intelligently.

    REP. ROBERT W. GOODLATTE (R-VA): Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: All right. Mr. Nadler, I'll read something that's not as sexual as what I had on the other page.

    REP. GOODLATTE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: Mr. Goodlatte.

    REP. GOODLATTE: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York has not stated a proper point of order, and we are operating under the five-minute rule. The gentleman should either be required to act under the five-minute rule as a part of his general debate of Article I or his point of order should be ruled out of order.

    REP. NADLER: It wasn't a point of order, it was a point of inquiry.

    REP. HYDE: You're correct, it was a point of inquiry. What I'll do for you so we don't have to hold this up too much, I'll have these next two pages, which are question-answer, question-answer, question- answer Xeroxed.

    REP. NADLER: Point of inquiry. Point of inquiry.

    REP. HYDE: Yeah. State your point.

    REP. NADLER: You're saying you will give me specific quotes, or paraphrase it?

    REP. HYDE: Yes. Specific quotes.

    REP. NADLER: And my second point of inquiry is the allegations, then, in Article I are limited to the words which will be on that Xerox you're going to give me?

    REP. HYDE: No. No, they're not.

    REP. NADLER: In which case you're not going to tell us what the words that are allegedly perjurious are, only some of them?

    REP. CHARLES T. CANADY (R-FL): Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order --

    REP. : Exactly. He is so right about -- you are a hundred percent right.

    REP. NADLER: I know.

    REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): Yes, he is. Exactly.

    REP. CANADY: -- that we should follow the regular order, that point -- Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: Yeah. Well, I'll give you as much as I can of the direct language. There may be some paraphrasing, but I have a lot of direct quotes here --

    REP. CANADY: Mr. Chairman --

    REP. HYDE: -- and this information is available. These articles were drafted exactly as they were in the Nixon situation, and they're not a bill of particulars, they're articles of impeachment. And I'm happy to provide the gentleman with what I have, which are direct quotes, so that you can know what we're talking about.

    REP. NADLER: Mr. -- could I make a unanimous consent request, Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: Surely.

    REP. NADLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do think you have been fair throughout these proceedings. I know you mentioned in your statement you were stung by saying you're being not fair. I think you have been fair. I don't agree with where you're going, but I think you've been fair.

    Mine is this. We're dealing with something -- my unanimous consent request is this. We're dealing with something that is more serious than anything that we have dealt on this committee in a very, very long time.

    Yesterday, we had a lengthy report by Mr. Schippers, that went on for several hours and listed a whole bunch of different allegations. Today, we have before us the articles.

    I think before we actually debate the articles, it would be appropriate, fitting, proper and necessary that perhaps the clerk, that perhaps Mr. Schippers, that perhaps the sponsor of the article -- you yourself -- outline to us the specifics; which ones did you think rose to the level of being worthy, which alleged perjurious statements before the grand jury rose to the level of being included in the article, which ones did not?

    And I am not trying to do this --

    REP. GOODLATTE (R-PA) (?): Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. SCHUMER: No. I am not going to yield.

    REP. GOODLATTE (?): Mr. Chairman?

    REP. SCHUMER: I just have a unanimous-consent request, and I think it's worth discussing. And I'd like to finish it, if the gentleman would give me that courtesy.

    We are not dealing here with -- beanbag; this is one of the most serious things this committee has undertaken. I, for one, while I have read the article, I don't know which specific statements it is alleged that the president made that are perjurious. I have read and listened to Mr. Schippers' statement yesterday --

    REP. : Mr. Chairman, respectively --

    REP. : A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. : -- I rise to a point of order.

    REP. : The gentleman has not stated --

    REP. SCHUMER (?): (Inaudible) -- finish.

    REP. : -- a unanimous-consent request.

    REP. SCHUMER: My unanimous-consent request, which I will make directly in the form of a request, is this; that before we begin debating these momentous articles that either the chair, the author, or Mr. Schippers or the clerk, outline for us what explicit statements are stated to be or believed to be, by the author and supporters of this article -- as perjurious? That is my unanimous-consent request.

    And I don't see, frankly, how in good conscience we can vote on these articles and present them to the full body, and present them to the American people, without explicitly knowing --

    REP. : (Jeez ?) --

    REP. : Reserving the right to object.

    REP. : Reserving the right to object.

    REP. HYDE: Well, the chair would like to respond to Mr. Schumer.

    That was the purpose of the presentation yesterday; two and a half hours or three hours of Mr. Schippers' detailed presentation, with a copy of the text given to you -- contains the information you seek. Now, you want us to rehash it orally now, as though you weren't here yesterday, as though you didn't hear Mr. Schippers, as though you haven't read his presentation. I think that's an imposition on the rest of the committee, and so your unanimous-consent request is --


    REP. SCHUMER: Mr. Chairman, just before you deny it, I have read the presentation. I have listened to it, and I have thought about it; in fact, all of last night. And in that presentation, there is whole panoply --

    REP. ROBERT GOODLATTE (R-VA): Mr. Chairman, regular order.

    REP. : Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: Well, I --

    REP. GOODLATTE: It's a breach of the committee's rules --

    REP. SCHUMER: If the gentleman wishes to muzzle me, that's fine. I think I deserve to be heard --

    (Cross talk.)

    REP. GOODLATTE: The gentleman wishes to be recognized, Mr. Chairman. That was --

    REP. SCHUMER: Okay, this is important enough that I deserve to be heard.

    REP. CHRIS CANNON (R-UT): But there's a context in which you can be heard.

    REP. GOODLATTE: We recognize that the five-minute rule is a part of the debate on the articles.

    REP. NADLER: Mr. Chairman --

    REP. SCHUMER: Well, I was making a unanimous consent request, which I will do.

    REP. CANNON: Ad nauseam.

    REP. HYDE: All right. Well, there's objection to your request. I think it would be redundant and excessively time-consuming.

    REP. NADLER: Point of order.

    REP. HYDE: Okay. Can we get rid of Mr. Nadler's point of order or point of inquiry or point?

    REP. NADLER: Point of order.

    REP. : (Laughs.) REP. NADLER: And I hope it'll be considered, not just "gotten rid of."

    REP. HYDE: Your problem is the same as Mr. Schumer's; you want to know specifics --

    REP. NADLER: No, no --

    REP. HYDE: -- and my answer is the same.

    REP. NADLER: You know, I disagree with Mr. Schumer in one respect --

    REP. : (Off mike.)

    REP. NADLER: My point of order is this: First of all, no one is asking for an oral presentation to waste anybody's time or for any other purpose. What I'm saying is, Mr. Schipper (sic) made many, many statements. The president and his defense attorneys are entitled to know -- it's a black-letter law that anyone accused of perjury is entitled to know -- before we vote, we're entitled to know -- which specific words, which specific sentences of the many that Mr. Schippers cited are the points being alleged is perjury. They should not be subject to being added to later.

    REP. : Regular order --

    REP. : Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman --

    REP. NADLER: We're entitled to know that --

    REP. : Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has not stated a proper point of order.

    REP. HYDE: I understand. I've heard --

    REP. NADLER: As a point of --

    REP. HYDE: All right.

    REP. NADLER: -- as a point of order, it is improper to have an article that doesn't allege specifics.

    REP. HYDE: I've heard the gentleman, and I'm going to overrule whatever it is you're asking for. (Laughter.)

    Now Mr. Frank.

    REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA): Mr. Chairman, under the five-minute rule?

    REP. HYDE: Yes.

    REP. FRANK: I think it's just been made very clear how flawed this article is. I reread the presentation from Mr. Schippers. It is impossible to tell from that presentation what specific fact allegations are being challenged as perjury. And I do not think it is the result of incompetent draftsmanship; I think it is a decision.

    First, let's be clear -- and I say this is very important, because grand jury perjury is clearly the heart of the case; it is clearly the one article that has the best chance to win -- grand jury perjury doesn't run into problems of materiality, et cetera. The problem the majority has with grand jury perjury is that in Mr. Starr's report, the three specifics are, in combination, trivial and impossible to prove.

    Mr. Starr lists, unlike Mr. Schippers, three specific allegations. Now, we can't tell from reading this whether Mr. Schippers is going beyond Mr. Starr, whether he thinks Mr. Starr became too easy on Mr. Clinton. We can't tell from reading either the article or the presentation what the specifics are on the single most important charge, grand jury perjury.

    Now, I think part of the problem is, as the chairman illustrated with his obvious reluctant reading of more detail about anatomy than any of us wanted to have discussed in public, part of the problem is that the central charge that Mr. Starr makes, alluded to vaguely in line 17, 18 an 19 here, the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee, that has to do with Mr. Clinton's denial that he touched Ms. Lewinsky in certain places for the purposes of causing gratification. The president acknowledged before the grand jury that there had been sexual contact.

    Mr. Starr charges, and Mr. Schippers repeats to some extent in his presentation and vaguely alludes to in the article, and this is the central perjury charge, the president violated the definition of sexual relations that he said he was abiding by because he touched her. And there is a debate, and this quoted by Mr. Schippers, quoted by Mr. Starr, did the president touch her here or did he not touch her here? That's the heart of it.

    And I think what we see is an understandable reluctance on the part of the majority to ask the American people to do one of the most momentous things a democracy can do, impeach a twice-elected president of the United States, throw him out of office because impeachment is not simple a way of expressing your wish that he hadn't won. Impeachment is -- if we vote in this committee to impeach, understand that we are doing the maximum we can do as elected representatives to throw this man out of office. You cannot gainsay that. This is the beginning of a process which is intended to throw him out of office. And you are voting for a resolution which says you believe he should be thrown out of office.

    And there's an understandable reluctance to say, "We want him thrown out of office because he did go to the grand jury and he did say that they had had sexual contact but he didn't give us enough detail. He didn't tell us what he touched, and therefore it was perjury."

    The other one we have, and I assume this also involved here, he said it started in February when it started in November. And Mr.

    Schippers said he said they had phone sex sometimes, but if was 55 times. Well, I don't think it is perjury if you do not describe the amount of phones sex in adjectives sufficient to satisfy Mr. Schippers.

    So the vagueness that my colleagues have pointed out, and it was very clear how the majority was unable to respond to these simple requests, "Which statements do you is perjurious?" it was not simply incompetence. They are much better drafters than that.

    It was a conscious decision, on the one article that they think has the most serious chance of driving impeachment home, to vacillate and confuse and not to be specific because they do not believe that the specifics would justify impeachment. Where the president touched her, after he acknowledged having sex, whether it started in November or February, those are not issues on which people think you undo two democratic elections and throw an elected official out of office.

    And so what we have here in the single strongest article, as they have described it, is a deliberate vagueness, obfuscation, because they simply do not have substantial specific evidence that they, themselves, believe would justify impeachment.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, is recognized for five minutes. And would you yield to me for --

    REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER (R-WI): I yield to the chairman.

    REP. HYDE: Thank you.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: In partial answer to Mr. Schumer's prior and Mr. Nadler's questions, I have some quotes from Mr. Schumer.

    October 5th, 1998, and I quote: "To me it's clear that the president lied when he testified before the grand jury."

    October 8th, 1998, Mr. Schumer: "To me, Mr. Speaker, it's clear the president lied when he testified before the grand jury."

    Then I have Mr. Wexler from September 15th: "It is clear from the report that Clinton didn't tell the truth."

    October 5th, Mr. Wexler: "The president had an affair. He lied about it."

    So if you want the specifics, whatever it was you relied on, I would be willing to cite. Also --

    REP. CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): Point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: Also, I understand that lurking about is a resolution of censure, and if I'm not misinformed, it says the president made false statements concerning his reprehensible conduct with a subordinate. So, I mean, you must have a sufficiency of specifics to reach those conclusions that you have reached. I guess in law you would call that an admission against interest.

    REP. SCHUMER: No. Could I --

    REP. HYDE: So simply by way of -

    REP. SCHUMER: Point of privilege, since I was --

    REP. HYDE: Simply by way of information.

    Now, Mr. Schumer has a point of personal privilege.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Chairman --

    REP. SCHUMER: Yes, I do. If my name is --

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: It's my time.

    REP. SCHUMER: Well, would the gentleman recognize me, not on his time? Would the chair, since --

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: I ask unanimous consent that my time may be tolled for however long Mr. Schumer wants to --

    REP. SCHUMER: No objection.

    REP. HYDE: Wait a minute; that could be pretty long. (Laughter.) Go ahead.

    REP. SCHUMER: No, it won't be that long.

    REP. HYDE: Go ahead, Mr. Schumer.

    REP. SCHUMER: Yeah. The point is very simple. Yes, I stated that the president lied, I believe he did. First, when did he -- (audio break) -- that is, I am not putting forward, Mr. Chairman, in all due respect, Articles of Impeachment. And furthermore, even if you believe, as many do in this country and on this side of the panel -- because we have all, or most of us, have stated it -- we don't believe it rises to the level of impeachment. To make a considered judgment whether that is true or not, Mr. Chairman, the members of this House, once we refer something to them, should know the specifics.

    Second, the standard --

    REP. SENSENBRUNNER: May I reclaim my time to give you some of the specifics, sir?

    REP. SCHUMER: No, it is not your time anymore. It is not your time anymore. The chairman has yielded to me and I would like to finish the point.

    REP. HYDE: Look -- if we can move along in an orderly fashion, one at a time. Mr. Schumer --

    REP. SCHUMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: Let Mr. Schumer finish. I have a feeling he's nearing the end. (Laughter.)

    REP. SCHUMER: Your feeling, in this case, Mr. Chairman, is correct and justified.

    REP. HYDE: That's known as the power of suggestion. (Laughter.)

    REP. SCHUMER: Correct, and very persuasive, in this instance, it is.

    REP. : (Off mike.) -- the suggestion of power! (Laughter.)

    REP. HYDE: That's -- that's good, too. I like that.

    REP. SCHUMER: Okay. My point -- so three points. Number one, we're not dealing with fun and games here. If you're putting together Articles of Impeachment, specifically, you should state which instances you believe not only were lies or mistruths, but which were perjurious, and there is a different standard and the gentleman knows -- all perjury is lies, not all lies, in the common parlance, are perjurious.

    Second, even if you should assume that they are the same here, we're rising to a level where we're asking to impeach a president, and I find it utterly amazing that instead of giving an answer "these are the three cases where he lied before the grand jury that rise to the level of perjury and more importantly, rise to the level of impeachment" we cannot get the other side to specifically state them.

    I find that -- and instead, you're relying on a statement that I made, which I believe and have believed all along, and that's not a substitute. Again, we're not dealing in verbal jousting, here.

    REP. HYDE: Please.

    REP. SCHUMER: We're not dealing -- if I might finish -- and I am about to finish --

    REP. HYDE: Please, Mr. Schumer.

    REP. SCHUMER: -- the winning point. We are dealing with impeaching a president and if you can't state the specifics, and you want to move forward, something is wrong with the process.

    REP. HYDE: I hope by the end of the debate you'll have heard a lot of specifics.

    And now back to Mr. Sensenbrenner.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Do my five minutes start fresh now, Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: As we speak.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: I thank the chair.

    I will draw attention to the four specific instances of false and perjurious testimony that are contained in Article I. And I know I won't be able to list all of them in five minutes, but they fall in four basic areas. One, the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employed; two, prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a federal civil rights action brought against him; three, prior 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.

    Now, I know I won't be able to get through the instances that we know of in all four of these categories, and I would request my colleagues seated to my right to pick up when the red light goes on for me.

    But I also would like to point out that this is a very clever ruse on the part of the people seated to my left, to attempt to limit evidence that can be adduced in the Senate, if it gets that far, to just these instances that I give. And I'm going to say that --

    REP. WATT: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: My time, please.

    REP. WATT: I just have a unanimous request.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Well I'll object to whatever it is --

    REP. HYDE: When he's finished.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: -- because I'd like to finish making my point without interruption, if I could.

    REP. HYDE: You may. And please proceed.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: I would just like to point out that the instances that my colleagues and I will be giving should not be construed at any future point in the proceeding as limiting evidence that might adduced either on the House floor or over in the Senate.

    But first, relative to point number one in the article of impeachment, the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee. Page 11 of the grand jury testimony; the president testified whether his conduct with Ms. Lewinsky fell within the definition of sexual relations he was given in the case of Jones vs. Clinton. He said he didn't believe that. Page 92, when he was asked whether "oral sex performed on you was within the definition as you understood it."

    The president replied, "As I understood it, it was not, no." The president conceded that the kissing or touching of the breast or genitalia of another person would be covered by the definition of sexual relationships utilized in his deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton. That is at page 95. That testimony is false and misleading in light of the detailed and corroborated and consistent testimony of Monica Lewinsky.

    Secondly, the article of impeachment says his prior, perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a federal civil rights action brought against him, which is Jones v. Clinton, at pages 457 and 458 of the grand jury testimony he testified that he believed he had answered the questions truthfully, "That is correct," unquote, in the Paula Jones deposition. I think there's ample evidence, including the videotape that we saw yesterday, that that wasn't true.

    The third point is is that there were -- the president made prior false and misleading statements that he allowed his attorney to make to a federal judge in a civil rights action.

    Now, the president's deposition -- or, excuse me, his grand jury testimony at pages 57-61 specifically relates to the affidavit that Monica Lewinsky signed and caused to have filed in the Jones v. Clinton case, where the president said, "If it means there are none, that was a completely true statement," unquote. We saw that on the TV yesterday, and that related to the false affidavit of Monica Lewinsky in the civil rights action that the president's own attorney, Robert Bennett, said that the court should disregard in a letter after more facts came out.

    Four, his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in the federal civil rights action. Take a look at the grand jury testimony, page 43.

    My time is up. I think that's enough.

    REP. JOHN CONYERS JR. (D-MI): Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

    REP. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT (D-MA): Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The --

    REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. DELAHUNT: Mr. Chairman, unanimous request?

    REP. HYDE: The -- all right, for a unanimous consent request.

    REP. DELAHUNT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make the unanimous request that Mr. Sensenbrenner be given what time he needs to outline the specifics.


    REP. WATERS (?): I agree.

    REP. HYDE: Well, I -- objection is heard, but we'll get him some more time along the line.

    Mr. Conyers.

    REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman, is it unreasonable to ask when we are about to impeach a sitting president that at least in these articles, starting with Article I, that we articulate which specific statements are perjurious in the text of the resolution?

    Now, this referring to pages out of Mr. Schippers' presentation and other matters that we've heard here is exactly the problem.

    This charge of perjury fails because it is vague and does not meet the minimal standards of due process. All the article says, before us, is -- is that the president lied about the "nature and the details" of his relationship. What does this mean?

    And so what I would just like to do is point out to you that in these four instances -- clause one, relating to the "nature and the details of the relationship" -- the president admitted that he had an improper relationship with Ms. Lewinsky before the grand jury. The phrase "nature and details of the relationship" shows that the Republicans want to impeach the president over what has been referred to as, "Who touched who and where?"

    Now, in the second paragraph, we are talking about relating to an affirming deposition testimony in the Paula Jones case. One cannot impeach the president for reaffirming his Paula Jones testimony. The judge, the Jones attorneys and the president all agreed that, when he was asked about whether he had a "sexual relationship" in deposition, the definition used there was contorted and confusing. We cannot now bring this to the heighth of an impeachable position in this article this afternoon. There is also a definite lack of materiality that would throw such an allegation out of any court in the country.

    The third clause regarding his grand jury testimony regarding the filing of an affidavit; the president never told Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit but only that an affidavit may satisfy a legal requirement once she was subpoenaed. That's been reported repetitively here. That is not illegal nor improper, and that is the uncontradicted testimony of both the president and Ms. Lewinsky. The president believed fully that the Lewinsky affidavit was accurate.

    Lewinsky characterized in her taped conversation with Ms. Tripp the same definition of "sexual relations" used by the president and consistent with Webster's Dictionary.

    Now, Clause 4, regarding the president's testimony at the grand jury to corrupt testimony of Lewinsky in the Jones suit, Monica Lewinsky said that no one asked her to lie; no one promised her a job. We must have heard that nearly 35 times in this committee. This may also be a veiled reference to efforts to find Ms. Lewinsky a job. But the testimony before the committee clearly shows that these efforts started prior to the Jones litigation and the president never offered her a job.


    Let me yield just briefly to Barney Frank.

    REP. FRANK: And to answer one point that the chairman made, the censure resolution refers to false statements made not under oath, in press conferences. The suggestion that the censure resolution is in any way cognizant with -- consonant with the perjury is just not true. The censure resolution that the chairman quoted, the Democrat censure resolution, does not at all talk about false statements made under oath, and certainly not before the grand jury.

    REP. CONYERS: I repeat, Mr. Chairman, can't we in reasonableness, on an article of impeachment for perjury, ask that you articulate which specific statements are perjurious? That is all that has been asked here by four members on this side of the aisle. Can we do that?

    REP. : Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time --

    REP. CONYERS: I would yield.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte.

    REP. GOODLATTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, throughout this proceeding we've been admonished by those on the other side of the aisle to look to the Rodino proceedings for guidance as we proceed. And I think we've done a very good job of that throughout this process.

    And I have before me the Articles of Impeachment against President Richard Nixon, particularly Article I, which was approved by this committee by a vote of 27 to 11 on July 27, 1974. Now, the only member of this committee who remains from the Watergate Committee is the gentleman from Michigan, and he voted for this article of impeachment.

    The article specifies nine sections with regard to acts by President Nixon that the committee felt to be impeachable. The first one is "making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States." It does not specify what those statements are --

    REP. : Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. GOODLATTE: No, I will not yield. -- what date those statements were made, in what context they were made. It simply specifies that false and misleading statements were made.

    The second paragraph deals with holding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States. And again, that's the entire text of that section.

    The eighth section says, "Making False or Misleading Public Statements for the Purpose of Deceiving the People of the United States," and it does not specify what those are either. And I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts' point that the censure resolution only refers to public statements with regard to President Clinton. I would only add that that points out exactly how weak --

    REP. WATT (?): Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. GEKAS: Would the gentleman yield for a moment?

    REP. GOODLATTE: -- how weak the censure resolution is if it doesn't even make reference to the false statements that the president has so clearly made before the grand jury and in the civil deposition.

    REP. CONYERS (?): Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. GEKAS: Would the gentleman yield for a moment?

    REP. GOODLATTE: I will in just a moment.

    And the final point I would point out is that the report that was filed with these articles of impeachment by the Rodino committee with regard to President Nixon, and the supporting documentation that was filed, does itemize in considerable detail exactly what false and misleading statements were made.

    So I think we are entirely appropriate. In fact, we have been far more generous than the Rodino committee was in terms of making information available, in terms of the statements made by Mr. Schippers yesterday and by Mr. Sensenbrenner a few minutes ago.

    And I would yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

    REP. GEKAS: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

    The point has been made that the articles of impeachment then, in Watergate, and now are based on the record that has been compiled over the course of time. The articles are allegations, final allegations as part of the articles of impeachment, that are founded on the massive evidence and records that are part of the record. And the report and the comments of the members of the committee and all the evidence that was presented by counsel are all the foundation.

    The article simply relies on us, who have heard this evidence, who have developed our own opinions on it, to finally record our votes on whether or not the record substantiates the wording of the article of impeachment, then and now.

    REP. CONYERS: Would the gentleman --

    I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, briefly.

    REP. GOODLATTE: I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, briefly.

    REP. CONYERS: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

    REP. GOODLATTE: The gentleman from North Carolina, I think, had asked first, and I --

    REP. MELVIN WATT (D-NC): I thank the gentleman for yielding.

    I think the gentleman has made the exact point that we are trying to make over here, that once you insert the word "perjurious" --

    REP. SCHUMER: Exactly.

    REP. WATT: -- which is a legal term, you are required to specify what phrases, words were perjurious.

    REP. GOODLATTE: Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has no precedent for that in terms of the --

    REP. WATT: There's plenty of precedent for it, Mr. Goodlatte. There's --

    REP. GOODLATTE: Well, there certainly -- well, I've reclaimed my time, I would say to the gentleman.

    REP. : Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. GOODLATTE: With regard to impeachment articles against previous presidents, including false and misleading statements, there's no distinction to be made here in terms of submitting to the Senate --

    REP. WATT: Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. GOODLATTE: -- the charge that the president has made false, misleading --

    REP. : Would the gentleman yield now?

    REP. GOODLATTE: -- and perjurious statements. We simply have a record that we're going to submit to the Senate.

    REP. WATT: Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. : Would the gentleman yield back?

    REP. GOODLATTE: And it is in that record, just like it was in the record with regard to President Nixon.

    REP. : Would the gentleman yield, sir?

    REP. GOODLATTE: I believe my time has expired.

    REP. WATT: Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. SCHUMER: Mr. Chairman --

    REP. : Mr. Chairman --

    REP. SCHUMER: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman -- I guess you haven't trespassed on time yet.

    REP. SCHUMER: Correct.

    REP. HYDE: The other was a point of order.

    REP. SCHUMER: Correct.

    REP. HYDE: All right. The gentleman's recognized --

    REP. SCHUMER: I salute the chairman on his parliamentary acuity.

    REP. HYDE: -- the gentleman's recognized for a short five minutes. (Scattered laughter.)

    REP. SCHUMER: Thank you. And I will take a very short five minutes, but a pointed five minutes. And I would say this, Mr. Chairman: I am just utterly amazed at where we are here. We are seeking to remove the president of the United States. By general concession, this first article is the strongest case that the majority has, that the authors of the resolution has (sic), because it deals with perjury before the grand jury. And we cannot get from anyone thus far a list of what specific perjurious statements have been made.

    REP. HYDE: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. SCHUMER: That is --

    REP. HYDE: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. SCHUMER: If the gentleman would make my short five minutes a long five minutes, I certainly will yield.

    REP. HYDE: I will. I just want to say that the information has been handed to Mr. Nadler -- a transcript of the remarks of Mr. Schippers yesterday, which contain extensively the information you're seeking.

    REP. WATT: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. HYDE: He's riffling through it.

    REP. SCHUMER: Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman -- REP. WATT: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. SCHUMER: -- are we then saying that every -- the entire portion of Mr. Schippers' testimony yesterday or presentation yesterday -- all of that could be attached to the articles of impeachment as representing every one of those is what the author of the resolution believes to be perjurious, point A, and B, nothing more?

    REP. HYDE: Well, I think --

    REP. SCHUMER: Well, I'd yield to the gentleman. If the gentleman believes that, then our question is satisfied. At least there is a list of particulars. And I would remind the gentleman, particularly my good friend from Virginia, that Watergate -- there was no perjury charge; that it is a fact of common law that when you are indicted for perjury, the actual perjury words be included in the indictment; and that if you're asking for precedent, which the gentleman from Virginia was, I only look to Mr. Starr's indictment of Webb Hubbell for perjury --

    REP. HYDE: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. SCHUMER: -- which had specific items of perjury.

    REP. HYDE: Will you yield?

    REP. SCHUMER: I yield to the gentleman.

    REP. HYDE: This is not an indictment; this is not a criminal proceeding. You keep casting it as such; it isn't. This is impeachment, as we are reminded ceaselessly by everybody else.

    REP. : Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. SCHUMER: Reclaiming my time --

    REP. : Chuck?

    REP. SCHUMER: -- reclaiming my time -- I would make a couple of points:

    Yes, the gentleman is exactly correct; this is not a specifically legal proceeding. But the entire basis of what the author and the majority have called for here is the fact that the president broke the law, that Americans can never trust the president again, if we allow perjurious testimony to go forward. And I think at the very least -- in other words, you're making a case based on the law. That's been the entire case that I have heard the majority make.

    And now all of a sudden, we are getting into the sort of never- never land of page seven of the articles; when the president makes a misleading statement or a false statement, whether it's perjurious or not, that might be grounds for impeachment. And I find this a sad day if that is the case.

    And so what I would ask -- again, I would renew my request because I think it's important enough and serious enough that we take that into account; that in one way or another -- I'd even, and I am only speaking for myself, be willing to take a short recess so the majority could prepare it -- that we get specific words that are alleged to be perjurious. As I read Mr. Schippers' presentation -- and I imagine it's some 15 or 16 pages based on Article I, based on the grand jury testimony -- there are all sorts of charges and allegations. Some are done in paragraph form; some are done with specific quotes. There is not one sort of set pattern.

    I think what is required of us here today -- because indeed we are seeking to impeach a president, and many of us argue that that is a step that even goes beyond the criminal law because not every -- at least in my judgment and in the judgments of many scholars -- not every violation of criminal law rises to the level of impeachment, but at least it ought to be with criminal law -- that we have the specific words listed.

    So I would ask --

    REP. : Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. SCHUMER: -- in all due respect, given my --

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman --

    REP. SCHUMER: -- and I'm about to conclude -- my respect for the chairman, that we be given that specific list so that we, the full House, and, if it should come to it, the Senate will know exactly what we're talking about here.

    REP. BARR: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.

    REP. BARR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, although you are absolutely correct that this is not a criminal proceeding in the strict sense of the word, I think there are some parallels that can be drawn and some lessons that can be gleaned from looking to and referencing procedures in the Federal Criminal Code.

    The nature of what we're doing here is similar to the drafting up of an indictment -- not precisely, but similar to. Yet the criminal rules themselves provide for what is called a bill of particulars. Were an indictment, which is what the other side is alleged and we are basically doing here, deemed to have to include every single element of every single allegation that will support the criminal charges alleged against the defendant, then there would be no need in the criminal rules for a bill of particulars. The criminal rules, particularly Rule 7, does indeed provide general guidance on what is contained and what must be contained in an indictment, which is a charge that puts the defendant on notice as to the nature of the charges against him or her.

    Sub-section F of that same rule provides for what I referred to -- a bill of particulars. A bill of particulars is something that defense attorneys almost always seek. They seek that because they are seeking additional detail with which to prepare their defense. The appropriate time to file a bill of particulars is after the indictment in order to test --

    REP. : Would the gentleman yield for a question?

    REP. BARR: -- in order to test the sufficiency of the indictment itself. Were a bill of particulars, which is what the other side is cleverly asking for at this preliminary stage, to be required, then every single indictment ever issued by a federal grand jury would be voluminous and would in fact limit the prosecutors in advance of preparing their trial, responding to motions, or preparing evidence, only those specifics alleged completely as to every single element of proof.

    The fact that our federal rules of criminal procedure provide for, in this instance, a two-step procedure is instructive here. You allege the general parameters with sufficient clarity and detail only to put the defendant on notice so he or she can begin preparing their defense in the indictment. What comes after the indictment, which in this case analogous to what we would be doing after this leaves the House, if it does leave the House, would be whole range of procedures, during which time the sufficiency of that charging instrument is tested and during which time the evidence itself is brought forward, debated, in this case in the Senate, in a criminal proceeding in the courtroom.

    Now, what the other side is doing is, of course, very clever, but very disingenuous. What they are seeking, as the gentleman from Wisconsin noted a few moments ago, they are seeking not to do what they appear to be doing, and that is to provide sufficient data, sufficient information for the president to know what he is charged with. He knows darned well what he's charged with. There will be as part of the record that goes to the Senate tens of thousands of pages of evidence, hours of testimony here, hours of debate here. That will all be the record that will go there. What they are seeking to do is to limit in advance what the Senate can do. They are trying to tie the hands of the Senate. That is improper. That was not done in any prior impeachment proceedings. It is not done in criminal proceedings. They are simply trying the maneuver their way, anticipating that this does go to the Senate, to limit arbitrarily the data and the evidence, and therefore the charges on which the president can be tried. We have in this indictment, in this -- (pauses) -- document that we have here, we have alleged with sufficient particularity to put the president on notice, any reasonable person on notice, with the nature of the charges against him so he can defend against them.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

    The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman.

    REP. HOWARD L. BERMAN (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a few points.

    First, I believe I have said that I believe that the president lied before the grand jury, made false statements to the grand jury. I think the majority has overreached by trying to reach the conclusion, a legal conclusion, a conclusion that we don't have a judge to instruct us on the elements, of perjury.

    But the worst thing is to try and have it both ways, to reach the legal conclusion in the article of impeachment of perjury, and then not to comply with the traditional historic requirements, which Mr. Barr from Georgia totally ignored, of the requirements in an indictment for perjury that you list the false statements and you list why the prosecution believes they are false.

    The easy course of action would be to remove from this article of impeachment the reference to perjury and leave it with "false and misleading statements." If the majority chooses not to do that, I think the fair thing to do is to go through the process of providing notice to the Senate, not some cynical effort to try and limit the Senate's ability, but to give notice to the Senate and to the members of the House on the floor of the specifics. I think that's the fair way to approach this.

    Now, I want to acknowledge right off the bat that I don't believe this constitutes or rises to the level in this context of a high crime and misdemeanor. This is not why I'm going to vote against this article of impeachment. But I think that's the right way to do it. And I think --

    See, I have not -- a lot of my colleagues feel very strongly, they criticize the majority for not presenting fact witnesses. And the majority certainly criticizes the minority.

    We passed this law, as I mentioned, this independent counsel law. Starr gets appointed. He investigates, he presents 60,000 pages, as the chairman mentioned earlier this morning, of information. And I think the chairman is right. If we wanted to context that 60,000 pages of sworn testimony, if that's what it is, we could have cross- examined those people by calling them ourselves. But here is where I thing you cross, I do think you cross the line, by not providing the specifics, why you try to get us to make the legal conclusion, which I don't think this body, this political body should be making, that perjury has been committed. And so I'd argue that you should take some time and either change the allegation of perjury or make the notice and specification of reasons.

    I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.

    REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA): I thank the gentleman.

    As a matter of fact, Kenneth Starr does meet the specificity requirements, not in the criminal indictment, but in the referral. If you look at pages 148 and 149 of the referral, Kenneth Starr very crisply lists three counts of grand jury perjury, and it's specific. The problem the majority has is that they are too trivial. The majority does not like what Kenneth Starr came up with.

    So what we have here is an obfuscation. Kenneth Starr says, he said "1996, February", he should have said November '95. Kenneth Starr says -- he said he believed himself when he testified in August, he said he believed himself when he testified in January.

    And Kenneth Starr says he touched her, and he didn't say he touched her, and she said he touched her.

    The problem is that Kenneth Starr does do what the majority doesn't do. Kenneth Starr gives three specifics of grand jury mis- statements. The majority -- I will give them credit. They know a losing case when they see one. They look at Kenneth Starr's three cases, and they say "Whoa! We can't defend those," so they obfuscate and dress them up.

    I'll yield the gentleman's time. he can have it back.

    REP. BERMAN: Kenneth Starr alleged three specifications of false statements.

    REP. FRANK: Right. He said "lied under oath." Even he didn't call it perjury. No, that's true. That is true, and I guess the majority has finally made it clear they will not tolerate Kenneth Starr's softness on the president, and they're going to toughen it up. But the fact is that they do it in a very, very inaccurate and inadequate way.

    REP. MCCOLLUM: Would the gentleman yield just for one question?

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum.

    REP. BILL MCCOLLUM (R-FL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what we're dealing with today is a debate on a smokescreen, and I really believe that, as some of my colleagues have said on this side a moment ago, that what we have before us is 60,000 pages of documents, and we had a very excellent summary of the specific details of where the president committed perjury before the grand jury from Mr. Schippers yesterday.

    But I'm going to discuss, rather than getting into the prolonged technical discussion about whether we should be more specific or not, I'm going to get into some of the specifics of why I believe that Article I should indeed be an impeachment of the president of the United States.

    The president clearly to me, committed perjury before the grand jury when he testified with regard to whether or not he engaged in sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, with respect to the definition given to him by the judge in the court. If you remember, that was a very specific definition, and it included in it touching of breasts and genitalia.

    And on page 547 of the big document we've got published here - - this is Part I, from the office of Kenneth Starr, is part of the testimony and the entire transcript is here of the president's deposition before the grand jury. And on page 547, he's been asked about the particulars of that statement and of that definition. And he's been asked questions.

    It says "If the person being deposed touched the (blank) of another person, would that be and would the intent to arouse sexual desire, or arouse or gratify as defined in Definition 1, would that be, under your understanding then and now -- ?

    Answer: "Yes, sir."

    "Sexual relations?"

    Answer: "Yes, sir."

    Question: "Yes, it would?"

    Answer: "Yes, it would. If you had a direct contact with any of these places in the body, if you had direct contact with the intent to arouse or gratify, that would fall within the definition."

    That's the president's answer. Then the question goes on. "So you didn't do any of those things?"

    Answer: "You -- "

    Question:"With Monica Lewinsky?"

    Answer: "You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did not have sexual relations as I understood this term to be defined."

    Question: "including touching her breasts, kissing her breasts, or touching her genitalia?"

    Answer: "That's correct."

    That's specifically, if anybody wants to know, where the president committed perjury. Now, why do I conclude he did in this particular set of circumstances, if we want to be specific?

    It's because Monica Lewinsky testified that on numerous occasions, he did touch those particular parts of her body. And that he in fact -- that her testimony about that was corroborated, and is corroborated, by a number of specific witnesses whose testimony we have on the record that Mr. Schippers referred to yesterday. Contemporaneous discussions that she had with him about this, over a period of time. I can cite you to the testimony of Katherine Aldey Davis (ph), Nasa Urblant (ph), Natalie Rose Ungavary (ph), Andrew Blyer (ph), and Catherine Eston (ph), who by the way was a counselor for her -- a psychiatrist, I suppose. Or a counselor of some sort.

    At any rate, this was contemporaneous. It's believable, it's consistent with the testimony she gave herself before the grand jury. She's believable, the president is not. Anybody who reads this, can't help but come to those conclusions. And that's taking the president's own admissions into account.

    Now, with regard to other features of this. The president also testified in the grand jury, in this document on page 571, with regard to the affidavit that was in question, "And I'd hoped she'd be able to get out of testifying on an affidavit. Absolutely. Did I want her to execute a false affidavit? No, I did not."

    He lied in that case, he committed perjury in that case, because of course he wanted her, with all the evidence we have before us, to execute a false affidavit. We've been over that, about the circumstances of their original meeting, about all the details that you could imagine about those circumstances. He clearly anticipated that she would, consistent with their cover stories they prepared before, before she went to give her testimony in the Jones case, file a false affidavit. Mr. Schippers was over that time and again yesterday.

    And that is another question that goes to the fourth basis in this -- and we could go on and enumerate a lot of them. The fourth basis of our particulars in the Article IV that we're here today, deals with the question of his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action. And we could go on and on and on with the list, and I'm sure we will today.

    But I'm convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, not just --


    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time --

    REP. MCCOLLUM: -- clear and convincing, that Article I is more than justified as an article of impeachment that the president committed perjury.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentlelady from --

    REP. WATERS: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

    REP. HYDE: Ms. Waters, I've just been reminded by Mr. Nadler that he was next, and I'm sorry.

    REP. WATERS: Right. No problem.

    REP. HYDE: Mr. Nadler.

    REP. NADLER: Thank you. I move to strike the last word. And, Mr. Chairman --

    REP. HYDE: Five minutes.

    REP. NADLER: Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield to you to answer a question. As the author of this proposed article of impeachment, do you intend that these alleged perjuries to be Mr. Starr's three perjuries -- three allegations, on pages 148 and 149 of the report, or do you intend to go beyond that, and have some other perjuries beyond these three he mentions?

    REP. MCCOLLUM: If the gentleman would yield, I believe that there are more --

    REP. NADLER: I didn't ask you. I asked the sponsor -- or the author of the resolution.

    REP. MCCOLLUM: You're asking Mr Hyde this question, not me.

    REP. NADLER: Yes, I am. He's the author.

    REP. HYDE: I really don't know. I think the three --

    REP. NADLER: Thank you very much. (Laughter.) I'm reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman --

    REP. HYDE: Oh, you don't want a full answer.

    REP. NADLER: You said you didn't know. That's the answer.

    REP. HYDE: Well, I said I'll try to be more precise --

    REP. NADLER: Oh, I'm sorry.

    REP. HYDE: -- if you'll give me some time.

    REP. NADLER: I'm sorry. Go ahead, go ahead.

    REP. HYDE: Okay, go ahead. Finish your time.

    REP. NADLER; No, no. You said -- I thought you'd finished --

    REP. HYDE: I finished what I wanted to say. I will try to get more information. My present opinion is we will stay with what Starr has, and Mr. Schippers said.

    REP. NADLER: Starr and Schippers.

    REP. HYDE: Oh yes, Starr and Schippers.

    REP. NADLER: Thank you.

    REP. SCHUMER: Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. NADLER: Yes, quickly.

    REP. SCHUMER: Starr has three allegations of perjury under the grand jury: the date they met Lewinsky, whether there was a touching --

    REP. : Of lying.

    REP. SCHUMER: Of lying, of false statements. Sorry. Excuse me, that's well corrected. And third, whether oral sex was committed,

    Schippers lists a whole bunch of other things. Which are we referring in this article? I would yield to the chairman to answer. To those three in the Starr Report, or to others that are listed in the Schippers Report as well?

    REP. HYDE: Yeah. We're referring to everything in the Starr Report.

    REP. NADLER: Thank you. Just the Starr report?

    REP. SCHUMER (?): The Starr Report.

    REP. HYDE: The Starr Report and the Schippers Report.

    REP. NADLER: All right. Thank you. Reclaiming my time. Starr and Schippers, so you're going beyond Starr, to other unspecified statements.

    Mr. Chairman, let me say the following. Let me say the following. We keep hearing from the other side of the aisle on this committee, that the whole reason -- the whole reason for this proceeding, is that we must defend the rule of law. Well, the rule of law demands and establishes due process. And the fundamental of due process is that a defendant is entitled to notice of the charges against him.

    Perjury, the central allegation here, demands specifics. The law says the specifics must be listed in the indictment. I would be satisfied with a contemporaneous report, a contemporaneous list now, not in the language, but a contemporaneous list now, precisely as Mr. Sensenbrenner says, so that the Senate is limited, so that the House is limited to the charges we make, so that the defendant has notice of what he must defend against. That is the essence of due process.

    Now we are told by the gentleman from Virginia, that the Nixon allegation in the article, which wasn't the central article, as this one is, didn't list the specific language. But the fact is, the report did.

    What we're saying today is that you can have no due process, you can have no fair notice of the charges. If the charges are subject to expansion later, if the charges are anything that can be derived from a 100-page Schippers Report full of loose allegations, unspecified -- and the fact of the matter is this whole subject is revealed for the farce it is, if the majority cannot answer the question and say what are the specifics.

    I didn't demand that the specific language be in the article. I asked what any defendant is entitled to, even the president of the United States, that we have notice before we vote on these, so that we can debate them intelligently, so that on the floor of the House, House members know what they're voting on, and so should they go to the Senate, the president knows what he's dealing with.

    And the law requires -- unlike what Mr. Barr said -- when you deal with perjury, the law requires the specifics in the indictment. And I'm saying --

    REP. HYDE: Will the gentleman yield, even though his time is up?

    REP. NADLER: I will yield.

    REP. HYDE: Yeah. If my good friend would listen to when we talk over here -- I know that's a major effort, but if you would, you will hear the answers to your questions. Already many of the answers have been provided, and more are on the way.

    REP. NADLER: Reclaiming my time for two sentences, Mr. Chairman. The problem is that all the discussion is not satisfactory, for one reason. What we need, what is required, is a specific list of the words, a limited list of the words not subject to expansion later, specific notice of the allegation. That's all we ask.

    REP. HYDE: If you will listen --

    REP. NADLER: So that the House can know what it's debating, and what it's not debating.

    REP. HYDE: If you will listen carefully, you will get your answer. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson.

    REP. HUTCHINSON: I thank the chair. And let me just review where we are here for a moment. I believe it was yesterday and the day before, we heard the president's counsel, the minority counsel respond very specifically to the allegations of perjury that were contained -- that were alleged for the grand jury, which is the substance of Article I.

    The president's lawyer and the minority counsel did not have any problem in responding very specifically, because they knew the specifics as to the allegations. They were set forth in the Starr Report, they were set forth in the Schippers Report.

    But I think that whenever you look at the drafting of this particular article, it is consistent with the previous articles of impeachment that have been drafted for perjury in previous cases before this House. That you can set forth specifically in the articles the question and answer, but in this case, we gave due notice, because of the different areas that are being alleged to be perjurious, in the articles of impeachment.

    So there's adequate notice there. And Mr. Barr from Georgia is correct that if it goes to the Senate, and more specificity is desired than under a bill of particulars, that can be provided. But this would be sufficient, under any indictment, that would be presented in a criminal case.

    But this is not a criminal case. This is an impeachment proceeding before the House of Representatives, and perhaps it will go further. But these articles give the adequate notice, and whenever the statement "perjurious" is in there, that means it is in the nature of perjury, it's in the nature of false statements.

    We're not going on technical legal definitions, technical criminal statutes. This is a proceeding protecting the public trust of the United States. But my friend from New York has asked for specific question-and-answers in the grand jury testimony. And so, let's look for a moment.

    In the articles of impeachment, the first reference is that there was perjurious statements given, concerning the nature and details of the president's relationship with a subordinate government employee. I'm referring to the actual grand jury transcript that's not bound in the Starr Report, but it's the actual transcript. And on page 6, the president refers to the affidavit that he submits -- or the statement that he gives to the grand jury.

    And he says that his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, did not consist of sexual intercourse. "They did not constitute sexual relations, as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17th, 1998, deposition." I believe that is a false statement that is provided by the president of the United States in the grand jury testimony that supports the nature and details of his relationship, as alleged in Article I.

    If you go further, another allegation in the articles of impeachment is that he gave false testimony relating to his prior testimony in the federal civil rights action, the deposition. And if you refer to page 18 and 19 of the president's grand jury testimony, the question was asked, "Was it your responsibility to answer those questions truthfully, Mr. President?" And that was referring to his previous testimony in the Jones case. It's a long answer, but in the course of that, he says "But in this deposition, Mr. Bittman (ph), I was doing my best to be truthful."

    The president is saying that he was doing his best to be truthful in his prior deposition. I believe that is a false and perjurious statement. I go on to --

    REP. SCHUMER: Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. HUTCHINSON: -- page 37, which is testimony about improperly influencing witnesses, as alleged in the articles of impeachment. And in page 37, the questions were asked about his conversations with Betty Currie, and why he was leading her through this. And his testimony in the grand jury was that "I thought that what would happen is, that it would break in the press, and I was trying to get the facts down." It's my belief that that is false testimony, because I believe it is unreasonable, illogical and defies common sense. And I believe the purpose of his questioning and conversation with Betty Currie was to influence her testimony improperly.

    Those are Q and A, question-answer in the grand jury testimony to support --

    REP. SCHUMER: Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. HUTCHINSON: -- the articles of impeachment that are set forth here, specifics. Now, that doesn't mean it's limited. It doesn't mean that this is all the Q and A. There are certainly others that could be pointed to. But these are ones that I am relying upon, as a member of this committee, when I vote on this article of impeachment.

    REP. SCHUMER: Would the gentleman yield just for a brief question?

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

    REP. SCHUMER: Could I ask unanimous consent to ask the gentleman a brief question?

    REP. HYDE; Without objection.

    REP. SCHUMER; Several of the things mentioned by Mr. Hutchinson -- which might well be in a court of law perjurious, I won't judge that -- are neither in Schippers or Starr. And so now the chairman has said -- the chairman has said it's Schippers and Starr. First it was just Starr, now it's --

    REP. HUTCHINSON: Reclaiming my time, because I believe I'm yielding to you.

    REP. SCHUMER: We have to know what we're voting on here, not what each person says.

    REP. HUTCHINSON: Please. Mr. Schippers certainly covered that exactly the same in his testimony before this committee, it is specifically set forth in the Starr referral. There's more than adequate notice on that. And I've given you specific question - answer. You do not have to accept it, you do not have to agree with it, but there's adequate notice in that. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.

    REP. SCOTT: Mr Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's recognized for five minutes. REP. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr. Starr finally for answering the question. The question was what authority Mr. Apperson (ph) had to swear in the grand jury witness. Mr. Starr points out that the official transcript has Elizabeth Eastman (ph), a notary public for the District of Columbia providing the oath, and saying that although Rule 6(e) authorizes the foreperson of the grand jury to administer oaths, it does not restrict the authority to someone else, but doesn't specifically say whether or not Mrs. Eastman had the authority.

    Mr. Chairman, this is not a small point, because Rule 6(e) gives the foreperson or deputy foreperson the authority to swear in the witnesses. The Framers of the Bill of Rights included in the Fifth Amendment a guarantee of grand juries to federal court in order to protect ordinary citizens against the power of federal prosecuting authorities. And even the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Williams, states that the whole theory and foundation is that it belongs to no branch of institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer between government and the people, and, quote, it swears in its own witnesses.

    Mr. Chairman, there's a case, Pryor (ph) v. United States, a 1977 case, where the question was whether or not a perjury charge could lie when the defendant said that the court reporter swore the person in, and the foreman of the grand jury said that he had actually sworn him in. And I'm going to read part of that case.

    "The defendant claims that the government failed to prove that he was duly administered an oath by the foreman at the commencement of his testimony. He relies upon the certificate of the court report, a pre-printed form, describing the proceedings as a deposition. He argues that this certificate conclusively establishes that the court reporter, rather than the foreman, administered the oath to him, and that the notary public, not being authorized to administer oaths to grand jury witnesses, the case must fail."

    This certificate might be sufficient, if not contradicted, to overcome the presumption.

    The court goes on to say that the chairman -- "the foreman of the grand jury actually testified that he in fact had given the oath. It is for the jury to weigh the relative credibility of the foreman and the form." There was ample evidence from which they could and did concede -- conclude that the oath had been properly administered by the foreman.

    Mr. Chairman, that would be totally irrelevant if we accept Mr. Starr's statement that it didn't matter who gave the form.

    Now all of this intrigue is interesting, Mr. Chairman, because Mr. Starr now tells us that there is an official transcript. The one he sent us just said that "William Jefferson Clinton, being duly sworn," whereas with Monica Lewinsky, he said the grand -- in her grand jury testimony, it said, "Monica Lewinsky, being duly sworn by the foreperson of the grand jury."

    I don't know why we got a different form. This is an important issue before us. And if we're going to -- I'd like to know from Mr. Starr why this was kind of obfuscated with Mr. Clinton and why we were not told this other information, because he had told us in his testimony that there's no question -- well, he said that a jury would convict and all of the elements of perjury were there.

    Mr. Chairman, I don't know why we got a different transcript in our form than he's referring to now. But this is an issue and, I think, goes to the credibility of the witness.

    I'll yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, if you had a comment.

    REP. : (Off mike.)

    REP. SCOTT: Okay. I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: I thank the gentleman.

    Mr. Coble, the gentleman from North Carolina.

    REP. HOWARD COBLE (R-NC): Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman from the Roanoke Valley of Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte.

    REP. GOODLATTE: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

    Mr. Chairman, first, in response to the gentleman from Virginia, I'd direct his attention to Title V of the United States Code, Section 2903, "Oath, Authority to Administer," Subsection B-2: "an individual authorized by local law to administer oaths in the state, district, or territory or possession of the United States where the oath is administered." And then, of course, you turn to the District of Columbia law, which authorizes the notary public to administer the oath. I think that answers that question.

    REP. SCOTT: In a grand jury proceeding?

    REP. GOODLATTE: Let me go on to the other point that I want to make here first, and that is with regard to this issue of perjury. I think the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Arkansas have been absolutely correct in terms of the nature of this proceeding being different from a criminal proceeding. But in a criminal proceeding, there are two types of perjury:

    One, where you have two different statements made by an individual and the issue is which one is the correct statement, you do list those with specificity. If you're viewing that as this type of case, the report that will be submitted with this will list those things or incorporate other things, such as Mr. Schippers' report or the counsel's report. And that specific information will be available to the president, whose counsel obviously knows what we're referring to, because he addressed it all when he was here.

    But secondly, the other type of perjury and the type that I think we're really talking about here, where someone is simply accused of making a false statement, does in fact not require the specificity that the other side is calling for.

    Let me read you a case, appropriately from the U.S. District Court in Arkansas. "In prosecution for making false material declaration and proceeding on accused motion to vacate or set aside sentence imposed for kidnapping offense, accused allegedly false testimony at such proceeding that he had not wished to take the stand at the kidnapping trial, that defense counsel had advised counsel to take the stand to take the stand and had coerced him into doing so was material and it was not error to instruct as to its materiality." And then in the absence of any claim of -- let's see, here's another case in which the defendant was not entitled to a bill of particulars specifying those portions of the grand jury testimony which provided the basis for charging false declaration before a grand jury, U.S. versus Queste (sp), a Florida case, 1979.

    REP. FRANK: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. GOODLATTE: I will in a moment.

    Finally, let me get back to what I think the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Florida correctly pointed out is really the purpose here today, and that is to try to get away from what is truly the issue here, and that is whether or not we're going to submit to the Senate articles of impeachment. To try to claim that somehow we have to put all of the details regarding those things in the articles, I think, is clearly wrong.

    Going back to the Watergate proceedings, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, addressed this very point. He said, "I would like to observe, if I might, that we have spent a great deal of time talking, and I think we may have reached some agreement upon the validity of the Sarbanes substitute; that is to say, we realize we are going to bring to the floor of the Congress this matter, so that to attempt to detail the policy or plan that has been suggested as the basis for Article I in the substitute would be a little bit ludicrous."

    He went on to say that --

    REP. CONYERS: Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Mr. Chairman?

    REP. GOODLATTE: -- in response to the specific point about detailing the false or misleading statements that are a part of that article, he said, "That was a false or misleading statement." He had just detailed one of those. "We have documented it any number of times in the course of the months that we have been here. And so for us to have to write this in is an unnecessary act because there is not just one or two, there are several. Any number of them, any of which since I -- as I read this pleading, it is in the alternative -- would be sufficient. The means used to implement the policy of the president have included one or more of the following" -- and he makes emphasis of a number of the specific courses.

    Now with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I think that after we analyze any number of these reasons that demonstrate a course of conduct, those of us who are ready to support the notion of impeachment, as embodied in this very plainly worded language, should be able to support it before this evening is over. And I would hope that we would move to that point, so that we could at least accept this very first article --

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

    REP. GOODLATTE: -- before the end of this evening.

    REP. LOFGREN: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

    REP. GOODLATTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


    REP. LOFGREN: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. : Go ahead.

    REP. HYDE: Ms. Lofgren?

    REP. LOFGREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. CONYERS: Would the gentlelady yield for 10 seconds?

    REP. LOFGREN: Yes.

    REP. CONYERS: I just want the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, to know that in the Nixon case in '74, we had the FBI, IRS, CIA records; they were quite specific and were not in controversy. Here we have statements that flow all over the place, in and out of grand jury, trials, and actual events. And I thank the gentlelady.

    REP. LOFGREN: And reclaiming --

    REP. SCHUMER: And would the gentlelady yield for just five more?

    REP. LOFGREN: If I may just quickly reclaim my time because it's directly on the point that Mr. Conyers has just made. And I do believe that what is before us today falls short of the precedence that the House has set in impeachment particulars in the past, and I wanted to just quote briefly from a letter I think every member of the committee received from our colleague, Congressman Hastings, that was entered into the record yesterday, I believe, by Mrs. Waters.

    In his letter to us, he points out that in the 1973 proceedings, the chair and the ranking minority member, with the concurrence of the committee, directed John Dorr (sp), the special counsel for the majority, and Albert Jenner (sp), the special counsel for the minority, to produce a comprehensive statement of information in the inquiry into the conduct of then-President Nixon. The statement of information that the staff produced for the inquiry consisted of numbered paragraphs, each of which was followed by photocopies of particular portions of the evidence that the staff concluded supported the assertions made in that paragraph. President Nixon was invited to and did submit a further statement of information in the same format. And as a result, there was a balanced, organized, neutral statement that all members could review and understand what it is they were voting on.

    Mr. Hastings points out that other members have not had the same access to the material that the members of this committee has, and that the record is such that other members of the House may not be able to determine for themselves whether there is clear and convincing evidence to support any or all of the allegations in these articles. And that in order to impose the burden of an impeachment trial upon the Senate, the president, the Supreme Court and the American people, each member of the House, not just the members of this committee, need to satisfy themselves that there is sufficient evidence, that it's sufficiently specific and that it meets the clear and convincing burden.

    I would note also that in the only other presidential impeachment, the impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson, the articles included were -- listed the general allegations and then were very specific as to the actual words that President Johnson was accused of saying and how they violated, in the view of the radicals proceeding at that point, their view of high crimes and misdemeanors.

    And I would like to ask unanimous consent that the articles of impeachment for Andrew Johnson be made a part of this hearing record.

    And I would strongly suggest that what we have before us now falls far short of what our precedence would lead us to do and also will not give adequate notice to our colleagues.

    REP. FRANK: Will the gentlewoman yield?

    REP. LOFGREN: I will yield in just one second.

    What we're talking about, I think, is a trial in the Senate that will require extensive probative testimony as to details of sexual activity. And I think if that is, in fact, what we are asking our colleagues to vote upon and to ask the Senate to delve into, they have a right to know that that's what what they are being asked to send to the Senate.

    And I would happily yield to Mr. Frank.

    REP. FRANK: I thank the gentlewoman.

    This notion -- it's an abdication of responsibility. You're voting for a resolution that says these things conclusively. And to say that we don't have to specify what the perjury was and we'll tell the Senate later if they ask boggles my mind. And I have tried to go through the Schippers report. I looked at the Starr report. It was both specific on perjury and weak. And I believe the majority knew that, so they decided to buff up the Starr report.

    But I have been through the Schippers report. I cannot tell where points three and four are supposed to be. One and two have to do with what he touched and when he touched it. But points three and four are very vague. It's unclear to me in the Schippers report. And I would hope before we were through -- I mean, I'll never be a senator, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to run for the Senate. (Laughter.) But for just a brief minute make me a senator, show me what you're going to show the Senate, treat me like a senator. It's enough I'm sitting next to Schumer -- (laughter) -- but maybe I can -- maybe you would show me what you're going to show the Senate and where in the Schippers report are these allegations on three and four, because they're not in the Starr report. And I do think we ought to get a sense of them before we get to the Senate.

    REP. HYDE: Mr. Gekas, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

    REP. GEORGE W. GEKAS (R-PA): I thank the chair.

    REP. HYDE: Will the gentleman yield to me just for a second?

    REP. GEKAS: I certainly will.

    REP. HYDE: I'd like to ask Mr. Scott a question.

    Mr. Scott, you seem to be making an issue of the validity of the oath that was given to the president by the court reporter or the notary public. An insufficient oath is a defense to perjury. Is the president making that defense, that the oath was insufficient?

    REP. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what defense the president is making. Of course, he didn't know what the charges were when his counsel was here to present. But if you're going to charge perjury, rather than -- if you had just charged false statement, even false statement under oath, it wouldn't even have to be the right oath, but if you're going charge perjury, you have to prove it, all of the elements.

    REP. HYDE: I just wondered if that was a defense that he was urging.

    REP. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I don't -- I can say, Mr. Chairman, with personal knowledge, I don't think so. I don't think so.

    REP. HYDE: Okay, thank you.

    Mr. Gekas.

    REP. SCOTT: But I'm making it.

    REP. HYDE: Mr. Gekas.

    REP. GEKAS: Mr. Chairman, it's worth repeating that all of us has contributed in one way or another to creating the record which is before us by incorporating into the record -- the Starr report was a giant step in that direction. Later, all the testimony that we had with respect to what an impeachable offense is, all the experts, the historians.

    And then even in the later stages, when minority counsel and majority counsel presented their presentations, that too became a part of the record, and outlined in detail all the bases upon which these articles of impeachment are based.

    In short, the article summarizes the allegation that is to go to the Senate, and provides with it voluminous portions of records that sustain the main allegation in the article. And that is not so farfetched or so far removed from what happened in Watergate, because the so-called door (?) report is the Starr report in our case; that is that it does compend together all of the allegations and puts them in one feasible package so that the members can consider them.

    Moreover, when this procedure finally ends, Mr. Hyde, as chairman of this committee, following the procedures, will be drawing a final report to submit to the House, and presumably that will also go to the Senate, if the House should impeach. And that Hyde report will again repeat the bases of the record that we have created, to which we have lent our ears and our pens and our voices. And that --

    REP. SCHUMER: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. GEKAS: -- and that Hyde report, the chairman's report, will be the final indication that the record which supports the allegations that re contained in the articles of impeachment are indeed well- founded. And that, to me, is a simple fact.

    We're now delaying the process. This is dilatory on the part of those who want to maintain that the record does not sustain the allegations.

    REP. SCHUMER: Would the gentleman yield? He has a little more time. And I thank the gentleman for his courtesy in yielding.

    I understand the point that you are making -- the gentleman from Virginia -- about what was done in Watergate. But the point stands, when you're dealing with perjury, it's the very words that constitute the crime in a criminal court, and here should constitute the act for impeachment. When you don't list the words that are allegedly perjurious, it's like alleging obstruction or subornation of a witness without mentioning the witness.

    REP. GEKAS: Reclaiming my time --

    REP. SCHUMER: And so there is a difference with perjury and with all the other charges and the facts matter. I yield back.

    REP. GEKAS: Reclaiming my time, rendering false statements under oath is also a crime, but you do not insist that that be stated in specificity, because that was the Watergate mode which we have taken great pains in order to accommodate your side of the aisle to try to emulate so that we can bring these matters to a conclusion.

    REP. FRANK: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. GEKAS: We have done so, in a proper manner, and the final vote that we'll be casting will be with a complete record, that record aimed at and succeeding at substantiating the allegations in the Articles of Impeachment.

    REP. FRANK: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. GEKAS: I yield.

    REP. FRANK: I thank the gentleman. The point is that I have the same argument whether it's perjury or false statement, because I making a substantive argument. There's nothing dilatory. I really believe that you think that, politically, lying in front of the grand jury is the strongest legal argument to make, but it's weakest factual one.

    REP. GEKAS: I'm reclaiming my time, Barney.

    REP. FRANK: Aw, George, that's not fair. About eight seconds --

    REP. GEKAS: I'm reclaiming my non-time. It's my non-time.

    REP. FRANK: Eight seconds you give me, George.

    REP. GEKAS: I'll ask for 30 more seconds and if you yield back the yielding that I yield to you, I will yield. (Laughter.)

    REP. FRANK: I do.

    REP. GEKAS: Will you yield?

    REP. FRANK: I do. Now let me just finish, if I can, to say I really believe the crux of this is that the three specific acts of grand jury perjury Kenneth Starr puts forward, you're embarrassed to take to the floor. You're embarrassed to try and unseat a twice- elected president on this degree of trivia, and you have therefore used obfuscatory language to suggest a set of offenses that don't have specific support.

    REP. GEKAS: I repeat that we have a full record, and furthermore, even if the gentleman from Massachusetts says that false statements under oath are also unspecified here, then we have failed to follow the Watergate mode the way he wants it to be followed --

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's --

    REP. GEKAS: -- because it does the same exact thing.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's --

    REP. GEKAS: I yield back the balance of my non-time.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman has no time to yield back. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Boucher. Weren't you -- I thought someone gave me your name.

    REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): Ms. Waters.

    REP. HYDE: Ms. Waters.

    REP. WATERS: I thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I had planned on giving quite a different statement. However, it's obvious, based on the conversation and the discussion and debate that we've been engaged in over the past -- I don't know, hour -- that we can't move forward until we resolve something that's very basic to this impeachment -- these Articles of Impeachment that their side is attempting to put forward.

    Certainly, Mr. Chairman, you could allow each of us to use up our five minutes and after we've all exhausted that, move on. But I don't think you want to do that.

    And even though I chide you and even make you a little bit uncomfortable sometimes, I do believe that you tend to operate the chair in a fashion where you would want to resolve an issue as basic as this one about whether or not we're going to move forward with an article of impeachment without specificity.

    Let me just tell you, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, I don't think you want history to record that you voted on something and you don't know what you're voting on. I don't think you want, 20 years from now or 30 years from now, someone to pick up this article that in a very general way talks about perjury, and the historians cannot identify the words that were taken down that were perjurious. I just don't think you want that.

    And so, Mr. Chairman, instead of offering my statement, I am going to point you, number one, to the fact that the Schippers list that you're talking about attaching does not meet the test of specificity, and it certainly is not consistent with what is in the Starr report. As a matter of fact, I'm a little bit offended by the Schippers list, that talks about the number of phone conversations that the president had with Monica Lewinsky as opposed to the number that the president identified.

    But he goes even further. He talks about patterns of distortion, outright lies, half-truths. And if you recall, he referred to the half-truths as the blackest lie of all. That just doesn't meet the test. I don't know what this means.

    And I would submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps you should consider recessing so that you can give specificity to the referral. The members of this committee are not asking that you not do anything so they can continue this. They've been very gracious in saying we will give you time to go and put the specificity in.

    Now, don't be guilty of the charge that you don't want to do it because you want an open-ended referral that will allow the Senate or anybody else to choose, pick, add, do whatever they want to do. If you're serious about your desire to impeach this president because you sincerely believe that he's perjured himself in ways that meets the constitutional test, high crimes and misdemeanors, list them. Be straightforward enough to say what they are. Be specific about them so that in fact they can be argued, they can be debated.

    Otherwise we're all over the place trying to debate which lie you're supposedly talking about, which half-truth, which is the blackest lie, which is what. I don't think you want that. I certainly don't want to be recorded in history that way. But you will be worse off than me, because I'm voting no on all of this. (Laughter.) But you are going to vote "aye" on something. And when your grandchildren that you keep referring to every day, when your grandchildren ask you what did you vote on, what was the lie, what are you going to tell them? "I don't know. It was kind of general. There were a lot of things. We attached a report. No, it didn't comport with what Ken Starr said, but we had this idea." And then when it gets over someplace else and they have to talk about what did they really mean, they're not going to know.

    So with that, as my time winds down, Mr. Chair, who today -- I think you're the fairest chairman I've ever met -- I'm going to ask you to recess this committee and deal with the specificity and allow us to come back and debate that.

    I yield back the balance of my time.

    REP. HYDE: I thank the gentlelady. And insofar as it is within my power, the gentlelady may recess anytime she wants. (Laughter.)

    The gentleman --

    REP. WATERS: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: Yes, ma'am?

    REP. WATERS: You did that on my time. So I'm sure in your fairness you're going to allow me a little bit more time. Despite the fact that I'm going to -- (laughter) -- I'm going to be very short.

    This is a little bit more serious than you have dealt with it. And I expect these proceedings to be handled in a way that you, too, will want to be recorded in history in a serious way.

    REP. HYDE: Well, I thank the gentlelady, and I will direct her to the report which will be filed. We can't impose a criminal standard on an impeachment process, but we can provide the gentlelady with much more specificity and will.

    REP. : Mr. Chairman?

    REP. : Would the chairman repeat that one more time?

    REP. CANADY: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: Mr. Canady.

    REP. CANADY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to, at the risk of repeating things that have already been said, although that seems to be most of what's happening here on the other side of the aisle, at least, hearing the same things over and over again, and I think it would be interesting if we could go back and see the full debate in the Nixon matter.

    I think the same arguments, ironically, were being by the Republicans there in challenging the articles of impeachment against President Nixon. And at least the Republicans who were opposed to impeaching President Nixon, they were trying to derail the process -- (laughs) -- any way they could, and they screamed "Specificity" and they tried to throw up everything they could think of to detrack from the misconduct of Richard Milhous Nixon.

    And I think the same thing is going on here today, unfortunately.

    And let me say that I believe that the rule you are stating for a criminal proceeding is not even accurate. But it's clear that we aren't governed by the same rules that would be applicable in a criminal proceeding. If you don't believe that, let me cite you to Alexander Hamilton in No. 65 of the Federalist.

    There Hamilton wrote, in speaking of the nature of impeachment proceedings. He said: "This can never be tied down by such strict rules either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors or in the construction of it by the judges, as in common cases served to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security."

    Now you may not agree with Hamilton, and you know, you are entitled not to agree with Hamilton. But I think your whole argument is based on your dispute with Alexander Hamilton, and it is based on your dispute with the real nature of an impeachment proceeding.

    Now having said that, I want to just point out -- and again at the risk of some repetition -- on some of the things that I believe are in the president's grand jury testimony, that are not truthful

    Now, I am sure all of you have read this. It's been printed up by the United States government. It's House document 105-311; part one, the grand jury testimony of the president appears here. And I would just cite you to various pages, page 502 of the president's testimony, where he said -- where the question is asked: "Did you speak with your secretary Ms. Currie and ask her to pick up a box of gifts that were some compilation of gifts that Ms. Lewinsky would have?"

    Answer: "No, sir. I didn't do that."

    Now, I realize you may disagree with my conclusion about this, and you are entitled to do that. I believe the president lied when he said that, and I believe there is evidence to indicate --

    REP. WATT (?): Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. CANADY: I am sorry; I won't yield. I want to go through this, and then the gentleman from North Carolina will have his time and probably a little extra.

    If you'll turn over to another page, page 532 of this report and of the president's testimony before the grand jury, lines four and five. The president said, "My goal in this deposition" -- they are referring to his deposition in January in the Paula Jones case -- "my goal in this deposition was to be truthful."

    I think that was a bald-faced lie. I think his goal in that deposition was to lie and to hide the truth. His own attorney admits that he went into that deposition with the purpose of misleading and got as close to the line as he thought he could without crossing it.

    Well, I think he crossed the line in the deposition, and I think he crossed the line here before the grand jury when he said his purpose was to be truthful.

    Page 547, line 23. And I'm not going to read all the question there because this has to do with the relationship between the president and Ms. Lewinsky. And I know -- I see the gentlelady smiling. Well, the president has degraded his office by his conduct, but we don't have to degrade this committee by what we do here.

    REP. WATT: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. CANADY: I will not.

    REP. WATT: But when the president there on page 547, in a question concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, said, "That's correct," I believe that he was lying.

    REP. : Mr. Chairman, I move the gentleman be given an additional two minutes.

    REP. HYDE: Is there objection? Is there objection? Without objection, so ordered.

    REP. CANADY: Page 571, lines 20 and 21. The president says, "Did I want her to execute a false affidavit?" -- that being Monica Lewinsky. "No, I did not." I believe that was an untruthful statement.

    On page 593, going to page 594, the bottom of the page. It says, "If I understand" -- this is the question of the president -- "If I understand your current line of testimony, you are saying that your only interest in speaking with Ms. Currie in the days after her deposition was to refresh your own recollection."

    Answer: "Yes."

    I believe the president was lying when he said that.

    Now, I understand that there are differences of opinion. I don't think that there is much room for difference when you look at the whole weight of the evidence and all of this in context, but I can accept that there are differences of opinion. But there are specifics here. We have listed specifics. Other members of the committee have gone through the specifics. The issue here that's being raised by the other side about the specifics isn't because they think there aren't specifics; it's just an effort to derail this proceeding, it's an effort to cause confusion, which is in line with the way this whole thing has been handled from the very beginning, an effort to stop this proceeding from moving forward.

    REP. : Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. CANADY: I'm sorry, I won't yield. You're going to have your time to talk, and I have gone over my time, but the facts are here.

    I thank the chairman.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

    Mr. Meehan.

    REP. MARTIN T. MEEHAN (D-MA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    With all due respect to Mr. Canady, I can imagine that he could have last year's State of the Union address of the president and go through it page by page and say "I believe that was a lie," "I believe that was a false statement," "I believe he was wrong about that." But this isn't what this proceeding is all about.

    It's interesting to me, Mr. Chairman, because as I look at the independent counsel's referral, and since we're on the section having to do with perjury, I go and re-read the section on perjury, or alleged lying under oath. I don't find perjury.

    Now, if Ken Starr, after spending $45 million and five years investigating President Clinton, I assume this has to be the best case. And when I open it up, I never see the word "perjury" used. Page 145, "lied under oath." Then I go to page 148, "the testimony is not credible." Paragraph two, "The president made a second false statement," "president lied to grand jury," "president's grand jury (sic) is false," "president had a motive to lie," "third false statement," "motive for president to make false statement." You read the entire section, and you never see the word "perjurious" or "perjury" used. But yet in Article I the Republicans are seeking to up the bar. Let's tell the country that the president committed perjury, and that's why we need to impeach him, when the independent counsel never used the term to refer to the president's grand jury statements as perjurious. And it's probably because when you accuse someone in this country, even the President of the United States, of perjury, most people recognize that there's at least an obligation to specifically refer to what language in grand jury testimony.

    Now, I know this isn't a criminal procedure, but when we train first-year assistant district attorneys -- I came from a district attorney's office before I got elected. Mr. Delahunt does -- the first thing that you teach somebody who gets out of law school is you don't accuse anyone of a crime unless you specifically can prove it. In the case of perjury, you're required when you go before a grand jury to give specific instances of where a potential defendant may have committed perjury.

    Now, I know this isn't a criminal procedure, but you would think that with the majority using "perjurious" and accusing the president of committing perjury, at a minimum -- at a minimum -- they would cite specifically where the president committed perjury. But there's a failure to do that.

    I would point out that it seems to me in going through the Starr report that what this all is down to, comes down to is the president said that he didn't touch Monica Lewinsky in a certain way and that Monica Lewinsky said he did in a certain way, and that's what your strongest count is all about.

    Now, let me reiterate, if there is in any way, shape or manner a perjury case here, the independent counsel, number one, would have said perjury, number two, is free to indict the president of perjury. But I think most members of this committee know that once you get into the specifics, once you actually try to show that the president may have committed perjury and have to prove the elements, it becomes extremely difficult to do.

    So this particular article is not specific; it ought to be specific. If you choose to use the term perjury, you, at a minimum, ought to be able to tell this committee, the full House, and the American people what specifically you're accusing the president of committing perjury in the way of.

    REP. JACKSON-LEE: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. MEEHAN: I would yield to my colleague.

    REP. JACKSON-LEE: The president's behavior -- and I thank the gentleman who laid out a very articulate argument -- the president's behavior was his. The language in this is that of the Republicans, and they use the language "perjurious." First of all, they want to ignore the rule of law on one hand and not on the other. There is a two-witness rule in most instances on corroborating perjury. Who are they using? The friends? Linda Tripp? Do they have a direct knowledge of the acts between Monica and the president?

    REP. GEKAS: The time of the gentleman has expired.

    REP. JACKSON-LEE: So there are failings in this that really go to the heart of this document --

    REP. GEKAS: The time of the gentleman, Mr. Meehan, has expired.

    REP. JACKSON-LEE: -- and therefore you cannot vote on such. I thank the chairman and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

    REP. GEKAS: The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant, for five minutes.

    REP. ED BRYANT (R-TN): I thank the chair. It appears to me that we have debated about every possible issue of this, and I would simply reiterate that this is not a criminal proceeding, we're not dealing with a crime here, we're dealing with an impeachment process which, again, is a unique process combining elements of both the legal and political world.

    You know, I've been looking at this and, frankly, I look at Article I and it talks about the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee; that's number one. Well, who could that be? Monica Lewinsky. I mean, if you just sit here and read this, it's pretty clear what we're talking about. Number two, that he gave false -- perjurious, false and misleading testimony in a civil rights action that we refer to in Article II and in that we specifically say that in this civil rights action he lied in the interrogatories, and we all know where those are.

    REP.: Will the gentleman yield?


    REP. BRYANT: No, I don't have but five minutes. If I do have some time, I'm committed to Mr. Barr afterwards, but I do apologize for that.

    The second part of that is in his deposition in the Jones case, what they're talking about there is that he lied about the relationship with a government -- subordinate government employee, Monica Lewinsky. There's knowledge of Monica's involvement and participation in the Jones case, that is, she was subpoenaed, and his corrupt efforts to influence her testimony.

    I mean, this doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure any of this out, if you simply read the charge.

    Number three is prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a federal judge in a civil rights action. That's the affidavit. Look at the affidavit. Look at that testimony around where he filed the affidavit, and the president sat there and watched him file a false affidavit and didn't say anything -- and even acknowledged it -- acknowledged the truth of the fact that he did not commit -- have a "sexual relationship" or an "affair," I believe, was the wording.

    And number four, his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impeded the discovery of evidence in the civil rights action; to corrupt the testimony of Betty Currie, Monica Lewinsky. And what have we been talking about for the last month? To hide evidence. What evidence? The evidence that somehow was in Monica Lewinsky's house one morning and ended up in President Clinton's personal secretary's house, under her bed, the next day. I mean, these aren't difficult issues; only if you want to make good theater and good show and complain. But if you sit down and look at this, I think the article very clearly refers, one, to what the charges would be.

    But let me say this. I was reading through this, and I have never seen this before. And I find this so interesting because I have dwelt on this issue of how can the president's lawyers without laughing, come in here and tell us, which they did, without laughing, that he can give incomplete answers and "tell the whole truth" and that he can give misleading answers and say "nothing but the truth." You know, I am taking that right out of the oath.

    In the grand jury testimony, in the oath that the president took when he gave his grand jury testimony, he was sworn in and was asked: "Mr. President, do you understand your testimony here today is under oath?" And the president answered, "I do."

    Now listen to this, the second question: "And do you understand that because you have sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that if you were to lie or intentionally mislead" -- the word that they all talk about that there is no problem with --"or to intentionally mislead the grand jury, you could be prosecuted for perjury and/or obstruction of justice?"

    And the answer, and this is the key; the president says, "I believe that's correct." Now, he has just acknowledged that he believes it's correct that if were to intentionally mislead the grand jury, that he understood he could be prosecuted for perjury or obstruction of justice. And if you think back, that seems to me to be very different from what his lawyers were saying. And in fact, they admitted for the president that he misled the grand jury -- for what it's worth.

    I yield my time to Mr. Barr.

    REP. BARR (R-GA): Thank you.

    I would say to those on the other side who profess a great interest in specificity to look at the president's statement that he proffered -- was allowed to proffer to the grand jury. It is perjurious. It is misleading. It is wrong. It is a lie. And it was used 19 times. That could, in a criminal law setting, provide for 19 counts of perjury and 19 counts of impeding the work of a grand jury.

    REP. GEKAS: The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired.

    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, who moves to strike the last word.

    REP. WATT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'll be brief, although I think Mr. Scott wants me to yield to him.

    I've been reluctant to get heavily involved in this, because I think the handwriting is pretty much on the wall. And I do not do this to be dilatory; I do it because I think if we are going -- if this committee is going to allege perjury, which it is in this article, that the president is entitled to a specification of that. And that is what the law says.

    And as we've gone around the room, including the comments made by Mr. Canady and the comments made by the chairman, we have gotten a number of different versions of what the perjurious statements are. Mr. Schippers doesn't mention the ones that Mr. Canady mentioned. Mr. Canady has absolutely no basis in the record, other than his kind of -- I don't know where he's getting it from. There's nothing in this record that suggests or confirms that the president told Betty Currie to go pick up those gifts. Now if he wants to make that an element of the perjury, then that's fine; I don't have any problem with that.

    Is my time out, Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: I was transfixed by your remarks, so forgive me. Your time has elapsed. Thank you for bringing that up.

    REP. WATT: I -- well, I'm trying to be as hard on myself as I am on you most of the time, Mr. -- (laughter, cross talk) --

    REP. : Mr. Chairman --

    REP. HYDE: I'm told that you never did get the right time. So you can start now, if you want.

    REP. WATT: Well, I won't start over -- (chuckles) -- for your benefit.

    But I do think that if you are going to charge the president of the United States with perjury, which this count -- article does, he's entitled to know what that perjury is.

    And if it is what Mr. Canady says, sure, there are plenty of things in 1,600 pages that you could specify. The only point we are making is that you are duty bound, you are obligated to make that specification and not to make him guess about it. If it is, as Mr. Canady says, that you don't believe the president when he said -- when everybody says -- Ms. Currie, Ms. Lewinsky and the president says I didn't tell Ms. Lewinsky -- Ms. Currie to go out there and pick up those gifts -- if you're going to specify that as an element of perjury, then specify it. It's ridiculous. That's why we were laughing over here when he said it, because there's nothing in the record that supports it. But if you want to specify it, specify it. But don't just say, okay, we're going to use the three things that Mr. Starr said and limit them to that. They obviously are not enough to impeach. We're going to use what Mr. Schippers said. A nice novel he read to me yesterday, but very few things in there that really specify perjury. Nice novel. I almost went to sleep on it. He was reading it.

    But if you are going to use the word "perjurious" in this article, I think it's incumbent on you to specify what the perjury is. Now, if you want to strike the word "perjurious" out of the article, maybe you wouldn't have to specify, and that's obviously what the folks in the Watergate -- in the Nixon impeachment decided, because, as Mr. Goodlatte has carefully quoted to you, they never used the word "perjury." That's obviously how independent counsel Starr finessed it.

    He never used the word "perjury". But Mr. Schippers did. And he used it in some very strange words that I don't believe amount to perjury. They were a nice novel. But now we are in a legal proceeding, and we're getting down, as Mr. Jenkins said, we're pulling back the shucks of the corn and looking inside so we can see the ears now. It's time for you to tell this man what you are going to charge him with so that he has the opportunity to prepare his defense, it's obvious now it's going across the aisle to the Senate.

    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: I thank the gentleman.

    The gentleman from California, Mr. Rogan.

    REP. JAMES E. ROGAN (R-CA): Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

    REP. ROGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    It has been noted on both sides of the aisle in this proceeding so far today that this is not a criminal proceeding, this is not a criminal proceeding. That is a correct assertion. But if it were a criminal proceeding, we would be bound by extraordinary rules of procedure to guarantee a defendant had his rights protected. Those substantive and procedural due process rights do not apply to us here.

    But let's just assume for a moment, Mr. Chairman, we were in a courtroom and this were a preliminary hearing. A police officer, upon taking an oath, could simply submit a police report with unsworn statements, turn it over to the judge, and upon that hearsay, a finding of probable cause could be found to bind somebody over for trial. And the only thing that would have to be alleged in the charging document, like the indictment or the information, would be that on a certain date at a certain time a named defendant committed the crime of -- let's say perjury -- in violation of a specific code.

    Now, under the very strict rules of criminal procedure that apply in courtrooms, that is sufficient to bring a case to trial. We have raised the bar in this hearing beyond what we need to do. We not only had an extensive and thorough submission of documents and a three- month review period for every member of this committee, we then took the extraordinary step of bringing in the prosecutor responsible for the preparation of those documents. And he submitted to over 12 hours of cross-examination. Then we had one hour of a presentation from our majority counsel, who set forth the facts as the majority perceived them. And then after the draft articles of impeachment were circulated majority counsel then sat for two and a half hours and put forth to the committee and the American people the specifics of what the president is accused of.

    And it is beyond my comprehension how some of my colleagues now can allege that rather than raising the bar, and in guaranteeing the president procedural due-process rights beyond that the Constitution or our own House rules require, that they somehow think that is unfair.

    Mr. Chairman, now I want to talk about the word "perjury" that's in these documents because we didn't have to use the word "perjury." The charging documents against the president could have simply alleged that he lied under oath.

    Now what is the difference? To charge someone with lying under oath, essentially it just means that there has to be a properly administered oath in a sanctioned proceeding. By using the word "perjury,' we haven't reduced an element to prove against the president; we have added an element, because perjury requires the element that the lie be material to the proceeding. How in the world can my colleagues on the other side suggest that by Republicans' submitting the charge of perjury rather than lying under oath, we have been unfair to the president?

    REP. MELVIN WATT (D-NC): Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. ROGAN: I will not yield, respectfully, to my colleague. I have listened patiently for two hours to this debate, waiting, and I only have a few moments left.

    We did not lower the bar against the president; we raised the bar for ourselves to ensure that the charge would be proved and to hold ourselves accountable to that obligation.

    This entire proceeding, from the day the chairman first banged the gavel, has never been about the facts of the case.

    REP. WATT: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be granted two additional minutes.

    REP. HYDE: Hearing no objections, so ordered.

    REP. ROGAN: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. (Laughter.) I will happily accept the two minutes if it's offered, so I can finish my point. But if it is solely --

    REP. WATT: I am offering it at this point solely so you can finish your point. (Laughter.) But I would like for you to yield to me, if you would, at some point. But if you haven't finished your point --

    REP. ROGAN: Mister, I will take --

    REP. WATT: -- you can use the whole two minutes.

    REP. ROGAN: -- I will happily take Mr. Watts' gracious suggestion. And if the clerk would advise me when one minute is up, I am going to split the difference with my colleague from North Carolina.

    The point I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, is that once again, we are treated to the spectacle of a debate solely over procedure and never about disputing the facts of the case. We are here now debating Articles of Impeachment, article number one, the question before us, "Did the president commit perjury?"

    And time and time again, Republican members of this committee have offered specific allegations that can be pointed to in the record, and time and again my friends on the other side are complaining about the process, rather than addressing the issue.

    And now, with that, I'm happy to yield to my friend from North Carolina.

    REP. WATT: I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I want to tell the gentleman that I agree with him. We're not that far apart. The point I'm making is --

    REP. ROGAN: If I had known that, I would have yielded much earlier, Mr. Watt! (Laughter.)

    REP. WATT: The point I'm making is that once you have included the word "perjurious" then you can't just put it out there because that's a legal term and it has some requirements that go with it. And if you put it out there, then you must meet those legal terms, and the legal terms are that you must tell who you are charging with perjury what the perjurious statements are that he made. That's the only point -- you and I really are not saying substantially different things.

    REP. ROGAN: Well, we're almost so much of one mind set, Mr. Watt, that I'm tempted to just keep moving down the table so we can sit closer. (Laughter.) But the issue before us today --

    REP. WATT: I invite you down anytime, Mr. Rogan! (Laughs.)


    REP. HYDE: There'll be none of that here!

    REP. ROGAN: The issue before us today is specificity --

    REP. HYDE: Mr. Delahunt?

    REP. WATT: Will he vote this way when he comes this way? (Laughter.)

    REP. DELAHUNT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I hear my friend, Mr. Rogan, talk about the analogy of the criminal law here, and I think it's important.

    And I would direct these comments to Mr. Canady. You know, there is nobody on this side of the aisle that wants to delay, denigrate in any way these proceedings, because given the analogy of the criminal law, this is just too important. If this -- the right analogy in terms of the criminal law is that this is the capital -- this is a capital case. This case involves the death penalty for the -- politically speaking, for the executive branch of government. Should we go beyond procedural safeguards accorded in criminal cases? I dare say yes, because, Mr. Canady, I believe that Alexander Hamilton and the Founding Fathers would want us to do exactly that.

    Let me try to be specific, and I'm going to go to Clause 4 of Article I. And it reads, "Corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action." I have to guess what that language means, but I presume it's regarding the president's testimony at the grand jury to corrupt the testimony of Lewinsky in the Paula Jones suit.

    Let me put out some specific language by Monica Lewinsky that was prompted by a grand juror. And everyone that's practiced criminal law, and many of us have here, know that in the normal course of grand jury proceedings it's the prosecutor that asks the questions.

    And this was a grand juror, which is highly unusual, asking this question.

    And you what Monica Lewinsky stated? She stated that no one asked her to lie, and no one promised her a job. That's hard evidence as, I guess, it relates to Clause 4 of Article I.

    Now maybe it's also a reference to finding Monica Lewinsky a job. But you know what? The testimony, the so-called testimony, that was never cross-examined -- it was never cross-examined -- is clear that the president -- that the efforts to secure a position for Monica Lewinsky occurred far before the Paula Jones deposition. And the president himself -- and we heard it from Mr. Ruff -- could have easily secured a position for Ms. Lewinsky in the White House, and he did not.

    So let me just suggest, from what I'm guessing, Clause 4 should be totally disregarded when we come to our considerations.

    You know, I don't see that I have enough time, but I did want to talk about Mr. McCollum's reference to those corroborative witnesses that he claims would somehow support the testimony or the credibility of Monica Lewinsky. Well, let me tell you what she said to some of them. She told --

    REP. HYDE: Does the gentleman want additional time?

    REP. DELAHUNT: Could I have an additional two minutes, a minute?

    REP. HYDE: Without objection.

    REP. DELAHUNT: She told her friend Kathleen Estep (sp) that the Secret Service took the president to a rendez-vous at her apartment. She made a comment or she made a statement to two other friends, an Ashley Raines and a Miss Erbland, that she had relations with the president in the Oval Office when both were completely unclothed. A statement she made to the White House steward that the president invited her to go to Martha's Vineyard with him when the first lady was out of the country. Or statements she made to New York job interviewers that she had lunched with the first lady, who then offered her -- to help find her a place to live in New York.

    You know, this comes down to a question of credibility, but I dare say the corroboration, with all due respect, that you allude to, it's -- it just isn't there, Mr. McCollum.

    It just --

    REP. MCCOLLUM: Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman yield a minute?

    REP. DELAHUNT: I'll yield.

    REP. MCCOLLUM: The fact is, you're right. She can be impeached on certain things. But my point in raising them is that she repeated the same descriptions with regard to sexual relations and the particular parts of the anatomy that the president denied have had contact with, to every one of those witnesses and she did it on numerous occasions and she was consistent, if I might continue -- just conclude with this -- and it was consistent with what she swore to before the grand jury. I think that, taken as a whole, one would have to conclude that she was not fabricating those things about those particular elements that are critical to this case.

    REP. DELAHUNT: Well, I dare say, okay, to make a decision based upon that inference when a totally different inference is absolutely reasonable is not a way that we should make a judgment in this case. And, Mr. McCollum, you know the law. When there is an uncertainty or an ambiguity or an inference in a criminal case -- in a criminal case -- that inference should be drawn in favor of the defendant and the defendant here is President Clinton. And this simply doesn't pass the test.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Graham.

    REP. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One thing I think is important for us to remember is the context of when the grand jury testimony was provided by the president, because there's two decisions to make. Is the article factually "had"? In other words, does the evidence suggest that the allegations contained in the article -- is the burden of proof met?

    The second is, even if that did occur, should the president be impeached or be sent to trial in the Senate? Does it amount to high crime or misdemeanor? Remember, this is in August, now, folks. Remember, the deposition was in January. What happened between January and August? The president, after saying he wouldn't come to the grand jury five times, finally volunteered, had his lawyer there, a setting that was, I think, very fair to the president.

    What was going on in the country? You had every group -- not every group, but you had a lot of people saying, Mr. President, don't go in the grand jury and lie. Now, this is a political death penalty, so to speak, for a politician to be removed from office, but I think the president had a lot of notice from people of his own party, senators from his own party, House members from his own party, it'd be a very bad thing if you told a lie in the grand jury. And Mr. Dershowitz -- he and I disagree on many things about -- about life, I suppose -- but I respect his intellect, and he said before us that grand jury perjury, in his opinion, would be a high crime or misdemeanor. I respect him giving us that information. Other smart people said they disagree with him, but I agree with him on that issue, that grand jury perjury would subject any president to removal from office because it is a very serious offense.

    But with this president, he was begged by a lot of people, including Senator Hatch and others, don't you go in that grand jury and lie again.

    Now, did he go in that grand jury and lie again? Forget about why, or forget about what the topic was. He was put on plenty of notice the consequences to him as a person, to him politically. I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, that there is a(n) overwhelming case that the other side has knowledge of that he did, in fact, lie.

    Now, this idea that they're not familiar with what we're talking about, we've had great debates about whether or not certain events happened. I would suggest to you that Mr. Lowell made a very good presentation that you should believe the president about the term "sexual relations" and it didn't include oral sex. He knows what we're talking about, because he made a defense to that charge that the president fabricated that definition. I disagree with Mr. Lowell because I believe the testimony shows after the deposition testimony the president made statements to reporters and other people that it did not have this narrow-minded definition of sex, that he said it was no improper relationship. He told that to Mr. Lehrer, he told that to Roll Call, and his talking point said oral sex would be included. I think this is a fabricated definition, therefore he lied in the grand jury.

    A very important case here -- situation here. Betty Currie. He goes to Betty Currie January the 18th, the day after the deposition, and he runs four statements by her. And he talks about this in his grand jury testimony. Mr. Lowell addressed this in his argument.

    Number one: "You were always there when she" -- Monica Lewinsky -- "was there, right? We were never alone. You could see and hear everything." Mr. Lowell says that what the president was doing was he was reacting to the Drudge report and media reports that would be forthcoming, and he was trying to refresh his memory, and that wasn't witness tampering and that the whole scenario was innocent. Well, what did the president say about that scenario? He says, "I don't recall of engaging in that conversation." I believe he's lying.

    Mr. Lowell didn't address the other two statements that Betty Currie says the president made. "Monica came on to me" --

    REP. MELVIN WATT (D-NC): Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. GRAHAM: No, no. Oh, Mr. Watt? Yes, I will. You were kind enough to give me two minutes, I will certainly yield to you.

    REP. WATT: The question I would ask is don't you think that the president would be entitled to have a specification of the things that you are saying, though? And -- I believe that you believe he lied. But when you allege perjury, which this article does, don't you believe that he would be entitled to know the specific things that you and Mr. Schippers and Mr. Starr and Mr. Canady -- you know, if he's going to have to defend these things, don't just put it all out there in some global term. Tell him what things you are going to charge him with. That's the question I want you to answer.

    REP. GRAHAM: And the reason I know that the other side knows and the president --

    REP. WATT: Well, I know. I -- but --

    REP. GRAHAM: Yes, sir. I believe the reason that the lawyers know is because his defense team came in here and made a defense against the allegation that he lied in the grand jury. They made a defense against the allegation he fabricated a false affidavit. They made a defense against the allegation he was trying to tamper with Ms. Currie.

    They made a defense against whether or not he was alone. And let's revisit that defense, the term "alone." In his testimony before the grand jury --

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time -- the gentleman's time --

    REP. WATT: Unanimous consent the gentleman be given two additional minutes. I'm sorry.

    REP. GRAHAM: Thanks.

    The term "alone" is unusually used here.

    REP. HYDE: Without objection.

    REP. GRAHAM: When he said in his grand jury testimony, his deposition testimony he was never alone with Ms. Lewinsky, he said, "Well, you ask a vague question." Their defense was you ask a vague question because you didn't give a geographic location. The thought being that me and you could be alone in a room in the Rayburn Building, but since other people are in the Rayburn Building we were never alone. Which is kind of an artful way of getting around common- sense use of the term "alone."

    Now, you made this argument. If you assume his definition of sex only included oral sex, he's still got a problem because Ms. Lewinsky gives testimony, intimate details that would even make that perjurious. And one of the defenses is, well, you need more corroboration. And since they were alone, there was nobody else around. It's kind of an odd use of the term "alone." It's a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. So what I'm saying --

    REP. WEXLER: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. GRAHAM: What I'm saying -- and I'll end here -- that there's plenty of notice that you know what we're talking about, you defended against these allegations -- the lawyers have. I just disagree with their interpretation. And if you're allowed to use common sense and put two thoughts together and look at everything in entirety, the president's guilty of perjury. And when he went into that grand jury he was begged to tell the truth; his political career was on the line. He chose to ignore and he's still lying about many of these matters.

    Thank you.

    REP. WEXLER: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler.

    REP. WEXLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that the issue before the committee is not what Mr. Schippers said to the committee or how Mr. Schippers defined perjury, it's not what Mr. Lowell said to the committee or how Mr. Lowell defeated the claim of perjury; it's not what Mr. Ruff said to the committee and how he responded to the charges of perjury. It's not what Mr. Hutchinson or Mr. Graham say perjury is. It's certainly not what I say perjury is or is not.

    The issue is much simpler than that; it's what do the Articles of Impeachment say perjury is? We're not voting on Mr. Schipper's statement, we're not voting on Mr. Ruff's statement, we're not voting on my statement or any other statement of any member of the committee. We are voting on the Articles of Impeachment. And it seems that with respect to the Articles of Impeachment, and with respect to the claim of perjury against the president in the Articles of Impeachment, there is the ultimate irony. On the one hand, the majority argues that we should impeach -- no, we must, we are duty bound to impeach the president because of the rule of law.

    But in the document that impeaches the president, the rule of law does not apply because this is not a legal or criminal proceeding, the ultimate irony.

    And the majority of course, very effectively I admit, is fond of arguing that if what the president did was done by an ordinary American, they would be in jail, or they would have lost their job. Well, if an ordinary American is charged with perjury, then the United States or the state charging it has to tell that ordinary American the specific things that they said that is in fact perjury. If the United States government charges an ordinary American with tax fraud; if they say you didn't account for your income this way, they just can't say, "You look too rich." They have to tell you which income you didn't put on your tax form. And imagine if the United States government or any state in this country charged you with murder, but they didn't tell you who that you killed. "You; you stole cars, but we are not going to tell you which cars."

    Maybe the most appropriate analogy is that in every court in this land, if you are accused of slander or libel, the person accusing you of it must tell you specifically what you said or what you wrote that was slander or libel.

    So here we are today, the ultimate irony; we are going to impeach the president of the United States to uphold the rule of law; because if we don't, the rule of law will be jeopardized forever. But the document that we are voting on that charges the president with impeachment, the rule of law doesn't apply.

    So what's the perjury? I guess the perjury is what Mr. Hutchinson says, what Mr. Graham says, what Mr. Barr says, what Mr. Schippers says -- what anybody says! The document doesn't tell us. There is not one single specified item of perjury in the document, but we are going to impeach the president anyway.


    REP. FRANK (D-MA): Yeah.

    REP. WEXLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. FRANK: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. WEXLER: Yes, I yield to Mr. Frank from Massachusetts.

    REP. FRANK: I thank the gentleman, and what he has said is absolutely right.

    But again, it is totally vague in the document. But the vagueness is purposeful, and you heard this some from the gentleman from South Carolina. The reasons for impeaching the president on grand jury perjury are what he touched and when he touched it.

    And that's the problem they have.

    They do not want to take that to the floor of the House of Representatives and to the Senate, because it all comes down to, when you ask them for specifics, that Ms. Lewinsky says that he touched her in several places and, to corroborate it, told 10 of her friends. There was no independent corroboration. It is that she told 10 of her friends that the president touched her in certain places, and that he did it in November and not in February. So that's their dilemma; they cannot be specific, because if they are specific, they are trivial. And if they want to be portentous, they have to be vague. That's the choice.

    So Mr. Starr chose to be specific and trivial. The document chooses to be portentous and foreboding and very vague. And that's the dilemma they have. If we ask for the particulars, we get it. "Let's throw the president of the United States out of office. Let's cancel two elections, because when he admitted to her performing sex on him, he didn't tell us that he touched her in return. And for that, we're going to undo two presidential elections."

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's --

    REP. JACKSON LEE: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask the gentleman to get an additional two minutes -- Mr. Wexler.

    REP. : (Off mike.)

    REP. HYDE: Is the gentlelady asking for unanimous consent --

    REP. JACKSON LEE: I'm asking unanimous consent, if he kindly would yield --

    REP. HYDE: -- for who to get two additional minutes?

    REP. JACKSON LEE: Mr. Wexler.

    REP. WEXLER: Sure. And I suppose I'm supposed to yield to --

    REP. JACKSON LEE: I'd ask that you yield.

    REP. WEXLER: -- Ms. Jackson Lee. (Laughter.)

    REP. HYDE: Well, if Mr. Wexler wants two additional minutes, and I hear no objection, we shall do so.

    REP. JACKSON LEE: I thank the gentleman very much.

    I started by saying that the behavior of the president is his; the language of this article is the majority of the committee. And I think that America understands most what it is to have uncorroborated witnesses say something about what you did. And that's why we're asking the question for specificity. What did he do? Because I am looking at Mr. Schippers' reference to grand jury lies, and he's got issues dealing with the fact that the president told them that he didn't know about -- Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed in the Jones case, when he knew it through Mr. Jordan; that he reaffirmed what he said in the deposition, that the Monica Lewinsky affidavit was truthful when he said -- when it said "no sexual relations." There's a whole litany of so-called accusations. And so we don't know which are the ones that are stated in this.

    And the only thing we have is the suggestion that there were some witnesses who heard her say things which they are corroborating. That is the same way, if you be accused of perjury, and the people who are accusing you or who are the people who will be the witnesses have all been talking to each other.

    This gives us no basis, and I think that if we're relying upon language that is in the rule of law perjurious, then you are owed, if you will, the protection of the Fifth Amendment, which is notice.

    And you are also owed the common law protection of Bronson (sp), the case that says that if the witness is unresponsive or evasive, that is not per se perjurious. So if you're relying on the fact that the president said, "I don't recall" or "I can't remember," then it's not per se perjurious. And I think that's where we fall on very weak ground, Mr. Chairman, in this instance.

    REP. HYDE: The gentlelady's time has expired.

    Who is next?

    STAFF: Mr. Chabot.

    REP. HYDE: Mr. Chabot.

    REP. CHABOT: Thank you. You know, the argument is being made by some of the folks on the other side of the aisle here is that the article of impeachment is not specific enough, and we've been debating this issue for about two hours now. Perhaps we need some guidance here. Perhaps we need to find a member of the House of Representatives who both sides respect, somebody who was actually around back in 1974 when the Watergate hearings were going on and Richard Nixon was being investigated -- somebody both sides respect. Now who could that maybe be? How about Charlie Rangel, somebody I think we all agree is an exemplary member of Congress.

    Here's what Charlie Rangel had to say about specifics back in 1974 in the Nixon matter: "If we got bogged down with specifics before the House of Representatives has worked its will, perhaps we would not give the general recommendation to the House that it rightfully deserves. It is not our constitutional responsibility to impeach the president, but merely to report to the House. So it seems to me that we should not be talking about specifics, but give the maximum amount of information to the House of Representatives so that they can deal with the problem constitutionally." That's what Charlie Rangel said back in 1974.

    Now, we've heard numerous times from the president's defenders that the sexual details of this case are salacious and distasteful, et cetera. And I agree, they are distasteful. Now they're distasteful because of the conduct of the president of the United States; that's why they're so distasteful. And we've dealt with them in excruciating detail in Mr. Schippers' report, in the Starr report, and I don't think we need to go through all those salacious details here again today. I'd prefer that we not do that.

    You know, we've reviewed 60,000 pages of documents, 16 boxes of evidence. We've listened to many, many witnesses testify, a significant number of them appearing on behalf of the president. We've heard from history professors, legal experts, even perjurers. We've watched grand jury testimony, we've watched deposition videotapes. We've read transcripts, hundreds even thousands of pages. And it all boils down to this: The president lied before a grand jury, he lied at a deposition when he was under oath. He waved his finger at the American people and lied to them. He liked to his staff, he lied to his Cabinet. He lied so many times in so many forums, it's really hard to keep track of it all.

    Again, the specific details of all the lies were dealt with in great specificity in the Starr report and in Mr. Schippers' presentations before this very committee.

    The articles of impeachment are, in fact, comprehensive and will provide the Senate an opportunity to conduct a fair and appropriate trial without tying their hands. While some would try to bring consideration of these articles to a grinding halt or drag us through the muck, I don't think we need to get into the salacious details over and over again. We've had months to review the evidence provided in sworn testimony by many witnesses and we've listened to the president's people, we've listened to the president on his videotape, we've listened to the independent counsel's report.

    I believe the facts are clear and convincing. The president lied under oath. He committed perjury before a grand jury. The president gave false and misleading testimony before the grand jury regarding his contact with a subordinate federal employee who was a witness in a civil rights suit against him.

    Particularly telling, I believe, is Mr. Schippers' testimony yesterday as it related to the president's claim that the president was not paying attention when he allowed his attorney, Mr. Bennett, to present an affidavit to the court that he knew was false. We all know; the evidence is clear that he knew it was false. The president's videotaped testimony in the sexual harassment case demonstrate that the president in fact was paying clear attention. He was looking directly at his attorney, Mr. Bennett.

    REP. : (Off mike.)

    REP. CHABOT: If I got any time, I will, but I'm almost out of time.

    Perjury cannot be taken lightly. It's a direct assault on our justice system. Ignoring this president's lies and deceit would set a terrible precedent for the future -- for future presidents, for future people who testify in courts throughout this country, and to our nation's children. And I hear over and over again, we've got to do it for the children. And unfortunately, I believe for the children of this nation, this president has to be impeached.

    With the little time I have left, I will yield to Mr. Barr, and I'd ask for an additional two minutes so I can yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, who has been very generous in yielding time to other members today.

    REP. HYDE: Without objection, so ordered.

    REP. BARR: Mr. Chairman, in the event that the words of their former colleague, Mr. Rangel, do not suffice for those who believe that we are doing something without historic precedent in moving forward with articles of impeachment, while they do not contain the full range of all the details the other side would like, do in fact place the president on sufficient notice for him to prepare a defense, which, as Mr. Graham already pointed out, he has already done.

    I would point also to testimony in the Nixon case on the same day which, as Mr. Chabot pointed out, Mr. Rangel spoke, and this is from the lead counsel for the then-majority, Mr. John Dorr, quote, "Mr. Chairman, in my judgment it is not necessary to be totally specific, and I think this article of impeachment meets the test of specificity. There will be a report submitted to the Congress with respect to this article, if the committee chooses to vote this article, and behind that report will be the summary of information as well as all of the material that was presented to this committee." I close quote and let that stand as a very sound historical and legal precedent for the precise language and the sufficiency thereof of this article of impeachment. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.

    REP. WATT: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. BARR: And I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

    REP. WATT: I thank the gentleman for yielding. There was just one aspect of what you said that really troubled me. I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

    You made a reference to not tying the Senate's hands when this goes to the Senate. Is the gentleman saying that once this gets to the Senate, the Senate can add additional perjurious statements? They can just do whatever they want to, once we get over there?

    REP. CHABOT: Reclaiming my time, there are so many perjurious statements in the 60,000 pages, and the previous evidence that we have already had before this committee, I don't think they are going to have to look for additional statements of perjury. There's plenty of them in there.

    REP. WATT: Well, but the question I am asking --

    REP. CHABOT: I'll yield back.

    REP. WATT: -- the question I am asking is, are you saying that they could go outside of the perjurious statements that you have specified?

    REP. CHABOT: Reclaiming my time --

    REP. WATT: -- and just decide what they --

    REP. CHABOT: -- is the gentleman conceding that they are perjurious statements?

    REP. WATT: I beg your pardon?

    REP. CHABOT: You just referred to them as the "perjurious statements." Are you conceding that they are perjurious statements?

    REP. WATT: No. I am conceding that you have alleged that they are perjurious statements, and I have heard a lot of allegations on your side about what is perjurious. And I acknowledge that.

    The question I am asking is, if you haven't specified them or if you do specify them, would the Senate have the right to go beyond what you have specified?

    REP. CHABOT: Reclaiming my time; it's our responsibility as a House, and right now as this committee, to study the evidence over very carefully. And if we feel that there are sufficient grounds for articles of impeachment to be sent to the full House -- and I have reached that conclusion at my time; I think there is sufficient evidence, because I think the president has committed perjury, obstruction of justice, and probably abused his powers of office as well. I have reached that conclusion myself.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rothman.

    REP. CHABOT (?): Thank you.

    REP. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN (D-NJ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    We are discussing articles of impeachment against a sitting United States president for the third time in American history. I would like to use my five minutes to discuss some other things.

    I believe our job is to decide whether treason, bribery or other "high crimes or misdemeanors" have been committed. I think that's what we are supposed to be doing here.

    Let's start with the premise that the accuser bears the burden of proof. Is that foreign to anybody, any American? No. In America, the accuser bears the burden of proof.

    Okay, well what is the burden of proof? Is it proof beyond a reasonable doubt? No. Most constitutional and historical scholars say it's a "clear and convincing" standard of proof that the accuser bears.

    Okay, well, what do we have before this committee? We've got a bunch of lawyers, we've got Judge Starr, Mr. Schippers on the one hand, referring to some portions of statements made in a deposition by a grand jury (sic), none of which were cross-examined, and they infer and conclude from those portions of those statements that high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred.

    We've got a whole bunch of other lawyers on the other side, Messrs. Kendall, Ruff and Lowell, who examine the same statements, same portions of statements, which were never cross-examined by anybody, and say, No, the correct inferences and conclusions are that no high crimes and misdemeanors were committed, that the president did follow this bizarre and narrow definition of sexual relations, and that there is a legitimate question, at least in the president's mind, whether the definition involved whether he was touching her to gratify her or himself. That's what we've got, lawyers arguing inferences and conclusions. Well, where's the fact witness who we can hear, see or cross-examine which inference is correct? Well, we've got 60,000 pages. Well, all we got are lawyers trying to interpret those 60,000 pages, not one fact witness presented before this committee.

    Some say it was up to the president, the accused, to prove his innocence. Where'd they get that notion from? Not from America. Whether you say it's not a criminal case or it is a criminal case, the burden's on the prosecution, on the accuser to bear the burden of proof by fair and convincing evidence.

    So when you have equally intelligent lawyers refuting one another on inferences and conclusions from the same fact, what's this committee left with? Is it clear and convincing evidence, such that we should remove a sitting president of the United States? That's what they constitute by clear and convincing evidence that there were high crimes and misdemeanors? Well, what about -- then they throw this other very emotional but appropriate, but still emotional argument, it's the rule of law.

    Well, there are civil laws and criminal laws. There are civil courts and criminal courts to resolve issues of law. And if someone has lied in a civil deposition they can be fined and punished in the civil courts. If someone commits a criminal offense, they can be punished in a criminal court. The president is not above the law.

    We're talking about a third thing, a third punishment. Not civil punishment or criminal punishment, because that upholds the rule of law in a civil and criminal court. We're talking about whether treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred.

    Now, is the standard somehow expanded so that it's not just treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, but lack of good character, such that, while we don't have clear and convincing evidence since there was no fact witness and intelligent folks have argued equally, what happens when the argument is equal and no fact witness is presented?

    Does the prosecution win? Do we declare the president guilty? I don't think so. We're talking about the impeachment of a president of the United States, let alone any American. And when you have no fact witnesses to help you decide the arguments that have neutralized one another from competent attorneys, I believe the score is zero-zero and the accused is not convicted, and that clear and convincing evidence has not been proven that they should be either sent for trial to the grand jury.

    If I may have one more additional minute, Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: Surely.

    REP. ROTHMAN: You know, the founders of our country in the Federalist Paper 65 said they were very concerned about one political party in the Congress using the power of impeaching to remove an opposing president -- the president of an opposing party, and so they set the bar for impeachment of that president very high. They rejected the notion that perhaps one of the standards in addition to treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors should be failure of good behavior. They rejected that notion. Too low a bar.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. ROTHMAN: They rejected the notion of --

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. ROTHMAN: May I just finish my point?

    They rejected the notion of maladministration. And I believe that if we step back and look at what is now an article of impeachment for the third time in our 200-year history, do we find that a clear and convincing standard of proof has been met for a high crime or misdemeanor, or are we befuddled by the lawyers' talk which has neutralized one another? And we say why didn't the accuser call a single fact witness to support his charges? We don't have to speculate; he didn't. Judge Starr didn't. The majority didn't. Those who want to impeach the president didn't. And we as the jury, if you will, are left zero to zero, and we must say the burden of proof to impeach a sitting United States president has not been met.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Will the gentleman yield now?

    REP. ROTHMAN: I will yield.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: I ask unanimous consent the gentleman be given one additional minute.

    REP. HYDE: Without objection.

    REP. ROTHMAN: Gentleman from New Jersey, first of all, we're not the jury. The jury is the Senate if it gets that far. And we should not be determining what the weight of the evidence should be. We should be determining if there is sufficient evidence to accuse the president through articles of impeachment.

    REP. ROTHMAN: May I reclaim my time?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Secondly, you make the point about Federalist 65, and that's been very frequently quoted. Federalist 65 was written before the 12th Amendment was ratified. Before the 12th Amendment was ratified, the vice president was always the presidential candidate of the losing party. And after Aaron Burr undermined all of Thomas Jefferson's --

    REP. ROTHMAN: If I may reclaim my time --

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: -- proposals, the 12th Amendment was proposed and ratified so that --

    REP. ROTHMAN: I would like to reclaim my time.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: -- the vice president would be the same party as the president.

    REP. ROTHMAN: Reclaiming my time, let me just say this. No one would deny that there is a burden of proof upon anyone who wishes to impeach a sitting United States president. The question is what is the burden of proof? And I think it's fairly unanimous amongst the scholars that the burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence. So that's the standard. And then the question is, in the duel and the battle, the neutralizing battle of lawyers, who have argued equally well that you can draw inferences to support the president's conduct so that it would not be a lie or perjury and those who say you could draw inferences to make it a lie or perjury, that they neutralize on another. And the failure of the accusers, those supporting the president's impeachment, to call a single fact witness is powerful and determinative.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

    The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.

    REP. CHRIS CANNON (R-UT): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a couple of comments, and then yield some of my time to my colleague from Arkansas.

    First of all, I think I need to respond to a couple of things that my friend from New Jersey just said. In fact, the president is probably the one person in America who is above the law for a period of time. While he's president I think the weight of constitutional authority suggests that he can't be prosecuted. This is the one place where it is more important to maintain our political hygiene, that is, through impeachment than it is to have the supremacy of the criminal law take place.

    Secondly, I'd like to make a couple of comments on the distinction between perjury and the perjurious. And I don't mean to speak down to people, particularly in my district, who understand the role of government and the different activities of the various branches and who know what's going on here in this proceeding.

    Everybody agrees this is not a criminal proceeding, period. That's not even an issue. We're also not dealing with a crime here. Perjury is a legal term of art that relates to the criminal law. And with it come certain particulars. What we're talking about here is "perjurious", which means "in the nature of perjury". I can't understand my colleagues on the other side of the aisle making a big deal out of the difference between "perjury" and "perjurious" or trying to make perjurious perjury, because what the American people really care about here is the nature of the acts of our president. They know he's not going to go to jail. They know this is not criminal. We don't need to lecture them about this not being criminal. What they care about is did he do things that would undermine our constitutional system of government?

    And with that, let me yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Arkansas.

    REP. ASA HUTCHINSON (R-AR): I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to comment on a couple of things.

    We continually hear a lack of specificity, and of course I went through in my earlier statements Q&A, question and answer, in the grand jury testimony that are alleged perjurious statements that support the articles.

    But if you look back -- and I think this is important, and Mr. Goodlatte referenced it -- that in the drafting of the articles of impeachment on Richard Nixon -- and I went through the historicals, from Hastings to Nixon -- Judge Nixon, Judge Claiborne -- anytime that there is an article that is drafted relating to false statements, relating to perjury statements, in the same form that this is presented in this case. And so we're following the historical pattern there, and I think that's important.

    It's been said that, you know, well, the president did not give false answers because they're literally true. And I just wanted to reference a case that came down within the last month. A three-judge panel of the Appellate Court gave an opinion that a defendant can be found guilty of perjury when he knew what the question meant and gave knowingly untruthful and materially misleading answers in response. Though his defense was that he gave literally truthful answers, the Kentucky Federal District Court found that he knew what the questioner meant and intended to deceive them. The conviction was upheld by the Sixth Circuit which found, in Judge Rosen's (sp) word that, quote, "A perjury inquiry which focuses only upon the precision of the question and ignores what the defendant knew about the subject matter of the question at the time it was asked, misses the very point of perjury, that is the defendant's intent to testify falsely and thereby misled his interrogators." This gentleman suffered a criminal penalty for the perjury in question in that case.

    Now briefly, the point needs to be made that this is not a technical criminal proceeding. And we're hearing these things like the two witness rule. Sheila Jackson Lee, the gentlelady from Texas made reference to, well, we can't comply with the two witness rule. Again, it is not a criminal proceeding. But that, in fact, applies to 18 USC 1621, it does not apply to 1623 that references grand jury proceedings and ancillary proceedings. And also, in fact, the two witness rule can be complied with one witness plus documentary evidence. All of that, even if you complied with the strict criminal procedures, is met in this case. But this is not a criminal proceeding. We go far beyond that because we're dealing with the public trust. And so I think that's important to put that in perspective.

    I thank the gentleman for yielding.

    REP. SCOTT: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. : Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. CANNON: I'd be happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

    REP. SCOTT: Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

    The gentleman from Arkansas referenced the Judge Nixon case and the format. I have the articles before me, which Article I is false statements to a grand jury. And they cite the statement. Article I false -- was in substance that Forest County District Attorney Paul Holmes never discussed the Drew Fairchild case with Judge Nixon. The second article actually quotes the language. The third article has seven or eight statements that said Judge Nixon never discussed with (Willey ?) Fairchild anything about (Willey's) son's case; (b), (Willey ?) Fairchild never brought up the son's case -- two, three, four, five, right on down the line.

    REP. CANNON: Could I reclaim my time, Mr. Scott? And let me yield again to Mr. Hutchinson.

    REP. HUTCHINSON: Mr. Scott, I thank for bringing that out. And you are right that there are some references in Judge Nixon's impeachment proceedings to particular areas of testimony. You do not see in there an excerpt from the grand jury testimony: "Question: Here is the question. Answer: Here is the answer." That is nowhere in those articles. What you see is a description of the testimony, and that's what you have in the articles before us; the "nature and details of the relationship" with a subordinate government employee.

    And so I think there is a specificity for any defense that the president would want to make. There is no question what we are talking about in this case. There is no question. The American people knows there is no question about the nature of the charges in this case and the question as to what was true or what was not true.

    REP. LOFGREN: But would the gentleman yield?

    REP. FRANK: Will the gentleman from Utah yield?

    REP. CANNON: May I just say that I think we are living with an eternal light here. Why couldn't I get this much time -- (laughter) -- when I was speaking this morning, Mr. Chairman? (Laughs.)

    REP. ROTHMAN: Will the gentleman from Utah yield?

    REP. CANNON: Let me --

    REP. LOFGREN: Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. CANNON: I think that other people have time. I am going to yield back my -- or let me yield to Mr. Bryant, and then I'd be happy to yield to Ms. Lofgren, and then -- depending on how the light lasts.

    REP. BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I have sat and listened to the debate and the debate and the debate and the debate. I think it's very clear about everything that can be said about this issue -- which I believe is a nonissue -- has been said. We have brought out, just in the last few minutes from my colleague from Arkansas, the record, what precedent exists for impeachment of prior charging, which is consistent with the way these charges are written, specifically using the Rodino model as a model. We have heard from my colleague from Georgia, the words of the majority counsel, who explained why it was appropriate to charge in that fashion.

    And it just seems to me that we have a lot of ground to cover today. We are doing important work here. But this issue has been debated, and it seems clear to me that we are on the right side here. Who can quarrel with the precedent and the majority counsel from the Rodino hearings, as well as the Rodino charges? So I might just ask if we can move on and carry this to a vote or whatever it takes to move on to the next issue?

    REP. HYDE: Well, we have one more gentleman on the Democratic side who hasn't been heard from. And please --

    REP. BARRETT: And I think I am the one you have been waiting for.

    REP. HYDE: We have been waiting for you all afternoon, Mr. Barrett.


    REP. THOMAS M. BARRETT (D-WI): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Impeachment is a little bit like a polka-dot zebra. It's a little bit of this and a little bit of that. And we have heard numerous members on the other side say that President Clinton has committed a crime or has committed many crimes.

    We are told that we are sitting in a situation like a grand jury; we are to make a determination whether there is probable cause to charge the president of the United States with impeachable acts.

    But we're also told that the criminal rules of -- the federal rules of criminal procedure don't apply to our proceedings. And my colleagues who say that are absolutely correct. The federal rules of criminal procedures do not apply to the workings of Congress.

    But I don't think you can stop there. I think you have to ask another question and say what's the principle underlying the particular federal rule, whether it's rule of evidence, whether it's a rule of pleadings, what's the principle that establishes that rule.

    And to do that, you simply have to -- for example, in the case of the release of grand jury testimony that we objected so vociferously, we argued that that was unfair to the defendant, because that defendant didn't have an opportunity for his or her counsel to ask questions. That was a rule that was established a long time ago. We argued that it was unfair. This committee decided that that principle of fairness didn't apply to our proceedings, just didn't matter. It didn't matter if it was a principle of fairness that applied to defendants all over this country; it didn't apply to the president of the United States, the person that all of agree should not be above the law, but the person that apparently some people believe can be below the law.

    Now, as the last person to speak, it's -- you got a little time on your hands, so I was able to get the indictment in the latest Webb Hubbell case. This was the one that was just filed less than a month ago. It's the third indictment filed by the independent counsel against Mr. Hubbell. I won't go into that. But I think it's instructive for us, because there is a count of perjury in here, and there are several counts of making false statements. It's pretty much consistent with what we've been hearing today.

    I heard a number of my colleagues on the other side talk about the Nixon case, and in the Nixon case, the Nixon -- Judge Nixon case, that there were references -- Mr. Scott said there were references to the false statements. And in here, in the indictment against Mr. Hubbell, where there are allegations that he made false statements, the document actually states what the false statements were and then states in truth and in fact the defendant then well knew each of these statements was false.

    But it also has a count of perjury. And there it actually quotes the question. It has the question, and it has the answer.

    Now why does it do that? It does that because the words are the crime, and a defendant can't be on notice of what the crime is unless he knows what the words are. The words are the body; they're the identity of the person who's been murdered.

    And to say that the defendant, in this case the president of the United States, does not have the right to know what words are claimed to be perjurious, I think simply flies in the face of fairness -- fundamental fairness. He should be on notice as to what he's being charged with.

    Now the claim I hear from some of my colleagues is, "Holy Moly, there are so many of them we can't list them all." Well, to me that's not a reason to forego notice to a defendant. If there are so many statements that constitute perjury, that's all the more reason to put the president on notice as to why this body is coming after him. If you look at this, it's not difficult -- it's not difficult at all. I don't if there's any law clerks in the office of our opposing party here, but certainly a law student could go through and say what the questions and the answers. So there's got to be another reasons why it's not in here, and I think the reason, as Mr. Frank has said so many times, is because this is a nasty-sounding claim -- perjury before a grand jury. But I also agree with Mr. Graham, that the real nub of this is the president of the United States refused to state which body parts he touched, and that could very well have been a lie. In fact, I think that the president knew whether or not he touched and he knew where he touched her, but he refused to say what it was.

    The problem, of course, is if we present that to the American people, they're going to question whether that's an impeachable offense, so by leaving it in this form, without notice to the president, we make it sound much worse than perhaps it is, and I'm not saying that it's not bad. But I think that's the reason that it's not here, and I think that's the reason it should be here.

    REP. : Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

    Normally we would proceed to a vote; however, Mr. Rogan has a last-minute amendment that he would like to offer --

    REP. ROGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: So the clerk will report.

    CLERK: Amendment of Mr. Rogan to H. Res. blank, page 2 --

    REP. : Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

    REP. : Go ahead and distribute, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: We'd better -- it --

    REP. ROGAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to have the amendment read. It will take less time than to have it considered as read.

    REP. HYDE: Please read it, it's so terribly short.

    CLERK: Amendment of Mr. Rogan to H.Res. blank, page 2, line 17, insert concerning the following -- after "concerning" the following: one or more of the following.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment.

    REP. ROGAN: Mr. Chairman, thank you. With respect to Article I of the Articles of Impeachment, for the benefit of those who haven't yet received the amendment, it would essentially take the charging paragraph and change it to read as follows: On August 17th, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton --

    REP. : Mr. Chairman, we cannot hear at this end.

    REP. HYDE: If the gentleman would speak closer to the microphone and with a tad more volume.

    REP. ROGAN: That will be the first and last time, Mr. Chairman, that will ever be requested of me during my legislative career.

    It will change the paragraph to essentially add the same conforming language that is found already in Articles III and IV and which I understand the gentleman from South Carolina will be offering to Article II. It's technical amendment only, and I would ask the members to consider my vote on it.

    REP. HYDE: Is there any further discussion?

    REP. FRANK: Yes -- (off mike).

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Massachusetts.

    REP. FRANK: Mr. Chairman, I think this makes a bad situation worse. As I understand it, what we're talking about now is it will accuse the president of "one or more of the following," which means, as I read this, correct me, we now have four general categories and the president stands accused of committing perjury with regard to one, two, three or four or more. I -- you've taken an article of impeachment and made it a multiple choice test. Shouldn't you have, Mr. Chairman, Article V to keep with the dignity of this? Shouldn't there be, "Five: All of the above"?

    I mean, here's what it will say: "The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following." So, maybe it was one, but maybe it was two, or maybe it was three, maybe it was three and four, maybe it was one, two and four. I am baffled by this. You've had quite a few months here. Is there no consensus among you on which of these?

    Once again, I think I see what we have. And by the way, it seemed to me that my friend from Arkansas gave an inaccurate response to the excellent point of the gentleman from Virginia about the particularities of the Judge Nixon case. As the gentleman from Virginia said, in the Judge Nixon case it said he made a false statement by denying he had talked to the DA to get him to drop the case about his partner's son -- a very different thing, by the way, than which body part you're talking about. In the Judge Nixon case, it was perjury in which a federal judge denied trying to fix a case of a drug dealer who was his partner's son by going to a state judge. But it didn't say -- actually, if the Judge Nixon case followed your model, it would have said, "false statement concerning the nature and details of his conversation with another judge." It would have left out the gravamen of the charge.

    But what you're really trying to do now is -- I don't know, what is this, a shell game? I guess that's the question -- under which pea is the impeachment?

    REP. : Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. FRANK: Is it under number one, or is it under number two, or maybe it's under three and two, or four and one, or two and three, and how are you going to defend it? I mean, I have to say, the notion -- and I hope this doesn't go anywhere and I hope we don't bog the country down -- but I'm almost intrigued here.

    I want to see Chief Justice Rehnquist sitting there while the senators try to guess under which pea you have concealed the impeachment. The point is that you ought to be making specific charges. And what you now have is -- you're going to seriously argue that the president should be charged with one or more of the following, and not two?

    Now, I understand a kind of reluctance on the part of the minority -- the majority to live up to their responsibilities, because I think when you vote for a resolution that says the president has done terrible things and ought to be thrown out of office, that's what you're voting for. And to say that you're voting for that but you don't really mean it, I mean, "We're just the piano players, we're just sending it upstairs and then the Senate will decide whether it's true or not true," that absolute avoidance of responsibility is compounded when now you won't even say which are the ones you care about, which are the ones you mean.

    So we're simply going to say, "Hey, look, we found four things. We looked through the Starr report. We didn't really like those too much; they were too trivial. We went through the Schippers report; that's pretty wide-ranging, that's got a lot. We're going to pick four. We'll describe them vaguely. We'll throw them out there. And we'll tell you one, two, three or four, or two or three, are there. And you, the Senate, figure it out. And, by the way, haven't we done a wonderful job? Haven't we been responsible members of Congress? We've gone through here and we've thrown that mix on the table."

    I'll yield to the ranking member.

    REP. CONYERS: Will the gentleman yield? Now, we've spent two hours begging for more specificity, and now, as a result of that plea, we now get an amendment that adds to more generality and makes it more difficult to become more accurate.

    REP. FRANK: What we got was, of course, more ambiguity, and that reinforces the (substantive ?) point. We're not interested in specificity for it's own sake. We are talking here about how the issue is framed. It is the most important issue possible, do we undo the election; do we throw the duly-elected president out of office? And we are asking that this issue be framed. And if you are saying that the president of the United States should be thrown out of office because, having acknowledged that he had a sexual relationship, he misstated the date by three months of when it started, and he did not give details about what he touched, then say so. But do not take refuge in confusion, obscurity and, now, ambiguous obscurity. You list four general categories without any specificity, and then you don't even say which ones you stand behind. This is an abdication of responsibility that is absolutely breathtaking on a matter of such centrality to our democracy.

    REP. CONYERS: Absolutely. Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Chairman, I think we're seeing a continuation of legal hair-splitting, albeit quite a bit more humorous than that which we heard from either the president's counsel or Mr. Lowell yesterday. This merely takes care of a drafting error in the articles of impeachment that were put before us. And what it says is that you only have to prove up one kind of false statement when it goes to trial. Now, you know, the question, I think, is, is one false statement enough to warrant the impeachment and removal from office of the president? I answer that question yes because one false statement is one lie. I think that what the other side is trying to do, with all of their humor and have everybody laugh about what the chief justice of the United States would have to rule on, is to set up to make an argument that you've got talk about -- or prove all four kinds of false statements.

    That's not the intent of the article of impeachment, and Articles III and IV, I think, have the - one or more of the following statements in, Mr. Graham will have one relative to Article II. You know, I think that, you know, really what they're trying to do is to laugh over something that's a drafting error, and this amendment simply corrects it.

    REP. BARR: Will the gentleman yield, please?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

    REP. BARR: I thank the gentleman.

    If I might inquire of the gentleman from Wisconsin, is it not standard prosecutorial procedure to use this precise language in the drafting of indictments?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Absolutely.

    REP. ROGAN: Will the gentleman yield to me?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Does the gentleman from California want me to yield to him?

    REP. ROGAN: I do. I thank the gentleman. Actually, before my colleagues on the left get terribly exercised about this, I will tell them that this language is being inserted at their request. It was the request of the Democrats that we follow the Rodino models for impeachment. This was not language that we invented. This was the language that the Democrats used in Article I and Article II of the impeachment articles against Richard Nixon. The difference is when they drafted the articles against President Nixon, they had broad categories of impeachable offenses. It was either/or perjury or obstruction of justice. We have narrowed it much more definitively against President Clinton than they did against President Nixon. So, no -- to my friend from Massachusetts -- I did not get the idea from Monty Hall or "Let's Make A Deal," I got it from those venerable Democrats who preceded us in the impeachment inquiry that you requested we follow as a model.

    REP. FRANK: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin yield?

    REP. ROGAN: I yield back.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: I yield back the balance of my time.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Michigan.

    REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman, this -- I'm almost inclined to want to come to a vote right away, but to take this language and now make it a shell game is an offense to the experience of impeachment in the United States' history. This does not follow the Rodino model. I would merely like you to recall that there was bipartisan agreement in 1974 in the Watergate because there wasn't controversy about the CIA involvement, the FBI, the IRS, and the war against Nixon's political opponents, and the hush money, and the subversion of government.

    And so that does not apply here. And to take the prosecutorial tactics of any and all and expand into anything they can catch and now put this into an article of impeachment on perjury destroys any rational approach to this subject.

    REP. FRANK: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. CONYERS: Of course.

    REP. FRANK: I thank the gentleman.

    As to the argument that this is a standard criminal prosecution, I think I heard a lot of people on the other side differentiating impeachment from a criminal prosecution recently. So it underwent a very quick transmogrification.

    In fact, it is not a criminal proceeding, it is a political proceeding in the broadest sense of the word. Remember, the Founding Fathers decided to send this to Congress. They didn't decide to send impeachments to the Supreme Court. It is to be decided on the facts and with political considerations, in the sense of democracy in the broad -- involved.

    And when you are dealing in that situation, to throw in a laundry list, which you may not believe, poisons the atmosphere. To make accusations you're not prepared to stand behind, which you do when it's one or more, poisons the atmosphere.

    And as far as a criminal trial is concerned, remember, in a criminal trial, the defendant may be convicted on one, two, three, four, five, six of the counts, and the sentence will vary according to how many counts. But here there's only one sentence, impeachment or not impeachment. So that model is irrelevant. Yes, it is relevant how many of the counts, and you might want to charge a bunch of counts in a criminal case. And the number of counts convicted affects disposition. Here this is either political capital punishment or an acquittal. So doing it in this way simply is an attempt -- and it's very clear -- it's an attempt to try and build some substance around a charge.

    Remember, from the beginning members on the other side have said, "We can't impeach him before we've got his sex. We can't impeach him." So we've had a hunt. We had a hunt through the campaign finance and Whitewater and the FBI. Even sex -- it had to be not consensual sex, sexual harassment; they wanted a Kathleen Willey. There has been a constant effort to find something beyond lying about a private consensual sexual affair. And since they couldn't find it in reality, they tried to cover it up in the drafting.

    REP. CONYERS: So --

    REP. FRANK: This is Phase II of the expansion. I thank the gentleman.

    REP. CONYERS: So what we have here now is an article that states there are 60,000 pages of materials. We had four counts. We've now added one or more of the following. So now Mr. Canady volunteered some more. So we may have anywhere between four and 104. Somewhere in these 60,000 pages, you -- we're asking the members of the House of Representatives, under what will almost surely be limited debate, to determine where, if, or under any circumstances there could be anything that could reach the standard of perjury.

    REP. : Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. CONYERS: This is the most incredible article --

    REP. SCHUMER: Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. CONYERS: -- and it proves that the more we talk about it, the more we go in the wrong direction.

    I yield to the gentleman from New York.

    REP. SCHUMER: Yeah. Would the gentleman yield?

    Yeah, you know, I think my colleague from Massachusetts used appropriate humorous language. But I am still amazed at what is going on here, and the more I sit here the more amazed I am. Instead of the seriousness with which this should be approached, now we're saying we spent three months of hearings, we have all this evidence, and we're not sure of which ones it should be. We're going to send to the House, and possibly to the Senate, a range and they can choose. That's not what we're supposed to be doing here. We're supposed to be weighing very serious charges.

    Instead of striking the last word, I ask unanimous consent for two minutes to finish my point.

    REP. HYDE: Would you settle for one?

    REP. SCHUMER: I'd take two, Mr. Chairman, or I'll strike the last word and do five.

    REP. CONYERS: I'll yield -- I'll yield.

    REP. HYDE: You've got them. Two minutes.

    REP. SCHUMER: Thank you. Thank you. (Laughter.)

    And what I'd say is this; you don't send a full menu and decide. Maybe the majority is having some doubts, or some members of the majority, about one or two of the aspects here. Maybe the arguments we made, that points three and four really have very little basis -- none in the Starr and even in the Schippers not much basis, so you're hedging your bets. You don't do that when it comes to impeachment. You make a decision whether that high bar of impeachment is reached, and you send your considered judgment, first to the full House and to the Senate.

    And one other point I'd like to make. The majority keeps invoking the Watergate hearings when they want to, but not when they don't. But let me tell you this, the number one reason that Peter Rodino was regarded as a leader and that the hearings were regarded as fair and had a national consensus behind them is that they were bipartisan; that they had a significant number of the minority party who went along. And what distinguishes this is, in my judgment, the lack of real facts, the playing of games, the idea that well it's maybe this one day and maybe that another day, is the reason you haven't brought a single member of the minority party along in this committee, and the reason that you are unlikely to bring hardly any along in the House.

    And that is the glaring distinction between the Rodino hearings and these hearings. And until it changes and until you say, "Yes, this is serious," and, "Yes, the president and the nation is entitled to a Bill of Particulars on perjury," and until you say, "It is not fair to say one or more," then it will continue to be regarded as a partisan activity that will not have the support of Americans and will go down in history as something that America is not proud of.

    REP. MCCOLLUM (R-FL) (?): Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum.

    REP. MCCOLLUM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I do think this is an extraordinarily serious matter. I don't think anybody thinks it's less than that, and I don't think it should be trivialized.

    The Article I that we are discussing today appropriately should be "one or more." There are four parts to it, any one of which is a major charge against the president of the United States, any one of which could stand alone; not one little line somewhere that he said something that might be perjurious in one word or something, but broad and very specific in the nature that they are presented; "the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee."

    The second one is prior perjurious false and misleading testimony he gave in the federal civil-rights action brought against him; the third one, prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney make to a federal judge in that civil-rights action; and fourth, his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in the civil-rights action, specifically the hiding of the gifts, the affidavit and the Betty Currie testimony.

    Now, having said all of that, if you look back at Richard Nixon's impeachment articles -- and I do think it's fair to do that; this book has them in it, and it's the -- third page, I guess, of the book, the first thing in it -- the first article discusses whether or not the president had failed to faithfully execute his office; prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice. Pretty darn broad language.

    The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan include one or more of the following: Number one, making or causing to be made false and misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States; two, withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States; three, approving, condoning, acquiescing in and counseling witnesses, et cetera. And it goes on and on. There are nine of them, not four but nine.

    The second article also charged the president with repeatedly engaging in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens -- very broad language. "This conduct has included one or more of the following," and there are five of them under that. And so on goes the list. So we're not doing anything extraordinary. What I'm afraid the other side is trying to do is precisely what they're accusing us of. The other side is trying to trivialize this matter. And this is not a trivial matter.

    What we're dealing with here today is far from simply a matter about the president possibly touching certain parts of "the other woman," as he called her. What we're dealing with today is the fact that the president of the United States engaged in a scheme, an elaborate scheme, to lie and to get other people to lie and to hide evidence and get other people to hide evidence in order to thwart the opportunity of Paula Jones to bring her civil rights sexual harassment suit in court and have it properly adjudicated.

    Whether you agree with her tactic or not, the court allowed it that she, as part of her case, could try to bolster the credibility of her allegations by showing that the president had engaged and was still engaging in a pattern of illicit relations with women in his employment. Whatever the merits of that, that's what she was trying to do. And the president was determined to defeat that.

    Those were the rights this woman had, at that point in time when he conducted his first lies in his deposition, were involving the proof of those other instances with regard to the president, whom she was suing at the time. And we're undermining a fundamental right if we don't let her get at the truth. The president was undermining it.

    That's what we're here all about today; that is, can we have people's rights, whether it's the little boy on the bicycle who's hit by a car and gets injured, have his right in court, or the little lady who's been bilked out of her savings have a chance to recover? All of that depends upon truth being told by witnesses who are sworn, and they are not supposed to commit perjury. And then the president compounds this all by going before the grand jury months later, after he's done all of this, and lies again under oath in front of the grand jury in an even greater matter. This is far from trivial.

    REP. : Could we have regular order?

    REP. MCCOLLUM: If you recall -- I'm on my five minutes of time.

    REP. : No, I just want to be able to hear you, Mr. McCollum.

    REP. MCCOLLUM: If you will recall, back at the beginning of this process the president had a cover -- a set of cover stories with Monica Lewinsky. That's how all this got started, to cover up his relationship. They knew that they would lie. They agreed they would tell these cover stories if anybody ever asked them.

    And then along comes the opportunity for the president to see this suit actually materializing, with Monica on the witness list. And she and he have this discussion when he tells her she's on the list, and she said, "What do I do if I'm subpoenaed?" And he said, "Why don't you file an affidavit so you don't have to testify?" And she assumes, as she tells us and tells the grand jury under oath, that she's going to tell a lie in the affidavit, and she assumes he would assume that because they discussed the cover stories in the very same conversation where he asked her to file or suggested she file the affidavit.

    So knowing that she's going to do this, anticipating that she's going to do it, never explicitly asking her that day to lie, but knowing she's going to, he then proceeds to go give his own testimony in that deposition in which we saw excerpts yesterday of where he clearly counted on being able to tell those same lies and the same story. Then he calls up Betty Currie right afterwards, because he used her name a whole bunch of times, thinking she's going to go testify in that case possibly, because he said, "You'd better check with Betty Currie on this," and he encourages her to corroborate his lies that he's told.

    Now, he's done all of this and much more that we know about, but I don't want to tell the whole story again. The point is, this is not trivial. This is not trivial at all. He goes to the grand jury and repeats those lies, and lies again and again. And we presented this, I think, very carefully in article one in ways that anybody could understand, four parts. It ought to be -- framed the way this amendment does, it ought to say one or more. Each one of them can stand alone. Each one's powerful. Every member, just as in Watergate, should have the opportunity to conclude the president committed perjury before the grand jury if he or she concludes that any one of the four is indeed perjurious and indeed a false and misleading statement.

    And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. Is there further discussion?

    REP. NADLER: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: Mr. Nadler.

    REP. NADLER: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

    REP. HYDE: Why, of course. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

    REP. NADLER: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to surprise some people. I don't think this amendment matters one way or the other. I think it's frankly wasteful and will have no impact one way or the other, because this article of impeachment is just that, an article of impeachment. And whether or not you say, "one or more of the following," these are not elements of a crime all four of which have to be proven in order to get a senator or a House member to vote for it.

    A House member or a senator will vote for it if they think it is sufficiently established. And in their own mind, they will determine whether to sufficiently establish the article so as to get their votes, you have to prove one or two or three or four of these. So I don't think the amendment frankly matters.

    But it does give all of us a time to speak on this article again, for which I thank the gentleman. And we --

    REP. HYDE: We planned it that way.

    REP. NADLER: Good. Let me avail myself of that opportunity. We heard the gentleman from Florida just went through all this litany again of all the president's alleged perjuries. He didn't specifically list them, but he said, "He lied, he lied, he lied," as did Mr. Schippers yesterday. Mr. Ruff two days ago, Mr. Lowell yesterday, I think very persuasively knocked holes in these alleged perjuries.

    And I don't think -- and I think that these articles of impeachment, every one of them, should not be approved today for several reasons; one, because they are far from proven. The evidence just doesn't support it. Number two, because even if they were provable, they are far from impeachable offenses. None of these are abuses of presidential power that undermine the structure or functioning of government or undermine personal liberty.

    Perjury in a private sexual affair is a low crime, a serious crime but a low crime, not a crime against the state and ought to be prosecuted if it were provable, although we heard a bunch of mostly Republican prosecutors the other day tell us that no reasonable prosecutor -- and I presume they didn't include Mr. Starr in that category -- would think of bringing a prosecution on the evidence we have here, and you'd never get a conviction. But nonetheless, that's the appropriate forum for this kind of alleged crime. These are not high crimes and misdemeanors under the meaning of the Constitution.

    But if, despite that, if, despite the weight of tradition, of precedent and of scholarly opinion that these are not high crimes and misdemeanors, this committee chooses to put forward articles of impeachment, at least they ought to follow due process of law. The due process of law demands specificity in a perjury count.

    Now, it doesn't demand that the specific words be listed in the article itself, but it does demand that, contemporaneous with the article, there be a piece of paper that says, "These are the alleged perjurious words. This is the notice. We're not going to add or surprise you with more allegations or different allegations later. We don't make you guess which of the many different references Mr. Schippers referred to, some by paraphrase, some by specifics, we're talking about. This is what you must offend against. This is what we're voting on." I think we, as members of the committee, and the members of the House in a few days next week, are entitled to know the specific allegations.

    Now, when the Nixon case was voted a generation ago, the specific words were not in the article, nor need they be now. But they were in the report of the committee. So all we are asking -- I asked for this beginning this morning at about, what was it, 11:00, and we've been talking about it ever since. It shouldn't take the staff between 11:00 and 4:00 -- we'll be here another few hours yet, I'm sure -- go in the back room, write down the specific allegations, come out, pass it out and say, "This is what we're talking about."

    That's all we're asking. Is it that the staff is incapable of this or that you want to play a guessing game? I'm not sure. But it is wrong. We're told that this entire question, the president must be impeached to uphold the rule of law. But the rule of law demands due process. Due process demands notice of the charges against someone. And that demands, especially in perjury, demands the specifics. So I fail to understand why we don't have the specifics or why we're not supplied with the specifics in writing so we know what they are, and they're set and they're locked and they can't be changed, because it's unfair to change them later.

    Thank you. And I'll yield to my friend from Virginia.


    REP. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, can I be recognized -- (inaudible)?

    REP. NADLER: I yield back the balance of my time.

    REP. HYDE: Mr. Coble is next.

    REP. COBLE: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. And I assure you, I will not use anywhere near the five minutes. I am confident, Mr. Chairman, that the report that will accompany these articles will be as specific as was the report that accompanied the articles regarding the Watergate matter. Now, my friend from Ohio, I think it was, quoted our good friend Charlie Rangel, our Democrat friend from New York, in the Watergate matter when Mr. Charlie, Mr. Rangel, indicated that there was no need to go into great specificity or great detail.

    I'm going to revert 25 years, Mr. Chairman, and I can imagine that what Mr. Rangel was doing was probably responding to a Republican charge, just as we've been responding to our Democrat charges this afternoon. That's the nature of being in the minority. It's a lot easier to throw grenades than it is to catch them. And when you're in the minority, you throw them. I know, because I've been there before. This is not a case of first impression.

    But I want to say this, Mr. Chairman. One of my buddies from over yonder -- and I regard most all of them as my buddies -- but somebody, unless I misunderstood it, implied that my good friend from California, Mr. Rogan's amendment would have in some way enlarged or broadened article one and permitted additional charges to be added.

    Clearly not true. It says very precisely "one or more of the following." So that would restrict it to the four. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from Ohio.

    REP. CHABOT: I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know several of my Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle were not in the room when I read Mr. Rangel's quotation from the 1974 Watergate investigation during that particular hearing. I'd just like to read it very quickly again. Here's what Charlie Rangel said on this very specific argument on specifics.

    "If we got bogged down with specifics before the House of Representatives has worked its will, perhaps we would not give the general recommendations to the House that it rightfully deserves. It is not our constitutional responsibility to impeach the president but merely to report to the House. So it seems to me that we should not be talking about specifics but give the maximum amount of information to the House of Representatives so they can deal with the problem constitutionally."

    I yield back.

    REP. : Would the gentleman from North Carolina yield?

    REP. COBLE: Mr. Chairman, as promised, I yield back.

    REP. HYDE: All right, the time has been yielded back. Who else seeks recognition?

    REP. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: Mr. Scott.

    REP. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the way to legitimately do this one or more or pick and choose is to have separate articles so when you vote, you can agree with a whole specific article. This amendment allows members to look and see if there's anything in the article they agree with. Then they can vote yes, in spite of the fact that the most serious offenses are not proven. In fact, we might as well add other heinous crimes. You don't have to prove an allegation. You just have to make it.

    By adding unproven, vague allegations that don't have to be proved, you can pass a serious-sounding article by finding just that one of the flimsiest parts of it is true. This last-minute add-on is not new to this committee. Just in the last couple of weeks the scope of this committee inquiry has added on the Willey matter, the campaign finance matter. A couple of days ago the gentleman from South Carolina added on a charge. The gentleman from Arkansas added on another charge. Even after all of the testimony was in, the majority counsel added on unnamed, unspecified charges after the opportunity had long gone for anybody to respond.

    As the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from New York have reminded us, the reason we're asking for specificity, if and when we ever get the specifics, then we can determine whether they're even impeachable offenses. Where is the subversion of government? We know that half-million-dollar income tax fraud isn't an impeachable offense, but we can't get to that question because we can't get a coherent answer to what the charges are, and this amendment doesn't help.

    And I yield to the gentlelady from California.

    REP. LOFGREN: Thank you. I just want to make a couple of comments as to specificity. I agree with my colleague, Mr. Nadler, that the one or more is not the problem so much as the lack of specificity itself in the underlying article. Looking at our precedents and first going to the Johnson case, there are articles and then there is specification first with the details in the word-by-word allegation of what the president was supposed to have said, and then specification second and specification third.

    Much has been said about the Watergate matter. And while it's true that all of the evidence was not recited in the various articles, especially in article two, there was much specificity in the article, and it's worth reiterating and reminding the committee that accompanying the articles was a statement of information that was very specific as to the absolute detail that was being alleged that the president had done, numbered by paragraphs with copies of the evidence.

    Looking at judicial -- although I don't think they're precedent in terms of the standard for high crimes and misdemeanors -- looking at the Hastings case, all of the articles where false statements are alleged quote the statements that are being referred to. And I do think it's important that we know what we're doing, not only for due process and notice to the president but for notice to our colleagues, who I think as early as next week will be asked to vote upon one or more articles. And I'm beginning to think that my colleague from Massachusetts is correct. We are writing the articles in this way because we do not want to admit what the issue really is.

    Looking at the Starr report referenced by the chairman this morning as incorporated in these articles, on page 148 is the following statement by Mr. Starr: "The president's grand jury testimony contradicts Ms. Lewinsky's grand jury testimony on the question whether the president touched Ms. Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia during their sexual activity."

    I cannot believe that the founding fathers meant for the fate of the nation and the will of the people to fall or rise based on whether or not Ms. Lewinsky or the president's version of breasts and genitalia touching was accurate. I cannot imagine that the chief justice of the Supreme Court in the Senate is going to sit and listen to the two individuals testify as to this matter. And I cannot believe that this is what we are going to be sending to our colleagues. But obviously it is, and we ought to admit it instead of trying to hide it behind the imprecise articles before us.

    REP. JACKSON-LEE: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: The gentlelady from Houston, Ms. Jackson-Lee.

    REP. JACKSON-LEE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know, as I listen to this debate, it's quite striking to me, because I remember, if my memory serves me well, if I can recollect, that a couple of weeks ago we started -- I brought up the issue of the Fifth Amendment being part of the proceedings of this process, to ensure that we did abide by or be guided by, if you will, the rule of law to the extent that we recognize notice and due process.

    I think what the American people understand is basic fairness. And I don't think the amendment even comes near to the question of fairness, because all it does is provide for a listing, an either/or, an A, B, C, D or E. It does not provide the specificity that is important to notice. And let me explain to the American people about this whole question with great respect to my colleagues in 1974 of what this means when we vote out articles of impeachment, and let's just send it to the House.

    What is actually happening is that members who are scattered all over the nation -- some overseas, some finishing up various medical procedures, as the newspapers have indicated -- will be expected to come back here next Thursday and vote on these articles. Now, with great respect for my colleagues, I don't know if they will have read 60,000 pages or even 1600 pages. So it is our responsibility in this room, if we pass out articles of impeachment, to be satisfied that they are grounded constitutionally and they are specific enough, that our colleagues will vote not only their conscience but with information.

    And might I say something to my colleague, Mr. Hutchinson, because he reminded me on the issue of the two-corroborating-witness issue. And I want to clarify that. I use it in particular because it is a Department of Justice standard to use two witnesses as they proceed in trial. It is certainly a guide. But also in the grand jury, we are told that though the two-witness rule may not be applied, it is nonetheless clear from the case law that perjury prosecutions require a high degree of proof.

    And we can ultimately use the two-witness rule or the two-witness corroboration rule, because even though there are two bodies, the House and the Senate, and the Senate will try this case, we have a responsibility not to send frivolous articles of impeachment, ones that we know will ultimately fail. We have a responsibility as the "prosecutors," in quotes, to not send forward those articles that will not prevail, that have no basis whatsoever. So I think the idea of the two-witness rule is an important one. It's a standard by which we should be guided.

    And then my good friend from Arkansas also quoted a fourth circuit case about this whole issue of unresponsiveness and evasiveness. But the Bronson case is a Supreme Court case, a higher authority.

    So that means that we are relying upon so- called lies that may necessarily have been really "I can't recollect," "I can't recall," or the fact that the questioner did not ask the question.

    So I still think that this article of impeachment that we have before us fails because its underpinnings are not specific. There is no notice. There is no abiding of due process. And we have an obligation in this committee, holding on to the constitutional premise that everyone deserves fairness and justice, that the president even deserves to be notified of the allegations and charges, and most of all, most of all to my colleagues, who are relying upon us as the first arbiter, if you will, of the facts, coming back on Thursday to vote on articles, in essence, that we will say to them "you can go to the Ford Building in about five minutes and look at those 60,000 pages, and a variety of other pages. Or you might even want to call your own witnesses, so that you can determine whether or not these articles are premised factually."

    That is the fallacy in what we have before us. They use the term "perjurious." They did not have to use it . And might I say, I'm reading federal civil rights action. Can I just clarify for the record? I assume it is the Paula Jones that was dismissed, and so I'm a little offended by a "civil rights action." It was dismissed. and on appeal, there was no appeal, or there was no decision. There was a settlement, of which, as I understand, a settlement does not admit or deny on either party.

    REP. HYDE: The gentlelady's --

    REP. JACKSON LEE: I am proud of harassment laws --

    REP. HYDE: -- time has expired.

    REP. JACKSON LEE: -- if you will, Mr. Chairman, because they mean something to those of us who are women, and those of us who are men in the workplace. But the case was dismissed, and so this is a non-precise article, Mr. Chairman, and this amendment does not help it.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.

    REP. WATT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief. But I tried to get my colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Coble's attention when he had time to get him to yield, and I don't think he knew that I was trying to get him to yield to me.

    REP. COBLE: I didn't hear you. If I had heard you, I would have done that.

    REP. WATT: I know you would have yielded to me if you had. But I wanted to respond to a point that he made, which was that he was sure that the staff would add the necessary specificity at some point in this process. And I've heard several people refer to Congressman Rangel's statement back in the Watergate impeachment process as a precedent for that.

    Let me tell you my concern with that, what Mr. Coble has suggested. I believe that would put us in the position of delegating our responsibility on this committee to the staff. Now, I think you can do that if the staffs are working together on the content of something, and if the committee has a bipartisan agreement that what has happened constitutes an impeachable offense.

    In this particular case, 1998 as contrasted to 1974, I simply haven't seen any indication of bipartisanship at the member level, nor have I seen any indication of consultation in drafting or preparing information to submit to anybody at the staff level.

    So, when you have a bipartisan agreement going on about what's going to happen, as there was in 1974, it's very easy to say "Okay, we are all in agreement about what the offense is, and the staffs are working together, they have drafted this together and brought it to us." And it's very easy to then pass that on to the staff.

    But when you start out with a lack of bipartisanship at the member level, and a lack -- I referred to it in the presentations between Mr. Lowell and Mr. Schippers, the first presentations as they were "light years apart." And yesterday, they were light years apart. There is no bipartisanship here on the committee.

    So, to leave that obligation, or delegate it to the staffs, simply is a delegation to the Republican staff to do this. And I think that then becomes a delegation of responsibility that we as members of this committee, can't -- if we are fulfilling our constitutional responsibility we simply can't do that. And that's the point I wanted to make to Mr. Coble. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: Mr. Bryant.

    REP. BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would move the previous question.

    REP. HYDE: The previous question has been moved.

    REP. CONYERS: Could I inquire of the -- we only have one more speaker.

    REP. HYDE: Will the gentleman withhold?

    REP. BRYANT: I will gladly withhold. Thank you.

    REP. HYDE: All right. The gentlelady from California, who I assume is the last speaker.

    REP. WATERS: I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.

    REP. WATERS: When I asked earlier for a recess, it was precisely to see if there was some opportunity to work in a bipartisan way to come up with some specificity, so that we could get this beyond us. Of course, that was not done. And the amendment that was offered by Mr. Rogan, only complicated the matter, because it went to the opposite end of the scale on our request for specificity.

    So, let me just say that to those who keep asking me -- and many of the reporters and others out in the hallway, I mean, "Can't there be some compromise, or some compromises between the Democrats and the Republicans? Can you work in a bipartisan way on anything?"

    Well, I think that we really can, but we have to understand -- we have to want to do it. We have to have the will to do that.

    We're missing the opportunity. And we've got three more articles to go through, and we're going to have the same arguments about a lack of specificity. We've been over four hours on this one, and it's going to continue to happen. I mean, we're not going to go away, because we think it is very, very important. I think I know why there is not a desire to put specificity, to specify the charges inside these referrals, but let me just say this.

    With all due respect to all of the references to Mr. Charlie Rangel, I'm absolutely surprised to know that Mr. Lindsey Graham, as he said, "loves" Charlie Rangel, and Mr. Rangel's words are being used to guide us today.

    Well, let me just tell you what Mr. Rangel says about this impeachment. Mr. Rangel said that we should not be impeaching the president of the United States. It's outrageous. That we do not have any legitimate charges, that we are in violation of our oath that we have taken to uphold the Constitution.

    So, if you like what Mr. Rangel says, take him up on what he's saying to everybody, to me and the press and everybody else, that we need to put an end to this right away. And if you need Mr. Rangel to come down and tell you, I'll ask him to do that.

    Let me just say, in reference to what Ms. Lofgren said. Zoe said that specificity would force you to place in words, information about where the president touched Monica Lewinsky, and where he did not touch her. You don't want to do that, because you know how ridiculous that is, to have a charge of perjury about who touched who and when. I think that one of our members said it, it's "he said, she said." And you can't get perjury out of that.

    It is absolutely ridiculous that you would list how many times the president had sex conversation, or phone conversation, or whatever you call it, about sex. In this referral, Mr. Ken Starr talks about the president lied because he said it was occasional, and she gave a specific number of times.

    I'm sure you don't want to list that in articles of impeachment about the president of the United States of America. I'm sure that you don't want to list and be specific about the gifts, and the hiding of the gifts, and try to prove obstruction of justice. I really don't think you want to list for debate by the Senate and anybody else, what Betty Currie did with a hatpin, a teddy bear, and a T-shirt. It is outrageous, and you know it.

    We're not going to solve it here today, because you don't have anywhere to go with this. The only real place to go, is to back out of it, and say "we were wrong, we shouldn't have done it this way, and let's think about some other way to show the president that we are unhappy, displeased, with the actions that he has taken."

    We're not going to get any specificity in any of these referrals, because the allegations are so outrageous, so flimsy, so ridiculous, that they dare not put it in writing, they dare not write it down, because they know that the American people won't buy it. But after today, the American people are going to know when the word goes out of here, that we voted to send articles of impeachment to the floor of the House, then all those who have been shopping since Thanksgiving, all of those who thought that this was going to go away, all of those who thought somehow it was going to be resolved, will know exactly what has taken place.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentlelady's time has expired.

    REP. : Mr. Chairman?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania --

    REP. : To strike the last word.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

    REP. : And I wish to delegate my time to yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Rogan.

    REP. ROGAN: I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I've sat and listened to the debate, not just on this amendment, but over these last several days. When the Starr Report was first delivered to the Congress, the minority leader of the House of

    Representatives, Mr. Gephardt, went before the press. And he said the true mark of a fair hearing in the Judiciary Committee, will be whether the Republicans adopt the Rodino model -- the Democrat model that was used to impeach President Nixon -- as our model in reviewing these matters relating to President Clinton. Chairman Hyde, from the very beginning, agreed to do that. We've done it procedurally, we've done it technically, and to the best of our ability, we've even done it spiritually.

    The impeachment referral against President Nixon, with the specificity that my dear colleagues on the other side find so important and so compelling, was some 300 pages. Now, I have that 300-page book right here. Three pages refer to the articles of impeachment. Two hundred and ninety some-odd pages are the appendix, the specificity. They didn't churn out 100-page articles of impeachment. They treated the articles of impeachment historically for what they are supposed to be, an announcement of the charge. And the record backed up what those charges were.

    We have followed that model in spirit and in practice, right down to the actual drafting of our articles, to model after the Rodino proposal.

    My amendment that I offered is a technical drafting amendment so that our articles comport with the language that the Democrat Congress used to impeach Richard Nixon.

    REP. CONYERS: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. ROGAN: One final point, and if I have time, I'll be happy to.

    Much has been said since the beginning of this entire sorry episode about the lack of Democrat votes for impeachment on this committee, and I have sat and listened day after day and month after month to my dear friends on the other side virtually boasting over the expectation that no Democrats will cross over to vote for President Clinton when a number of Republicans voted to impeach President Nixon.

    (Camaraderie ?) and affection has caused me to remain silent on this issue up until now, but your repeated haranguing on this requires that I say this. The reason Republicans in 1974 voted to impeach a president of their own party is because when they saw a pattern of deceit, of lying, of subverting the law, of perjury, of obstruction of justice, and of other acts that offended the presidential oath of office, they no longer would defend that conduct and their lack of defense was not just in word or in verbal condemnation, it was in taking the very difficult and very painful step of stepping to the plate and saying "this president no longer has the right to serve as president of the United States.

    REP. CONYERS: Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. ROGAN: I have never questioned the motives of any of my colleagues, either in this committee or in this body, and I have watched my colleagues on the Republican side have their motives questioned on an hourly basis in committee and in the press. I don't question the motives of any of my dear friends as to why it may be that they choose not to vote for articles of impeachment, but I must say to all of you that in light of this record of deceit, of treachery, of perjury, of injuring women in the workplace who were subordinate employees of this president, I hardly think that boasting that none of you will vote for an article of impeachment under these facts and circumstances is a matter of bragging rights.

    REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield?

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Pennsylvania controls the time, what's left of it.

    REP. ROGAN: I yield what is left to the gentleman from Michigan.

    REP. CONYERS: I just went to point out to Mr. Rogan that in 1974 the charges went to the obstruction of the office of the president. These were charges that went to the substance of running the government, sir.

    They were not personal conduct or "he said, she said." These were matters that involved pitting the CIA against the FBI against the IRS against the Department of Justice, a completely different kind of case situation entirely.

    REP. DELAHUNT: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The time of the gentleman has expired.

    REP. DELAHUNT: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.

    REP. WATT: I move -- will the gentleman yield? I just --

    REP. DELAHUNT: I've been recognized. I move to strike the last word, and I yield --

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

    REP. WATT: Does the gentleman yield for 30 seconds?

    REP. DELAHUNT: I yield 30 seconds to Mr. Watt.

    REP. WATT: I just wonder whether Mr. Rogan was in the room when the gentleman who sits right behind, Mr. Goodlatte, read the charges in 1974. There was no perjury charge in '74, and this whole discussion has been about whether there is a perjury charge. If you're going to allege perjury, you've got to add specificity. I don't know why the gentleman is so upset about that. He read him the charge. There's no perjury charge there.

    I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I yield back to him.

    REP. ROGAN: Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. DELAHUNT: I yield to my friend.

    REP. ROGAN: I thank my friend. Certainly if in my -- if in my passion in presenting my argument I misstated one charge that may not have been levied against President Nixon, that certainly was not my intent. I have no intention of disparaging the memory of our late president.

    The point I was trying to make, I think, was made to the best of my ability, and I think everybody understands the substance of that. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Would the gentleman yield to me?

    REP. DELAHUNT: I'll yield to the chair.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The statement that was just made by the gentleman from North Carolina is incorrect, and I would like to read three lines from Article I of the Richard Nixon impeachment. "The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following: one, making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers or employees of the United States."

    REP. FRANK: Not perjury.

    REP. WATT: That's not perjury, Mr. Chairman. I -- good try. Close, but no cigar, as they say.

    REP. DELAHUNT: Reclaiming my time, I want to be very clear. I, for one, have never -- nor would I consider impugning the motives of anyone, particularly Mr. Rogan, for whom I have not just great respect, but great affection. At the same time, you know, we're making these comparisons between the Rodino model and what we are about today. But it has to be stated clearly that there is a fundamental difference between what occurred during those hearings, those proceedings, and what we're about today.

    And I would hearken back to the testimony by Judge Wiggins when he appeared here back on the 1st of December, and I posed a question to him, and in response to the question as to whether he heard evidence from witnesses, his answer was, "Yes, we heard from John Dean, we heard from H.R. Haldeman, we heard from Mr. Erlichman." We haven't heard from a direct witness to the events.

    Now, it can be said, "Well, you could have done it -- if you felt the need, you could have done it." Well I dare say, it was the responsibility of the committee. And I think it's important that the American people understand that no member of this committee has ever heard from Monica Lewinsky, from Betty Currie, from Vernon Jordan, from Linda Tripp, from any of the principals. And that's the difference -- we haven't been able to assess credibility.

    And implicit in a statement by majority counsel, Mr. Schippers, he said himself -- and I think I've got the quote down fairly accurately because I've repeated it often enough: "At some stage of the proceedings, by necessity we will have to assess the credibility of Ms. Lewinsky and others." And we never did it. I don't care whose responsibility it was, but we, as a committee that is about to report out articles of impeachment, I submit to the American people, had that responsibility. I didn't hear -- and the problem is that we have had so many inconsistencies, so many inferences that many on this side in good conscience can't believe that either Mr. Schippers nor Mr. Starr made. I mean, they should -- they were -- they have -- inferences have been drawn against Mr. Clinton, and here we are, when they could have been resolved in his favor. And that's the problem, Jim. That's the problem. The facts aren't there.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has expired.

    REP. BRYANT: I move the previous question.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: For what purpose does the gentleman from Tennessee seek recognition?

    REP. BRYANT: I move the previous question.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection --

    REP. WATERS: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: For what purpose the gentleman from California -- the gentlewoman from California rise?

    REP. WATERS: I would like to make an inquiry of you.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: State your inquiry.

    REP. WATERS: Given the vote that we are about to take, and given --

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from California, Mr. Rogan.

    REP. WATERS: On the amendment, on the amendment. The president of the United States of America just made a speech to the American public.

    Some of the members saw it; some members didn't. Would it be wise for the members of this committee to have the opportunity to see the message from the president relative to the vote we're about to take prior to taking this vote?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: I know that the message of the president has been taped in the Republican members' room, and those who have not seen it can go back there at their convenience to see it.

    Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the amendment. The question is adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Rogan. Those in favor will say aye.

    (Voice vote.)

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Those opposed will say no.

    (Voice vote.)

    REP. WATT: Recorded vote.


    REP. SENSENBRENNER: A roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the roll. Those in favor will vote aye; those opposed will vote no. And the clerk will call the roll.

    Mr. Sensenbrenner.


    CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.

    Mr. McCollum.


    CLERK: Mr. McCollum votes aye.

    Mr. Gekas.

    REP. GEKAS: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Gekas votes aye.

    Mr. Coble. (No answer.)

    Mr. Smith.

    REP. SMITH: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Smith votes aye.

    Mr. Gallegly.


    CLERK: Mr. Gallegly votes aye.

    Mr. Canady.

    REP. CANADY: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Canady votes aye.

    Mr. Inglis.

    REP. INGLIS: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Inglis votes aye.

    Mr. Goodlatte.


    CLERK: Mr. Goodlatte votes aye.

    Mr. Buyer.

    REP. BUYER: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Buyer votes aye.

    Mr. Bryant.

    REP. BRYANT: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Bryant votes aye.

    Mr. Chabot.

    REP. CHABOT: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Chabot votes aye.

    Mr. Barr.

    REP. BARR: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Barr votes aye.

    Mr. Jenkins.

    REP. JENKINS: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Jenkins votes aye.

    Mr. Hutchinson. (No answer.)

    Mr. Pease.

    REP. PEASE: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Pease votes aye.

    Mr. Cannon.

    REP. CANNON: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Cannon votes aye.

    Mr. Rogan.

    REP. ROGAN: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Rogan votes aye.

    Mr. Graham. (No answer.)

    Ms. Bono. (No answer.)

    Mr. Conyers.


    CLERK: Mr. Conyers votes no.

    Mr. Frank.

    REP. FRANK: No.

    CLERK: Mr. Frank votes no.

    Mr. Schumer.


    CLERK: Mr. Schumer votes no.

    Mr. Berman.

    REP. BERMAN: No.

    CLERK: Mr. Berman votes no.

    Mr. Boucher.


    CLERK: Mr. Boucher votes no.

    Mr. Nadler.

    REP. NADLER: No.

    CLERK: Mr. Nadler votes no.

    Mr. Scott.

    REP. SCOTT: No.

    CLERK: Mr. Scott votes no.

    Mr. Watt.

    REP. WATT: No.

    CLERK: Mr. Watt votes no.

    Ms. Lofgren.


    CLERK: Ms. Lofgren votes no.

    Ms. Jackson Lee.


    CLERK: Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.

    Ms. Waters.

    REP. WATERS: No.

    CLERK: Ms. Waters votes no.

    Mr. Meehan.

    REP. MEEHAN: No.

    CLERK: Mr. Meehan votes no.

    Mr. Delahunt.


    CLERK: Mr. Delahunt votes no.

    Mr. Wexler.

    REP. WEXLER: No.

    CLERK: Mr. Wexler votes no.

    Mr. Rothman.


    CLERK: Mr. Rothman votes no.

    Mr. Barrett.


    CLERK: Mr. Barrett votes no.

    Mr. Hyde.

    REP. HYDE: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Hyde votes aye.

    REP. COBLE: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from North Carolina.

    REP. COBLE: How am I recorded?

    CLERK: Mr. Coble is not recorded, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. COBLE: I vote aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Coble votes aye.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Graham.

    REP. GRAHAM: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Graham votes aye.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson.


    CLERK: Mr. Hutchinson votes aye.

    REP. BONO: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: Ms. Bono?

    REP. BONO: Aye.

    CLERK: Ms. Bono votes aye.

    Mr. Chairman, there are 21 ayes and 16 nos.

    REP. HYDE: And the amendment is agreed to.

    Without objection, the previous question is ordered on Article I.

    The question occurs on Article I. All those in favor will signify by saying "aye."

    (Chorus of ayes.)

    REP. HYDE: Opposed, "no."

    (Chorus of noes.)

    REP. HYDE: And we will certainly have a roll call. The clerk will call the roll.

    CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner.


    CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.

    Mr. McCollum.


    CLERK: Mr. McCollum votes aye.

    Mr. Gekas.

    REP. GEKAS: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Gekas votes aye.

    Mr. Coble.

    REP. COBLE: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Coble votes aye.

    Mr. Smith.

    REP. SMITH: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Smith votes aye.

    Mr. Gallegly.


    CLERK: Mr. Gallegly votes aye.

    Mr. Canady.

    REP. CANADY: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Canady votes aye.

    Mr. Inglis.

    REP. INGLIS: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Inglis votes aye.

    Mr. Goodlatte.


    CLERK: Mr. Goodlatte votes aye.

    Mr. Buyer.

    REP. BUYER: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Buyer votes aye.

    Mr. Bryant.

    REP. BRYANT: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Bryant votes aye.

    Mr. Chabot.

    REP. CHABOT: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Chabot votes aye.

    Mr. Barr.

    REP. BARR: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Barr votes aye.

    Mr. Jenkins.

    REP. JENKINS: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Jenkins votes aye.

    Mr. Hutchinson.


    CLERK: Mr. Hutchinson votes aye.

    Mr. Pease.

    REP. PEASE: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Pease votes aye.

    Mr. Cannon.

    REP. CANNON: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Cannon votes aye.

    Mr. Rogan.

    REP. ROGAN: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Rogan votes aye.

    Mr. Graham.

    (No response.)

    CLERK: Ms. Bono.

    REP. BONO: Aye.

    CLERK: Ms. Bono votes aye.

    Mr. Conyers.


    CLERK: Mr. Conyers votes no.

    Mr. Frank.

    REP. FRANK: No.

    CLERK: Mr. Frank votes no.

    Mr. Schumer.


    CLERK: Mr. Schumer votes no.

    Mr. Berman.

    REP. BERMAN: No.

    CLERK: Mr. Berman votes no.

    Mr. Boucher.


    CLERK: Mr. Boucher votes no.

    Mr. Nadler.

    REP. NADLER: No.

    CLERK: Mr. Nadler votes no.

    Mr. Scott.

    REP. SCOTT: No.

    CLERK: Mr. Scott votes no.

    Mr. Watt.

    REP. WATT: No.

    CLERK: Mr. Watt votes no.

    Ms. Lofgren.


    CLERK: Ms. Lofgren votes no.

    Ms. Jackson Lee.


    CLERK: Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.

    Ms. Waters.

    REP. WATERS: No.

    CLERK: Ms. Waters votes no.

    Mr. Meehan.

    REP. MEEHAN: No.

    CLERK: Mr. Meehan votes no.

    Mr. Delahunt.


    CLERK: Mr. Delahunt votes no.

    Mr. Wexler.

    REP. WEXLER: No.

    CLERK: Mr. Wexler votes no.

    Mr. Rothman.


    CLERK: Mr. Rothman votes no.

    Mr. Barrett.


    CLERK: Mr. Barrett votes no.

    Mr. Hyde.

    REP. HYDE: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Hyde votes aye.

    REP. HYDE: Mr. Graham.

    REP. GRAHAM: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Graham votes aye.

    REP. HYDE: Have all voted who wish? The clerk will report.

    CLERK: Mr. Chairman, there are 21 ayes and 16 noes.

    REP. HYDE: And Article I is agreed to.


    Copyright © 1998 by Federal News Service, Inc. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's original duties. Transcripts of other events may be found at the Federal News Service Web site, located at

    Back to the top

    Navigation Bar
    Navigation Bar
    yellow pages