Clinton Accused Special Report
Navigation Bar
Navigation Bar

 Main Page
 News Archive
 Key Players

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

  • More Transcripts From the Hearings

  • By Federal News Service
    Friday, December 11, 1998

    REP. HYDE: Very well. The committee will now consider article three. Are there any amendments to article three? If not, I will --

    REP. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Virginia.

    REP. SCOTT: Are you asking for -- well, I move to strike the last word.

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

    REP. SCOTT: Well, are there any amendments --

    REP. HYDE: There are no amendments. It is the chair's intention, when we finish this article, to adjourn for the evening and come back at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. I just wanted to announce that for scheduling purposes. Now, does anyone seek recognition? Was that Mr. Scott? Yes, Mr. Scott.

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

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

    REP. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think we ought to reflect a bit about the facts on this article. We have things like a false affidavit and false statements. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, has spared me the necessity of quoting from the dictionary about certain words. But Monica Lewinsky was not provided with a contorted definition the judges and lawyers argued over. She said what she believed certain words to mean. And there's evidence in this case the tape recording, when she didn't know she was being recorded or being set up by Linda Tripp, she said what she thought certain words meant. And Linda Tripp, who knew they were being recorded, tried to get her to change her mind about the definition, but Monica Lewinsky wouldn't.

    We also, on the witness tampering, there has to be a witness for there to be tampering. And after you review the conflicting, uncross- examined hearsay and dubious inferences used to make the other elements of this article, you still have to place the articles -- the allegations in the context of impeachment. Our authority to do what some wanted to do but couldn't do at the polls -- that is, defeat Bill Clinton -- that authority is limited to treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Now, "high" is a word that doesn't really -- isn't really used very much in America, because it's an English word against the state. Our experts at our hearing also told us to pay close attention to another word in the phrase, and that is "other." It's treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors; that is, treason, bribery and stuff like that and its effect against our government. That is, there has to be a subversion of the Constitution. There has to be a danger in the president staying in office; that is, the president must be removed because of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanor. He will later be subject to the rule of law, just like everybody else.

    And when we review these allegations to see if they are impeachable offenses, we have to remember what impeachment is for. It's to protect our nation. So we look at the history of impeachment and look at what kinds of offenses have been impeachable offenses and we look at Watergate and see the corrupt use of the FBI, the CIA, Internal Revenue, official use of those agencies and lying about it have been impeachable offenses in Watergate.

    But $500 million tax fraud, where the evidence, according to those who were there, was overwhelming, and certainly stronger than the hearsay and inferences we're relying on today, but they did not support the article involving half-million-dollar tax fraud, which was certainly a crime, a serious crime, but not a high crime.

    Furthermore, our experts unanimously agreed that the term "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" does not cover all felonies. So we cannot remove a president because he, quote, "failed to faithfully execute the laws" or when we can't stand him being president anymore. The rule of law restricts our authority to act to treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

    So even if we believe the hearsay and inferences we have before us, there's been no showing that the conduct constitutes a threat to our constitutional form of government, and that's why historians and legal scholars have told us that whether or not these allegations are true, they are not impeachable offenses.

    I yield back the balance of my time.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. I rise in support of the article of impeachment and recognize myself for five minutes.

    Mr. Chairman, this article of impeachment, article three, is the one that relates to obstruction of justice by President Clinton. There are seven specifically-mentioned instances of alleged obstruction of justice that are contained in this article, and it does have the words "one or more" in that so we don't have the problem of making that interpretation.

    There will be members on the Republican side of the aisle that will specifically address themselves to each of these instances of obstruction of justice. But I think that if we looked at it from the criminal context, which we're not here, but there have got to be three elements of what makes obstruction of justice.

    First, there's got to be a pending federal judicial proceeding. There was in this case with the Paula Jones civil rights lawsuit. Secondly, the defendant had to know of the proceeding. Mr. Clinton was the civil defendant in that lawsuit. He'd been served the papers on it. And third, that the defendant acted corruptly and with intent to obstruct and interfere with the proceeding or the due administration of justice.

    The first of the seven instances that are contained in article three states that "On or about December 17th, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading."

    In his deposition testimony in January of this year, the president said that he spoke with Monica Lewinsky before Christmas and that while he was not sure that she would be called to testify in the Paula Jones civil suit, she might qualify or something like that. The president denied encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to lie by filing a false affidavit. But in answer 18 to the 81 questions submitted to this committee, he did say that he told her that, quote, "Other witnesses had executed affidavits and there was a chance that they would not have to testify," unquote. "Hint, hint."


    Ms. Lewinsky was more emphatic on the subject in her grand jury testimony. When she asked the president what she should do if she was called to testify, he said, "Well, maybe you can sign an affidavit." "The point would be to deter or prevent me from being disposed so that they could range anywhere between just somehow mentioning innocuous things or going as far as maybe having to deny any kind of relationship." That's what Monica Lewinsky told the grand jury.

    She further stated that she was 100 percent sure, 100 percent sure, that the president suggested she might want to sign an affidavit to avoid testifying. And that was to an independent counsel interview, false statements of which are a federal crime. Ms. Lewinsky also noted that the president never explicitly instructed her to lie about the matter; rather, since the president never told her to file an affidavit detailing the true nature of their sexual relationship, which would only invite humiliation and prove damaging to the president in the Paula Jones case, she contextually understood that the president wanted her to lie. That also is in the OIC referral.

    Furthermore, attorneys for Paula Jones were seeking evidence of sexual relationships the president may have had with other state or federal employees. Such information is often deemed relevant in sexual harassment lawsuits to help prove the underlying claim of the plaintiff, and Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled that Paula Jones was entitled to this information for purposes of discovery.

    Consequently, when the president encouraged Monica Lewinsky to file an affidavit, he knew that it would have to be false for Ms. Lewinsky to avoid testifying. If she filed a truthful affidavit, one acknowledging a sexual relationship with the president, she certainly would have been called as a deposition witness and her subsequent truthful testimony would have been damaging to the president both politically as well as legally.

    And I yield back the balance of my time.

    REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: For what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan rise?

    REP. CONYERS: I rise to strike the last word.

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

    REP. CONYERS: In reviewing article three that is before us, obstruction of justice, I review the seven clauses, and it's almost like we've come here this evening and have never examined the facts in the matter.

    These have all been gone through repeatedly. Each one can be very carefully answered.

    The filing of an affidavit by Ms. Lewinsky. Is there anyone here that doesn't know that she swore that no one ever asked her to lie and that the decision as to what the affidavit should contain was a decision made by her alone and that the president said that Ms. Lewinsky might be able to avoid testifying by filing a limited but truthful affidavit, a perfectly legal activity on his part and, as a matter of fact, what her own lawyer ended up doing?

    In the Clause 7, statements to aides, the president made statements to his staff on January 21st, 23rd, and 26th, in order to protect his family from discovering the Lewinsky relationship. He could not have known that his staff would be called at that time before the Office of Independent Counsel's grand jury. The president's denial of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky to his staff was after he had already made the same denial to the public. The president was not then singling out his staff; he denied the affair to everyone. So he was not denying the affair to his staff with the idea that they would be called before the independent counsel grand jury.

    Clause 6, attempting to influence Betty Currie. We've heard repeated testimony that the president of the United States did not attempt to influence Betty Currie's testimony in any proceeding when he spoke with her on the Sunday and the Tuesday, January 18th and 20th, respectively, before the news regarding Ms. Lewinsky broke in the media. The president was concerned about the media reaction to what he knew would be a leak of his deposition testimony. He could not have known about the OIC investigation, so therefore he could not have thought that Ms. Currie was or could be on a witness list.

    With reference to statements by the president's lawyers, Clause 5, there's no evidence that the president knowingly allowed his lawyer to make false representations in the Jones deposition. In fact, the president testified that he was not focusing on his attorney when he made the statements. Instead, he was concentrating on his own testimony in his deposition.

    There's no evidence, none, that the president encouraged his attorney to make those statements or even had any idea that his attorney would make them for him.

    Here with go with Clause 4, the job search. How many times has this been put into evidence that there is nothing connecting the efforts to help Ms. Lewinsky find a job with Ms. Lewinsky's submission of an affidavit. She's testified that no one ever promised her a job. That may be the 45th time that phrase has been uttered in this room. If the president were intent on getting her a job, he clearly would have done that and could have done that. The fact that he did not know shows that there was no linkage with her affidavit. And then, of course, we have the gift situation, in which all witnesses agree the job search started long before Monica Lewinsky was named on the Jones witness list.

    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to put my statement into the record at this point.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection, so ordered.

    REP. CONYERS: And I return any time that may remain.

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

    For what purpose does the gentleman from Arkansas seek recognition?

    REP. ASA HUTCHINSON (R-AR): Move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

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

    REP. HUTCHINSON: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to address the second paragraph of this article of impeachment. The second paragraph provides that on or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding. This has reference to a call that occurred on December 17th at 2 a.m. or 2:30 a.m. in the morning by the president of the United States. The president of the United States learns that Monica Lewinsky is on the witness list, and he calls her, first to purportedly advise that Betty

    Currie's brother had passed away, but of course the real purpose was to advise her that, bad news, your name is on the witness list. And they discuss this. And he went ahead to say, "If you are subpoenaed," which, of course, he knew was coming, "you should contact Betty." And then he told her, "You can always say you were coming to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters," end quote, according to the testimony of Monica Lewinsky.

    And this is very important because here you have a witness -- without any question is going to be a witness in a federal civil rights case -- civil rights suit. And in this case, the president personally calls this witness to let them know that they are going to be subpoenaed, that you are on the witness list, and to tell them how to handle it and to encourage her not to provide truthful testimony but to provide false testimony and to provide a cover story for her, suggesting, "you can always say." And this is confirmed in the grand jury testimony of Monica Lewinsky.

    Now, the president denies this in part. He admits that the telephone conversation took place, and so there is some corroboration to it, but he has no specific recollection. When Monica Lewinsky has a clear recollection and the president has no specific recollection, I think that the weight of the evidence goes to the testimony of Monica Lewinsky.

    Secondly, it is consistent with their pattern of deception. Prior to this, they had arranged the cover story.

    And I understand that's not in a legal context, but when it moved into the legal context, they continued that scheme to cover up in the legal context by suggesting the same cover story would apply in testimony under oath in the civil rights case. And so there's no dispute about the call; it is consistent with the pattern of deceit. There is a motive, obviously, for the president to encourage the perjury. And then it is also consistent with the false affidavit that is ultimately provided by Monica Lewinsky.

    I would also call upon the testimony of Mr. Jordan, who confirmed in this case, in his testimony before the grand jury, that President Clinton knew that Monica Lewinsky was going to execute the false affidavit, and he kept the president very closely apprised as to every development with that affidavit.

    And so when I look at this matter from the standpoint of clear and convincing evidence, I believe that you have clear testimony, and because of the corroboration, because of the motivation behind it, the other testimony of Vernon Jordan, the consistency, that this paragraph and this allegation does rise to obstruction of justice by clear and convincing evidence.

    And I yield back.

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

    For what purpose does the gentleman from New York rise?

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

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

    REP. SCHUMER: I thank the gentleman.

    And let me say that on the -- particularly on the second article, while I certainly believe that even assuming the facts that Mr. Starr presented and Mr. Schippers reiterated, it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. I can see the argument among my colleagues that in a basic criminal context or a civil context there's a strong argument on the other side.

    And in Article I, to a somewhat lesser extent, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts summed that up as well, that yeah, it's sort of trivial, but you might be able to make a very legalistic argument, albeit one that wouldn't come close to the level of impeachment.

    But when we get to Articles III and IV, we really begin to reach. Article III reaches, Article IV reaches and almost gets into the theater of the absurd.

    But today we're here to address Article III. I would submit that based on a standard of clear and convincing evidence, which the majority professes to use, we're not even close. Yes, you can string together facts and by surmise say, "This was the motivation." But there is at the very least an equally plausible explanation that there was a different motivation. And there is not one direct fact that shows that the motivation attributed, for instance, by the gentleman from Arkansas to the president is the motivation.

    How can we submit Articles of Impeachment based on surmise? Even Mr. Starr, when he was here, admitted it was surmise.

    So take the job hunt. Yes, there was a job hunt. We all agree there was a job hunt. We all agree it started before there was any knowledge of a judicial process, of a Paula Jones suit or later a grand jury, and continued after. We all agreed it was a very similar job search.

    And we all agree there are two plausible explanations after it became clear that there was a Paula Jones lawsuit and a deposition: one, to get Monica Lewinsky away from the scene to prevent the continuation of an illicit affair; and two, to keep Monica Lewinsky quiet before a judicial proceeding.

    One explanation, I would argue, is as plausible as the next. In fact, the noncriminal explanation is more plausible because it began before we even knew there was a possible judicial intervention. And yet the majority has the temerity to say: "Oh, no. We know by clear and convincing evidence that he was doing it to prevent her from testifying." I ask you, where is your direct evidence? Where is it more than surmise? And you have an obligation, in my judgment, to make sure that it is more than surmise if you are asking us to impeach, if you are asking America to impeach its president.

    Same thing with the Monica Lewinsky story. Yes, it is true. We all admit that the president and Monica Lewinsky had a cover story; a story that was not truthful, that was of lies. They had it once again, before -- before any knowledge of a grand jury, any knowledge of a deposition.

    And again, just on the basis of surmise, the majority says, "Oh, yes, they did it to deceive in the deposition and in the grand jury," That's not good enough, ladies and gentlemen. You need more than that to be clear and convincing in a court of law, and you certainly need more than that to impeach a president.

    And finally, because my time is ending -- and finally, listen to this one, ladies and gentlemen. "The president didn't tell the truth to his Cabinet about Monica Lewinsky because he thought they might later be called into a grand jury, and he wanted to mislead them."

    I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

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

    REP. SCHUMER: I ask unanimous consent for an additional --

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection, the gentleman will be granted an additional minute; hearing none, so ordered.

    REP. SCHUMER: I thank the gentleman.

    Imagine putting account in here that says, well, we somehow think that the president would lie to his Cabinet -- would not tell the truth to his Cabinet, when he had no idea there'd be a deposition and no idea that there would be a grand jury proceeding, because he wanted them not to tell the truth. We can do a lot better. We must do a lot better than that!

    This is a string, put together piece by piece, that leads to a conclusion that is so demonstrably stretched, that when people ask, why do some out there believe that the motivation here is more partisan than coming directly on the facts -- I would not argue that about counts one and two -- but when you look at count three, and particularly at count four, it is logical, not provable, but logical to say --

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has again expired.

    REP. SCHUMER: -- some people on the other side are out to get the man regardless of the facts.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina rise?

    REP. INGLIS: Strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

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

    REP. INGLIS: Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to bring out some facts about Paragraph 3 in this part of this article. Here we're talking about the scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in that civil rights action brought against the president. And of course we heard from minority counsel that -- and the president's counsel that this was not orchestrated by the president and, therefore, they would dispute this claim in this particular article. But I think that the evidence clearly indicates, clearly indicates an effort here, a scheme to conceal this evidence, and in this case, it's supported by a telephone record. And of course, this is indicative, I think, of the excellent investigative work that's been done here.

    So what happened is the -- there's testimony from Ms. Lewinsky that she was concerned about the gifts, she raised the issue with the president. The president told her that he -- about the suggestion that possibly she would do something with the gifts. The president, according to Monica Lewinsky said, "I don't know" or "Let me think about that." And then later that day, Ms. Lewinsky got a call from Ms. Currie, according, to Ms. Lewinsky, saying, "I understand you have something to give me" or something like "The president said you may have something to give me."

    Now, on this point Ms. Currie, as Mr. Schippers pointed out, has a fuzzy memory, and she reported that actually she couldn't remember, but the best she can remember she thinks that Monica Lewinsky called her, Betty Currie.

    But that is contradicted by a key piece of evidence, and that key piece of evidence is the cell phone record of Ms. Currie's phone showing that she placed a call, within hours after she left the White House on that day, to Monica Lewinsky, and with that evidence it's clear that the call was initiated by Ms. Currie to Monica Lewinsky. And of course, that is further buttressed by the fact that why else would Ms. Currie call Ms. Lewinsky and ask if she had something for her to pick up? And why would she take that box of gifts and put it under her bed? These are not normal things that people do. You don't call up somebody, ask if you have something for me, and then take the box and put it under your bed. It just defies common sense to think that it was the other way around; in other words, that Ms. Currie was -- or that Ms. Lewinsky was initiating the transfer here.

    It's pretty clear from this evidence -- and I think clear and convincing from this evidence, that the president must have been involved in a scheme to get those gifts from Monica Lewinsky into the hands of his trusted secretary, Betty Currie, and that was part of a scheme to obstruct justice in this case, to stop the discovery of this information.

    And so, Mr. Chairman, I think it's clear that this particular paragraph of the articles of impeachment is clearly substantiated by the evidence.

    I would yield back the balance of my time.

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

    For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, rise?

    REP. DELAHUNT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I --

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

    REP. DELAHUNT: I'm really pleased that my friend, Mr. Inglis, has raised this particular evidence because I would suggest that this is exactly the peril of this particular approach that this committee has adopted -- never hearing once from a witness, never hearing from Ms. Currie or Ms. Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan or anyone else. Shame on us! Just simply taking written documents and suggesting that that constitutes evidence -- totally unlike what occurred during the

    Watergate inquiry where, as Charles Wiggins, a Republican member in the minority, told us that they heard from John Dean, from Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Erlichman. Shame on us! We did have that responsibility, and now we are doing it real sloppy.

    Let me tell you, I did my own homework on this particular point, Mr. Inglis. You're right -- it's undisputed that Ms. Lewinsky returned the gifts to Ms. Currie, and she did so on December 28th. The key question is whether the president asked Ms. Currie to retrieve the gifts or whether Ms. Lewinsky made her own arrangements to return the gifts without Mr. Clinton's involvement.

    On Wednesday, the independent counsel released a statement to the press, which I would submit into the record --


    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection, so ordered.

    REP. DELAHUNT: Taking issue with Mr. Ruff's presentation to this committee, and claiming that the president's involvement is substantiated by the billing records from Ms. Currie's telephone account, just as you mentioned.

    The records -- and Mr. Schippers, as you indicated, used these in his closing statement to the committee -- indicated that that one- minute call was places from Ms. Currie's cell phone to Ms. Lewinsky's telephone number at 3:32 p.m. on December 28th.

    In his press release, the independent counsel claims that Ms. Currie placed this call for the purpose of arranging to pick up the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky. In his closing statement to the committee, Mr. Schippers made much of the document. He said that it -- and I quote "corroborates Monica Lewinsky, and proves conclusively that Ms. Currie called Monica from her cell phone several hours after she left the White House."

    Why did Betty Currie pick up the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Schippers asked. And he answered: "The facts, it's the facts." Oh, if we only had facts. The facts strongly suggest the president directed her to do so. And that his support for the charge, is that the president sought to conceal evidence.

    But know what? There's a problem with this so-called evidence. It is directly and explicitly contradicted by the FBI report of the interview with Monica Lewinsky taken this past July, on July 27th of this year. That report, which appears in the first appendix to the Starr referral on page 1,396 -- as you know, there are 60,000 pages in there, so I don't blame Mr. Schippers for missing it, and I certainly don't suggest he would try to mislead the committee.

    And I'm quoting: "Lewinsky met Currie on 28th Street outside Lewinsky's apartment, at about 2 p.m. and gave Currie the box of gifts." Not at 3:32, but at 2 p.m. was the transfer of those gifts, Mr. Inglis; an hour-and-a-half discrepancy.

    This raises the following question. If the gift exchange had already taken place --

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

    REP. DELAHUNT: I ask unanimous consent for an additional two minutes.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection.

    REP. DELAHUNT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This raises the following question. If the gift exchange had already taken place at 2 p.m., how could the telephone call placed at 3:32, have been for the purpose of arranging it? This is what I would suggest, some would conclude, is a considerable inconsistency, one of the many troubling inconsistencies in the documents themselves.

    Yet, this potentially exculpatory fact, taken from materials, sworn-under-oath materials, documents -- 60,000 pages of them -- from the possession of Mr. Starr, was never acknowledged by Mr. Starr, nor unfortunately was it acknowledged by Mr. Schippers.

    Both of them -- and I'm not suggesting it was intentional -- affirmatively led the committee to believe the call was for the purpose of arranging for Ms. Currie to pick up the gifts. And now, now we are preparing to vote on an article of impeachment that is substantially based on that telephone call.

    What was the purpose of the call? We don't know. It appears that the investigators never asked, and we have never had the opportunity to ask, because we have not heard from the witnesses themselves. And this is no way to conduct an inquiry, Mr. Chairman. It's a disgrace, and it's an insult to the rule of law.

    REP. CANNON: Would the gentleman yield just for a question as to what the citation was on that, Mr. Delahunt? On the page 1,300 and something as I recall, but --

    REP. DELAHUNT: It's page 1,396. I yield.

    REP. CANNON: Thank you.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has again expired. For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia rise?

    REP. BARR: To strike the last word.

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

    REP. BARR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, witnesses and defendants -- witnesses who are targets of investigations, and defendants in cases frequently -- have a very clear motive to take steps to either ensure that adverse witnesses don't appear in court, in order to testify against them, to provide testimony in other times and places, or to change in some way their testimony so it is either not damaging or less damaging to the target or the defendant.

    That being a fact of human nature, and the federal government for many years having knowledge of that characteristic of defendants and targets of investigations, has had on the books in Title 18, the

    Criminal Code, provisions of our criminal laws that address that and seek to prevent or punish those who in fact take steps to what is termed in the eyes of the law, "tamper with witnesses."

    Specifically, Mr. Chairman, that statute is found at 18 U.S.C., that is the Criminal Code, Section 1512 and in addition, Section 1515, which contains definitions that are relevant to that provision of the Code.

    In essence, Mr. Chairman -- and this is in large part the essence also of paragraph four of this third article of impeachment -- we are looking at the provision of Title 18, Section 1512, that provides in part, "whoever knowingly engages in misleading conduct towards another person with intent to influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; causes or induces any person to withhold testimony, evade legal process, or be absent from an official proceeding, or hinder, delay or prevent the communication of information, is guilty of a criminal offense."

    Turning to Section 1515, one finds a common-sense definition of "misleading conduct," as well as common-sense definitions of "official proceedings," and "to corruptly persuade."

    When one then turns to the evidence in this case, and the evidence regarding the so-called job search, one fact that immediately jumps to mind is: why would the most powerful human being on the face of the earth, that is, the president of the United States of America, and one of the most prominent and in legal circles in Washington, most powerful private attorneys, drop essentially everything they are doing -- and the president constantly reminds us how important his work is, as indeed it is -- and conduct a job search for what might be termed at best a second- or third-rate employee?

    Vernon Jordan testified that he had indeed conducted quite a few job searches for individuals of note to him: the former mayor of the City of New York; a talented attorney from Aik (ph) & Gump, one of the pre-eminent law firms in Washington; a Harvard Business School graduate; Monica Lewinsky.

    That in and of itself, contrary to the pattern of activity of this particular witness -- and by the way, that testimony was controverted by the testimony of a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, Mr. Perlman (ph), who said Mr. Jordan had never called him about a job search -- raises a very legitimate presumption, that there was some reason other than a legitimate job search, for Monica Lewinsky that occupied considerable attention of the president and Vernon Jordan. And one finds it indeed in the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky, that the president suggested to her, that it might be appropriate if she took a job in New York, and he would help her find that through Vernon Jordan, somebody that heretofore was unknown to Ms. Lewinsky, that this might cause her to avoid being called as a witness or available as a witness.

    And indeed, that is what happened. "Mission accomplished," in the words of Mr. Jordan. I believe very clearly, Mr. Chairman, that we have here a very substantial case involving a violation of Title 18, the U.S. Criminal Code, Section 1512, tampering with a witness, clearly involving --

    Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for two additional minutes.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection.

    REP. BARR: I thank the chairman. Involving an effort, a deliberate effort, a knowing effort, a willful effort, on the part of the president, to cause Ms. Lewinsky or to take steps to cause Ms. Lewinsky, once it became known that she would be a witness, that she had in fact been subpoenaed.

    The other side might make some hay out of the fact that Ms. Lewinsky really had been involved in a job search for quite some time. And indeed, that is the case, since July of 1997. What certainly raises legitimate suspicions and fits within the pattern of activity here, and the evidence, though, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that this went from a back burner effort by a second- or third-rate employee of the government, to a very accelerated effort, involving a flurry of activity by Mr. Jordan, by the CEO of a major Fortune 500 corporation, involving indeed the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, all set into motion after it became known -- not before, but after it became known -- that Ms. Lewinsky would indeed be a witness and provide testimony in the Paula Jones case.

    These are appropriate, reasonable, common-sense conclusions, which even in a criminal proceeding, a trier of fact would be instructed by a United States District Court judge, they could properly conclude based on the evidence, which is very voluminous, set forward, summarized yesterday by Mr. Schippers, and uncontroverted.

    I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there is a more than substantial basis, a more than adequate basis for paragraph four of Article III, involving tampering with a federal witness by the president of the United States of America.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Your time has again expired. For what purpose does the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler arise?

    REP. NADLER: To strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

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

    REP. NADLER: Mr. Chairman, the recklessness of the Republican majority in this proceeding, is really illustrated by Articles III and IV. I believe, as I've stated many times, that Articles I and II are not sufficient, they don't rise to the level of impeachable offenses, even if provable, and there's not sufficient evidence.

    But numbers III and IV, frankly, don't pass the giggle test. They're quite simply laughable, as well as outrageous.

    What is number three, Article III? A grab bag of different allegations: "The president encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit." A fair reading of the evidence says only one thing; she asked how she could avoid testifying, and he said: "Well, other witnesses have been allowed to -- not to testify in person by submitting an affidavit. So maybe they'll let you do that, too."

    There is no evidence, no testimony from anybody, that he asked her to file a false affidavit, as opposed to simply suggesting that she could file an affidavit, instead of appearing in front of the grand jury, which she was understandably nervous about.

    Indeed, she testifies he never asked her to lie. There is no contradictory testimony at all. Yet the surmise, as Mr. Schumer put it, is sufficient to make that part of an article of impeachment.

    The job search -- the job search, helping someone find a job -- is not illegal. It's generally considered praiseworthy. There is no evidence whatsoever connecting the efforts to help Ms. Lewinsky find a job with her submission of an affidavit or her testimony. She testified that no one ever promised her a job.

    The suggestion to tie them together, we know, came from Linda Tripp. We know that from the tapes.

    We know if the president were really intent on getting her a job, he clearly could have done that. He is, after all, quite a powerful person. The fact that he did not shows there was no linkage with her affidavit. What linkage do we have with her affidavit? None at all except surmise and the fact that the efforts started well before there was any knowledge that she might be called at a witness. That she might have to file an affidavit or appear indicates that there was no connection beyond which, even the surmise -- the surmise is: "Why else would the president or Betty Currie or Vernon Jordan be interested in helping this young woman? It must be a corrupt motive."

    Well, no it mustn't be. Betty Currie might have -- Betty Currie was a friend, we know, of Vernon Jordan. Betty Currie asked Vernon Jordan to help her. Why would Betty Currie ask Vernon Jordan to help Monica Lewinsky find a job? Well, maybe because Monica Lewinsky asked her to, and Betty was a friend of hers. That's as logical as any other explanation.

    That's as logical as the sinister explanation you gentlemen posit, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. This is a classic example of the logical fallacy some of us learned about in college: "After this; therefore, because of this." After this; therefore, because of perhaps a lot of different reasons.

    Then we have the gifts. Monica Lewinsky returned -- gave gifts to Betty Currie: "It must be because the president was trying to hide the evidence. It must be because the president asked Betty Currie to retrieve the gifts" -- except that Betty Currie says that's not the case. Betty Currie testifies that Monica Lewinsky was the one who asked her to get the gifts.

    But we're told there was this phone call. Now, there is no evidence of what was said in that phone call. But what's the difference? We can surmise what we want to surmise. We can pretend it makes a difference. Now, Mr. Delahunt destroyed that by showing the phone call came an hour and a half after the gifts were retrieved or were given to Monica Lewinsky. That's proof positive it hasn't nothing to do -- so there is no evidence whatsoever of an evil motive for giving these gifts.

    But we have also been subjected to outrageous leaps of logic, because if in fact these gifts were being given by Monica Lewinsky to Betty Currie because the president wanted to get evidence away from her, why would he be giving her additional gifts on the same day?

    If he's trying to get the evidence away from her, why is he giving her more evidence?

    Well, there's outrageous leaps of logic to answer this. Mr. Schippers tells us, for example, that he intends to deal with the fact that --

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time is expired.

    REP. NADLER: Ask unanimous consent for an additional two minutes?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection.

    REP. NADLER: Thank you.

    Mr. Schippers attempted to deal with the fact that the president gave Ms. Lewinsky additional gifts after Betty Currie supposedly retrieved the earlier gifts, acting, allegedly, on the president's behalf to conceal those gifts in the Jones case. He says -- he told this committee with a straight face, "the only logical inference is that the gifts, including the bear symbolizing strength, were a tacit reminder to Ms. Lewinsky that they would deny the relationship even in the face of a federal subpoena."

    Is he kidding? For nonsense like this we're going to overturn the votes of the American people? The bear symbolizing strength was a tacit reminder to Ms. Lewinsky -- and a secret code, I suppose -- to continue to deny the relationship? I don't think so. I think the bear was a warning by the president that the stock market was going to tank and she should put her money in bonds. (Laughter.) It's as logical an inference. It has as much evidence behind it. The fact is, this is a nonsense article.

    And finally, the fact that the president spoke to co-workers in his office, to people he works with every day, and told them the same cover story that he was presumably telling his wife and others to protect his family because he was ashamed of this relationship. What is that evidence of? A conspiracy against justice? No, it's evidence of the fact that he's having a cover story for a sexual affair he wasn't proud of and didn't want to go public. And that becomes an impeachable offense? This is ludicrous -- along with the rest of this article, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has again expired.

    The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.

    REP. CHRISTOPHER CANNON (R-UT): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to --

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

    REP. CANNON: Thank you.

    Let me just me say that I think a compelling case, Mr. Nadler, is made for a scheme here, and it doesn't make sense to pick out details and mock them when we have a deep responsibility.

    But I did take Mr. Delahunt's question to heart and looked up the information there, and to some degree he's right. I would just like to point out that I don't think it has -- his argument has the weight that he would suggest.

    On page 1396 of the documents, it does indicate in a 302, one of the FBI reports, which was done on July 27th, 1998, that on December 28th -- the document which was done on the 27th of July -- Monica Lewinsky says that on December 28th -- so, roughly seven months earlier -- she had had a phone call and then met, or was outside her apartment on 20th Street to give those -- the gifts to Ms. Currie at about 2:00 p.m. That's a fair statement. But it does say "about." On the other hand, you have a call at 3:32 which is fixed in the records of her cell phone. I suspect that there may have been a mistake by Ms. Lewinsky of an hour and a half there and that that is not substantial.

    I'd like to talk briefly about the fact that Mr. Clinton -- President Clinton allowed his attorney to make false statements and misleading statements to a federal judge as he characterized an affidavit in order to prevent questioning which during the course of the questioning the judge deemed was relevant.

    On January 15th, Robert Bennett, who is the attorney for President Clinton, obtained a copy of the affidavit that Monica Lewinsky had filed to avoid testifying herself in the Jones case, and then -- in this affidavit you'll recall that Lewinsky asserted that she had never had a sexual relationship with the president. At the president's deposition two days later, on July 17th, 1998, an attorney for Paula Jones began to ask the president questions about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Now we saw this on the video recently. Mr. Bennett objected to the innuendo of the questions and he pointed out that she had signed an affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the president. Mr. Bennett asserted that this indicated there was no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form. Now, we all heard that being stated as the president sat there and nodded a couple of times in assent.

    After a warning from Judge Wright he stated that, "Look, I'm not coaching the witness. In the preparation of the witness for this deposition, the witness is fully aware of Ms. Jane Dow Six's affidavit. So I have not told him a single thing he doesn't know." Mr. Bennett clearly used the affidavit in an attempt to stop the questioning of the president about Ms. Lewinsky. The president did not say anything to correct Mr. Bennett, even though he knew the affidavit was false. Judge Wright overruled Mr. Bennett's objection and allowed the questioning to proceed.

    Later in the deposition, Mr. Bennett read the president the portion of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit in which she denied having, quotation marks, "a sexual relationship" with the president and asked the president if Ms. Lewinsky's statement was true and accurate. The president responded, "That is absolutely true."

    The grand jury testimony of Monica Lewinsky given under oath, following a grant a transactional immunity, confirmed that the contents of her affidavit were not true. Of the affidavit, she says under questioning, "I've never had a sexual relationship with the president" is that true? And her answer is no, it was not true.

    When President Clinton was asked during his grand jury testimony how he could -- now we're backing off from the Lewinsky testimony now and the deposition to the grand jury -- how he could have lawfully sat silent at the deposition while his attorney made a false statement -- "There is no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form" -- the District Court -- the president first said he was not paying a great deal of attention to Mr. Bennett when he said this. The president also said, "I didn't pay any attention to this colloquy that went on." Of course we saw the president sort of nodding at that as the colloquy happened. The videotape deposition shows the president looking in Mr. Bennett's direction while Mr. Bennett was making the statement about "no sex of any kind."

    The president then argued that when Mr. Bennett made the assertion that there "is no sex of any kind" Mr. Bennett was speaking only in the present tense. And therefore we get the famous "Is is what?" question. The president said, "It depends on what the meaning of `is' is; that if it means there is none, that was a completely true statement." President Clinton's suggestion that he might have engaged in such a parsing of the words at his deposition is at odds with his assertion that the whole argument had just passed him by.

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


    REP. CANNON: Thank you.

    REP. BRYANT: Mr. Chairman? I ask unanimous consent for two minutes to be yielded to Mr. Cannon.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection, of course.

    REP. BRYANT: Mr. Cannon, are you aware that the president's attorney, Bob Bennett, has, since this time, sent a request or a letter to the court formally withdrawing that affidavit?

    REP. CANNON: I am aware of that, and I think that is a remarkable fact, yes.

    REP. BRYANT: Okay. Well, my question is, he did that, I understand, as an officer of the court. Do you understand the significance of that action and how that impacts the president?

    REP. CANNON: I believe actually that I do understand the significance of that action. But you were a federal prosecutor, and it might be nice if you stated that, what you think that is.

    REP. BRYANT: Well we've got several on this panel. But certainly my understanding of these facts were that the -- Mr. Bennett, the lawyer for the president, as any attorney would in any litigation, once they find out that they have been -- that there has been improper or false evidence submitted to the court, as an officer of the court they have a duty to notify the judge of that and to take proper steps to disassociate themselves from their client or withdraw that evidence from the court. And I just wanted to point that out to you.

    And I don't know if my former colleague --

    REP. DELAHUNT: Would my friend yield?

    REP. BRYANT: I'd be happy to. Another great prosecutor over there, Mr. Delahunt.

    REP. DELAHUNT: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bryant.

    And, you know, Mr. Cannon alluded to the fact that you are a United States attorney and suggested that you respond to one of his questions. And I see my friend from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, here also.

    And as former U.S. attorneys, both of you, and for whom I truly have great respect for both of you, let me pose a question. Take Bill Clinton out of the deposition, put -- substitute ordinary citizen. Would either one of you have brought a perjury case when you were the United States attorney? And the context that I pose this is that we had five United States attorneys here, testifying that in both the grand jury as well as the deposition --

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has again expired.

    REP. COBLE: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: For what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina rise?

    REP. COBLE: Unanimous consent to speak out of turn for one minute.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection.

    REP. COBLE: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be -- appear to be the grinch who stole Christmas, but I want to tell my Democrat and Republican friends alike, I think five minutes are sufficient, and if it doesn't annoy anybody too severely, I intend to object at the end of each five minute segment so we can go home and go to bed.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has expired. For what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, seek recognition?

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

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes exactly.

    REP. WATT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I want to proceed very carefully in what I say here because I think of all the articles in this document this is the one that is most troubling to me, and when I hear Mr. Cannon refer to a scheme, it troubles me even further because I really think there are some things in this article that come dangerously close to just -- to McCarthyism.

    We went through a period in our history when behind every tree there was a communist. You know, if you made a phone call to somebody who was a communist, you became a communist. We assumed the absolute worst.

    And that's what I see happening in some parts of this article. And when you do that, you start to presume things that just -- I mean, they're like bad people behind every tree, and bad motivations for every phone call, and bad motivations for every contact, even when the contacts are completely innocent.

    Now, I just want to specifically look at parts 6 and 7 on page 7 of the articles where, when the president is having a conversation with Ms. Currie, you say that -- I presume you're talking about Ms. Currie -- "on or about January 18, January 20, 21, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness."

    Now we know that in the Paula Jones case when the president had a conversation with Ms. Currie, that conversation with Ms. Currie, discovery -- the discovery period was almost over. It was within a few days of being over, and Ms. Currie's name had never appeared on an witness list, so this notion that she is somehow a potential witness -- I don't know where it comes from. And then you go back later and you do the same.

    Now let me show you where this leads finally in Mr. Schippers' presentation yesterday, and show you how sinister it becomes. Mr. Schippers then says, "when he called Ms. Currie, he made sure that this was a face-to-face meeting, not an impersonal telephone call. He made sure that no one else was present when he spoke to her. He made sure that he had the meeting in his office, an area where he was comfortable and could utilize his power and prestige to influence future testimony. Once these controls were established, the president made short, clear, understandable declarative statements telling Ms. Currie what his testimony was."

    Now, that's fine if that's what happened, but look at what the actual statements were that the president made.

    There, one page before Mr. Schippers has given us this declarative statement, he's told us what the statements were. Number one, "It was never really -- I was never really alone with Monica, right?" question mark. Is that a declarative statement?

    Two: "You were always there when Monica was there, right?" question mark. Is that a declarative statement?

    "Monica came onto me, and I never touched her, right?" question mark.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Gentleman's time has expired.

    MR. WATT: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for two additional minutes.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Is there objection.

    REP. COBLE: Mr. Watt, I hate to do it, but I'm going to have to object.

    REP. WATT: Okay, if you set this precedent --

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Objection is heard.

    REP. WATT: All right, if you set the precedent, then you're going to be the beneficiary of it too.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Objection is heard.

    REP. NADLER: Mr. Chairman.

    REP. WATT: Because I will -- I will --

    REP. COBLE: May I respond to that, Mr. Sensenbrenner?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: (Gavel.) Objection is heard. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina is expired.

    REP. WATT: All right, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Would the gentleman from North Carolina like to strike the last word and get five minutes?

    REP. COBLE: I'll strike the last word and use one minute, folks.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Okay, the gentleman's recognized for five minutes.

    REP. COBLE: And I did that to put everybody on notice early --

    REP. WATT: Would the gentleman yield two minutes to me?

    REP. COBLE: No sir, I won't do it, Mr. Watt, not yet.

    REP. WATT: Okay, well I've done my best.

    REP. COBLE: Because folks, I think five minutes are adequate. I always finish before that red light illuminates, and I believe most of us can do it.

    REP. WATT: You've made a declarative statement.

    REP. COBLE: Yield back my time.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Okay, the time of the gentleman from North Carolina has expired. For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida seek recognition.

    REP. NADLER: Mr. Chairman.

    REP. CANADY: To strike the last word.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman from Florida is recognized for five minutes.

    REP. CANADY: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up on the comments made by the gentleman --

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

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman will state his point of order.

    REP. NADLER: Point of order is that it should be a Democrat now, Mr. Coble having been the last.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Well -- (cross talk) -- will the gentleman from Florida allow me to rescind --

    REP. NADLER: I'll withdraw that. I just wanted to point that out.

    (Cross talk.)

    REP. FRANK: I think that chairman made the right call. I think that chairman made the right call.

    REP. CANADY: Mr. Chairman.

    REP. FRANK: Go ahead, Jim, you're right.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Okay, the gentleman from Florida is recognized for five minutes.

    REP. CANADY: Would you start -- may I have the full five minutes?


    REP. FRANK: It's okay with us. Check with Coble. (Laughter.)

    REP. CANADY: I wanted to follow up on the issues raised by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, about the paragraph six in this article concerning the conversations that the president had with Ms. Currie on January 18th and January 20th and 21. The record reflects that President Clinton attempted to influence the testimony of Betty Currie, his personal secretary, by coaching her to recite inaccurate answers to possible questions that might be asked of her if called to testify in the case of Jones versus Clinton. That president did this shortly after he had been deposed in that case, as we all know.

    In his deposition, when asked about whether it would be extraordinary for Betty Currie to be in the White House between midnight and 6 a.m., the president answered in part, "Those are questions you'd have to ask her." Furthermore, the president invokes Betty Currie's name numerous times throughout the deposition, oftentimes asserting that Monica was around to see Betty, and that Betty talked about Vernon Jordan helping Ms. Lewinsky, and Betty talked with Ms. Lewinsky about her move to New York. After mentioning Betty Currie so often in answers to questions during his deposition, it was very logical for the president to assume the Jones lawyers might call her as a witness. That's not a leap; that's right there. That's for all of us to see in the president's own words. This is why the president called her about two hours after the completion of his deposition and asked her to come to the office the next day, which was a Sunday.

    Now, the president has stated that on January 18th, 1998, he met with Ms. Currie and asked her certain questions in an effort "to get as much information as quickly as I could, and made certain statements, although I do not remember exactly what I said." That's what the president contends. The president added that he urged Ms. Currie to tell the truth after learning that the Office of Independent Counsel might subpoena her to testify. The president also stated that he could not recall how many times he had talked to Ms. Currie or when.

    But let me go on and tell you what Ms. Currie said, and you've gone through it, but I think it bears repeating. While testifying before the grand jury, Ms. Currie said this when an OIC attorney asked her if the president had made a series of leading statements or questions that were similar to the following: "You were always there when she was there; right? We were never really alone. You could see, hear, and hear everything. Monica came on to me, and I never touched her; right? She wanted to have sex with me, and I couldn't do that."

    Now, in her testimony Ms. Currie indicated that the president's remarks were, quote, "more like statements than questions." Now, that's her characterization of it. Based on his demeanor and the manner in which he asked the questions, she concluded that the president wanted her to agree with him. Ms. Currie thought that the president was attempting to gauge her reaction and appeared concerned. Ms. Currie also acknowledged that while she indicated to the president that she agreed with him, in fact she knew that at times he was alone with Ms. Lewinsky and that she could not or did not hear or see the two of them while they were alone.

    At their subsequent meeting, on January 20 and 21, after the first time he talked with her about this, Ms. Currie stated that it was sort of a recapitulation of what we had talked about on Sunday.

    Now the president's response, that he was trying to ascertain what the facts were or trying to ascertain what Betty's perception was, is simply not credible. The president knew the facts about what had happened with Ms. Lewinsky. Betty Currie was not his source of information about the details of that relationship. That's ridiculous on its face.

    The only reason he had to pose that series of so-called questions, or statements, to her was to corruptly influence her testimony. And I think that is clear on the face of the record, and any contrary interpretation suggests a willful disregard of all the circumstances.

    And I yield back the balance of my time.

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

    For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition?

    REP. FRANK: To strike the last word.

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

    REP. FRANK: Mr. Chairman, this is a very shoddy effort, it seems to me. And actually I agree again that the central fact of this case remains central to this; Bill Clinton had a consensual sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky and sought to conceal that fact. That is the only fact that we have at the center of all this; that is, that's the cause. We again remember that all of the other issues that have been raised, from the FBI files to Whitewater to Kathleen Willey, et cetera, et cetera, are simply absent from this.

    So then the question is, did the president obstruct justice? And there are a number of, I think, very strained efforts to prove that.

    One central fact has been missing. Monica Lewinsky is treated here as if she was just bursting to get to that deposition and tell all. And the whole premise of this is, is that Monica Lewinsky was being preyed upon, suborned, persuaded by this combination of Vernon Jordan, Betty Currie, Bill Clinton, et al, not to tell the truth. It is in this context that it is very relevant that Monica Lewinsky volunteered -- because the prosecutors knew enough from that cases's standpoint not to ask her -- she volunteered, "No one asked me to lie, and no one promised me a job."

    Now I have noticed that my colleagues on the other side have developed a very peculiar verbal tic. Monica Lewinsky said, "No one asked me to lie." They are incapable of repeating that without adding the word "explicitly." It's a form of verbal disease. Monica Lewinsky said, "No one asked me to lie." They all say, including Kenneth Starr, "No one explicitly asked me to lie."

    There is an enormous difference between the two. And the very fact that my colleagues on the other side almost always add that word "explicitly" indicates their recognition of the power of her denial.

    It's also interesting that Monica Lewinsky is a woman of absolute perfect memory in Ken Starr's version, except she just had a terrible memory lapse and she lost a couple of hours of her life, because the gentleman from Utah, explaining the very important point made by my colleague from Massachusetts, said, "Oh well, she must have thought it was 2:00, but it was really 4:00 because the call came at 3:30."

    There was nothing remotely to suggest that.

    Betty Currie, interestingly, also goes through transmogrifications. We are told that she was willing to give testimony to the grand jury that the majority finds damaging. But she also said -- Betty Currie said Monica Lewinsky initiated the gift transfer.

    So we have your acknowledgement that Betty Currie was prepared to tell the truth, even if it was somewhat damaging to Bill Clinton. You're citing one of her statements that's very damaging to Bill Clinton. Why does she then become a liar and a schemer when she volunteers it?

    The fact is that the most sensible explanation here is that both Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky wanted to withhold the truth of this. Neither one of them wanted to do it. Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton worked together. The gentleman from Florida said they had agreed long before the Paula Jones -- months before the Paula Jones thing was on anybody's horizon for Monica Lewinsky, that they would not tell the truth.

    But you have to change the facts; you have to assume that there was this Monica Lewinsky dying to tell everybody. As a matter of fact, let's be very clear, even after all of this, what got Monica Lewinsky to talk was Kenneth Starr threatening to throw her and her mother in prison. Monica Lewinsky had to be threatened by Kenneth Starr with imprisonment and have her mother be threatened by Kenneth Starr with imprisonment before she would say it. Now that's relevant because you're portraying this notion that it took all of Bill Clinton's wiles, and Vernon Jordan and Betty Currie, to keep her from doing this. The truth is, she never wanted to do it. The truth is, she was resisting vigorously doing it on her own. The truth is that this young woman only told these facts when she was threatened with prison, and that destroys the whole case.

    You are accusing Bill Clinton and Vernon Jordan and Betty Currie of doing something all of them have denied -- and they have all denied that they did this -- and you're saying that they did it to persuade and cajole Monica Lewinsky to doing something which she in fact did -- that she wanted to do. She did not have to be restrained from testifying; she didn't want to testify. Quite the contrary, is the case; she had to be -- first Linda Tripp tried to get her to do it, and then Kenneth Starr threatened her with it.

    And I think this failure to recognize Monica Lewinsky's reluctance to testify is a central problem, and that's why you have so much trouble explaining away her statement that no one asked her to lie and no one promised her a job.

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

    For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, seek recognition?

    REP. GEKAS: To strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes -- five.

    REP. GEKAS: We will all recall that the president gave that deposition on January 17th, 1998. On or about January 21st, in conformity -- now I'm speaking with number seven of the Article of Impeachment number three. In the days following the 21st, et cetera, he started talking with his aides because, by that time, the Washington Post had broken the story and everybody in the country was talking about it.

    And so his aides -- one by one the president's aides would be talking to him about it. In one of those instances, Mr. Blumenthal, one of his aides, asked him, "Have you done anything wrong?" There are a lot of details to it, but this is basic -- "Have you done anything wrong?" He said, "No, I've done nothing wrong," and words to the effect that he did not have a relationship with this intern, as the Washington Post had indicated.

    Now, at that time, it was also revealed by the Washington Post that Judge Starr was looking into this matter, so when Blumenthal asked this, the president knew that Starr was pursuing this matter. When he told Blumenthal that he did nothing wrong and that there was no relationship between him and Monica Lewinsky, he had an inkling that -- and a notion, a knowledge that Ken Starr was after this case.

    Back up for a moment -- if he had told Blumenthal the truth, that, yes, Mr. Blumenthal, I did have a relationship, I have done something wrong, I did have this relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Blumenthal, upon being subpoenaed by the grand jury, would have to testify on an admission against interest on the part of the president and say the president did admit to me that he had this relationship.

    So the president, in telling Blumenthal and Podesta and X and Y and Z among the aides who he knew were going to be testifying after Judge Starr began to pursue witnesses had to block out the item that he was trying to protect. He was trying to protect himself, and Monica Lewinsky, and his family and everybody else from the break of the news that he had this relationship with Monica Lewinsky. So he told one after the other, knowing that they were in a position to be subpoenaed by the grand jury, that he did nothing wrong, he had no such relationship with Monica Lewinsky. This is obstruction of justice.

    Now how did -- how did the president know is a question that might be looming. How did the president know -- how do we know that the president knew that they were going to be witnesses in the grand jury. The president said so. In the grand jury testimony that he, himself presented, the question was, "It may have been misleading, sir, and you knew, though, after January 21st, when the Post article broke and said that Judge Starr was looking into this, you knew that they might be witnesses" -- meaning Podesta, Blumenthal, X, Y and Z, the aides in the White House -- "you knew that they might be called into a grand jury, didn't you?"

    Answer: "That's right. I think I was quite careful what I said after that. I may have said something to all these people to that effect, but" -- I'm reading the whole thing to be fair, so that I wouldn't be taking it out of context -- "but I also, whenever anybody asked me any details, I said, `Look, I don't want you to be a witness or I turn you into a witness or give you information that could get you into trouble.' I just wouldn't talk. I, by and large, didn't talk to people about this."

    And so that forms the gravamen of this particular averment in the third article of impeachment. It is palpably an attempt by the president to protect himself, but in doing so, he gives evidence from which a trier of fact can easily deduce that he obstructed justice.

    I yield back the balance of my time.

    For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, seek recognition?


    REP. LOFGREN: The last word.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes.

    REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): First, I would like to comment once again that it's now 10 to 8:00, I guess, almost 10 to 8:00, we are concluding, or getting close to concluding, our third article, and we have still not heard from Mr. Starr in response to the questions, despite the chairman and ranking member's letters and the repeated phone calls from staff among both Republican and Democratic staff to ask for the answers.

    I would like unanimous consent to submit to the record the form that I sent to Mr. Starr on December 4th asking him these three questions and asking that he merely fill in the blanks and circle "yes" or "no" as an answer. And I'm hopeful that by continuing to raise this issue, we might actually get the answers that we are owed before we are finished.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection, the gentlewoman's letter will be placed as a part of the record. She may proceed.

    REP. LOFGREN: Secondarily, I think it's clear that the allegations in this article are so far from what would be required to prove that the conduct was destructive to our American constitutional system of government that I really think it's preposterous. My colleagues have handled this quite well. I don't need to go at very great length. So I would therefore like to yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.

    REP. BILL DELAHUNT (D-MA): I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

    I understand -- I wasn't in the committee room at the time, but I understand that Mr. Cannon acknowledged that Ms. Lewinsky might be wrong about the time. And I appreciate that acknowledgement. But I really wonder when we should stop assuming that she was making mistakes, and I think we have that responsibility.

    It's a very dangerous assumption. But anyhow -- or that she was correct.

    REP. CANNON: Would the gentleman yield on that point? I don't think I acknowledged she made a mistake. I don't know. But a two- hour mistake after seven months is not --

    REP. DELAHUNT: Well, I don't have a lot of time. But, you know, again, you know, Mr. Frank talked about shoddiness. And while we're on the subject of that phone call, I just want to make another point that speaks to the quality of the evidence. And I dare say it speaks to all of the evidence contained within the Starr referral, because no member of this committee, including myself, have had the opportunity to review it. And we know that and the American people should know that. It was simply an impossible task.

    You know, both the referral from Mr. Starr and Mr. Schippers state that Ms. Currie initiated the call when she was visiting her mother in the hospital. Now, if Mr. Starr had bothered to investigate -- again, another point; I'd call it a rather key point -- or if Mr. Schippers had done the work an impeachment should really be about, they would have found that Ms. Currie was at the Howard University Hospital here in DC.

    Now, go back to this key corroborating evidence, the cell phone bill that we keep talking about, putting aside why Betty Currie would use her cell phone bill to call Ms. Lewinsky to begin this obstruction of justice. Let's put that aside. But just notice, notice that the phone bill says the call was from Arlington, Virginia, not from Washington, not from the District.

    You know, when should we believe Mr. Starr? It's interesting to note that in the grand jury, Ms. Lewinsky stated rather clearly that the Office of Independent Counsel asked her if she would agree to be wired to get Vernon Jordan or Betty Currie and possibly the president --

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The time of the gentlewoman from California has expired.

    REP. GEKAS: Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: State your point.

    REP. GEKAS: Do we have to refer to Mr. Coble to gain extra time for our members?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Coble told us that he was more of the official time keeper than this contraption.

    REP. COBLE: Mr. Chairman, I think I have ruffled feathers. I didn't mean to. We're in the shadow of the yuletide season. I will withdraw my complaint and I'll try to give some time, and I'll give it to Mr. Watt before the midnight hour. (Laughter.)

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection, the feathers are unruffled.

    REP. COBLE: I'm not sure about that, Mr. Chairman, but I'll try.

    REP. DELAHUNT: Can I have an additional minute?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection, so ordered.

    REP. DELAHUNT: I thank --

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: It's the time of the gentlewoman from California. Does she -- she has to ask for it.

    REP. DELAHUNT (?): Mr. Chairman, can I ask for an additional minute for the gentlewoman from California?

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: I guess so, without objection.

    REP. DELAHUNT (?): She yielded. (Laughter.)

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: Well, even though proxy voting has been abolished for four years, I guess the gentleman from Massachusetts is now recognized on his own for a minute.

    REP. DELAHUNT: Well, I thank the creativity of the chair. But I just simply want to make the point that during her grand jury testimony, Monica Lewinsky unequivocally stated that during the encounter at the hotel, the Ritz, she was asked by the Office of Independent Counsel whether she would consider to be wired. And yet Mr. Starr, under oath, when he testified here before us, in reference to a letter that I had produced to him that he had sent to Mr. Brill where he said that the suggestion that he had in any way requested Ms. Lewinsky to be wired was totally false -- was totally false.

    I mean, this is -- we are on the verge of voting another article based on pick-and-choose and pick-and-choose and just shoddiness everywhere. I sincerely ask my friends on the other side just to think about these things, please.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has expired. And before recognizing the next speaker, let me announce that I have been informed by staff that the Office of Independent Counsel has prepared the responses to the questions that were jointly asked by Chairman Hyde and Ranking Minority Member Conyers. And, using their words, they are "literally out the door" with these responses and should be here within the next half hour. And I hope that that satisfactorily answers the questions that have been posed, at least about the timing of this.

    For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, seek recognition?

    REP. GOODLATTE: I move to strike the last word.

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

    REP. GOODLATTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote for this article of impeachment. I have listened to the debate. I've studied the evidence very carefully, and I think that the evidence very strongly supports the allegations of an effort to obstruct justice by the president of the United States.

    I would like to address my attention to motives. The gentleman from Massachusetts focused on the motivation of Ms. Lewinsky, and I think that's important and I'd like to address that. But I think the motivation of the president in this case, particularly when we come to the issue of whether or not this is an impeachable offense, is particularly important, because many on the other side have suggested that even if all of these events described in this article took place, it's still not an impeachable offense because it's simply the president's efforts to cover up an embarrassing situation. And I don't believe that to be the case, but I'll get to that in a moment.

    I think the gentleman from Massachusetts is right that Ms. Lewinsky was motivated not to testify. But I also think there are a lot of different ways that she might result in not testifying, and one of those was the very affidavit that is the subject of this article. And it's an issue of control. The president of the United States did not want Ms. Lewinsky to testify, because if she went before the civil deposition and testified, she would be expected to tell the truth under penalty of perjury, the very issue in this case, and so the issue of this affidavit.

    The president knows that an affidavit is being prepared. He knows that if it's being prepared truthfully that she's definitely going to be called to testify in that case because she would then be a material witness because, as a subordinate employee of the president, her evidence of her relationship with the president is very much related to the question of whether or not Ms. Jones is telling the truth in her case.

    It all boils down to how you prove a sexual harassment lawsuit. And everyone here should know that it's very difficult to prove a sexual harassment lawsuit. You do it by showing patterns of behavior. Very often the only two witnesses to the case are the two people involved. In this case, Ms. Jones and the president are the only people in the room during the incident that is alleged, so what can you show to corroborate Ms. Jones' testimony? Well, Ms. Lewinsky can corroborate that. So it's very important that that affidavit be false. And so, yes, there is a motivation on the part of Ms. Lewinsky not to testify, but how she goes about not testifying is of grave concern to the president, and I think that's substantiated.

    But the greater concern that I have is what's the motivation of the president. I reject the argument that this is simply to avoid embarrassment, because in the very same deposition the president gave testimony in which I believe he gave substantial amounts of false testimony. He acknowledged his relationship with Gennifer Flowers. He acknowledged embarrassing circumstances. And as a result, it's my opinion that the president engaged in the activity both in that deposition and in all of these activities surrounding it with regard to the affidavit, with regard to the gifts, with regard to Ms. Currie's testimony and so on, all of that was designed to defeat that sexual harassment lawsuit. That's the purpose of the president's activities here. It is not to avoid embarrassment. It is to defeat a lawsuit.

    When we had Professor Dershowitz come before us and testify, he attempted to define several levels of perjury, some of which he acknowledged would be impeachable and some not, and he attempted to make this perjury the lowest level of perjury and therefore not impeachable. But I pointed out to him that if these facts are indeed the case, if this is a part of an effort to defeat this lawsuit, that is not dissimilar to the police officers that he complained about giving false testimony in criminal cases in the effort to win those lawsuits.

    So his efforts to defeat this lawsuit or win it, from his standpoint, in my opinion, is a very serious form of perjury. It is not based upon simply covering up his personal activities but rather to subvert the judicial process, to harm a right that people in this country have to bring, and that is sexual harassment lawsuits when they are treated in a certain fashion. And we should not treat the president's behavior lightly because it was, in my opinion, founded upon an effort far, far removed from simply covering up a personal embarrassment.

    And I yield back the balance of my time.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has expired. I'm going down the line in order on the Democratic side. Do either the gentlewoman from Texas or the gentlewoman from California seek recognition? The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.

    REP. JACKSON LEE: I'd like to strike the last word. We are dangerously tilting over the edge. And for many of us, this exercise has not been taken lightly. And frankly, again, a word that I intend to use, because I hope it signifies some seriousness in this effort -- I'm just not sure where we're going. We are at the point of these articles of impeachment, and for those who are studying this process and have seen us work through yesterday and today, the articles have several paragraphs. And so they make up the article as an entirety.

    And this one that is article number three is called or at least suggests obstruction of justice. Well, I believe we shouldn't even be here, if you will, because these are private matters, albeit reprehensible. And if we would tend to the constitutional mandate and the framers' mindset or the Federalist Papers or the words of James Madison, we would understand that treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors was intended to deal with the acts of a president that impacted the governmental system, that subverted the Constitution, that toppled the government, that destroyed the trust in government of the chief executive officer of the United States of America.

    We are here quarreling over these private matters and discussing phone call distinctions, albeit relevant, since our colleagues are relying upon this. But unfortunately, we cannot rely on witnesses called by the majority to have been able to assess their credibility, to have been able to ask Ms. Currie, to have been able to ask Ms. Lewinsky of a discrepancy.

    So it troubles me and somewhat provides an unfortunate degree of humor when I hear my colleagues citing the record when it is nothing but the unchallenged record of testimony where we have not had the ability to give and take, to examine and cross-examine.

    In the Madison papers, written quite well by James Madison, who was a good note-taker of the proceedings to write the Constitution, it is made very clear that they had intended or had the language dealing with how they perceived high crimes and misdemeanors, treason and bribery, against the state. And it was only when the stylistic committee, meaning the grammar committee, the committee that makes it look pretty, decided to take out "against the state" so that they would be able to not have redundancy.

    So we're actually talking about private matters of the president of the United States, and the impeachment provision doesn't even provide for that. But that's another story, I guess.

    I want to focus on number seven, because it really -- seven of the Article Number Four -- talks about the president using his Cabinet, and attempting -- and his chief deputies -- to cover up and to obstruct justice.

    First of all, as this was unveiling, the president was telling more or less the same story to everyone: this was embarrassing, didn't want to have this come out, anyone to know anything differently. I don't know how we can attribute to him the fact that he knew that all of this was going to explode at the time he was still dealing with Whitewater, and Travelgate, and Filegate. And then all of a sudden, this came about.

    But let me simply say in the Starr Report, you have "the most senior officials in the Executive Branch served as an additional albeit unwitting agents of the president's deception. The Cabinet and White House stated emphatically that the allegations were false." And they're basing that upon what Mr. Clinton said to them.

    Now, none of them got on a telephone, or got into a meeting and organized themselves, and said "You go here," "you go here," "make sure when you go into the grand jury, which they did not know, including Mr. Lindsey and Lieberman and all the others, "you say this."

    And then the ultimate foolishness, foolhardiness of this, is in Mr. Starr's referral, he talks about the First Lady. We all are familiar with the very forceful statements she made on one of the morning talk shows sometime in January. He wants to call that obstruction of justice.

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

    REP. JACKSON LEE: The president is not being treated fairly. These are not impeachable offenses, Mr. Chairman. These are not offenses against the state, and this article should fail, because it is groundless.

    REP. SENSENBRENNER: For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio Mr. Chabot seek recognition?

    REP. CHABOT: To strike the last word.

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

    REP. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we come to a close on this unfortunately but very necessary debate, let me address the third article of impeachment obstruction of justice. As I discussed last night, the charges arrayed against the president are individually very troubling, but together, they're overwhelming. This article, I believe, demonstrates the web and deceit and cover- up that the president constructed to hide his lies in the Jones civil rights lawsuit.

    This third article of impeachment charges the president of the United States with, one, encouraging a witness to file a false affidavit; two, encouraging a witness to give false testimony; three, encouraging a witness to conceal evidence; four, assisting a witness to get a job in order to make sure that she didn't tell the truth in her testimony; five, allowing his attorney to make false statements and thus cut off a specific and very important line of questioning in the Jones case. Six, attempting to influence Betty Currie to lie, and seven, making false and misleading statements to his staff and to his Cabinet, with the intent that they would repeat those lies before a federal grand jury, and also would repeat those lies to the American people.

    The purpose of all this lying and deceit wasn't just to keep the president from being embarrassed. He'd been embarrassed before. It was to defeat a civil rights sexual harassment lawsuit. That was the purpose. This isn't just about sex, as many people have said, and would like it to be about. It's not. It's the lies, it's the obstruction of justice, it's covering up. It's that lawsuit, which was the basis for all of this.

    These serious seven obstruction charges, are extremely troubling. We are not talking about little white lies, or half- truths. Instead, we're talking about the president of the United States engaging in cover-up, witness-tampering, and a well-planned effort to thwart our system of justice.

    These are criminal acts that cannot be ignored. And let's always keep in mind, that as the president was concealing the evidence, and the other things that he was doing in this case, he was consciously and deliberately breaking the law. At that time, he was the chief law enforcement officer of this country, and that's completely unacceptable. And that's why we're here this evening.

    And at this time, I would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.

    REP. BARR: I thank the gentleman from Ohio. Much has been made by various of the other speakers on the other side of the aisle in their defense -- continuing defense of the president -- and indeed, they remind me dramatically of defenses and arguments that I would hear as the United States Attorney, raising arguments against indictments, against proof in criminal cases.

    I would point out to particularly my colleagues on this side of the aisle, that as they are well aware, the obstruction of justice, as the gentleman from Ohio stated, is an extremely serious portion of the U.S. Criminal Code, reflected in very serious penalties applicable thereto in the federal sentencing guidelines.

    There is indeed an entire chapter of Title 18 of the United States Code, which is the Criminal Code, relating to obstruction. The reason why there are so many different provisions of the Federal Criminal Code that relate to obstruction, as opposed, for example, to the perjury provisions of the code, which are found entirely in one particular section, is because of the very subtle nature and very subtle practice that obstruction usually takes, very infrequently involving sophisticated and intelligent defendants.

    And one may accuse or feel a lot of things about the president of the United States, but I don't think anybody could claim that he is neither sophisticated nor intelligent. In those type situations, involving application of the obstruction statutes, what almost invariably prosecutors are faced with, are defendants who do not tell the person to whom they are seeking to obstruct justice, or as to whom they are, "I want you to lie. I am tampering with you. Do you understand that? I am asking you and directing that you hide this evidence. Do you understand that?"

    It is much less direct than that, much more sophisticated, and the case that we've heard today reflected in the general but with sufficient specificity provisions of Article III of these articles of impeachment, are more than sufficient to satisfy the burden of your United States attorneys and many state prosecutors, for those states which --

    Might I have one more minute, Mr. Chairman, by unanimous consent?

    REP. HYDE: Yes.

    REP. BARR: -- for those states which have statutes similar to the federal obstruction statutes. Frequently, more frequently than not, prosecutors present and have convictions sustained on less evidence than we have addressed here today, much less evidence than the independent counsel has already presented to this committee, and which will be transmitted along with whatever articles of impeachment may be voted out by the House to the Senate.

    And as members on our side have indicated, these involve the tampering with witnesses, tampering of evidence, efforts to have other people go forth, sally forth in the world, and relate to other people, in this case literally millions of other people your side of the story, which is not in accord with reality or the facts of the case.

    That is the essence of tampering, that is the essence of obstruction. And I feel very comfortable, Mr. Chairman, in recommending the members on this committee vote in favor of Article III in all of its component parts, which more than satisfies both the legal and historical burden of an obstruction article of impeachment.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters.

    REP. WATERS: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members, at one point during the day, I thought I would not engage in this any more, because I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made up their minds, and you certainly can't change their minds. They know what they have to do, they know what they must do. There is not a lot of independence over there, and they're going to vote lock- step together, and that's that.

    But I want to really talk about some of this to the American public that may be listening. This hodge-podge of referral information that's general in nature, not specific, and does not cite anywhere exactly what Bill Clinton said or did to support the allegation in the referral is just absolutely amazing.

    But let me talk a little bit about the job-assistance part of it, and that's on page six, where they say:

    "Beginning on or about December 7th, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14th, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a federal civil-rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him."

    There is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- in any of the information that we have received -- none of the documents -- that supports this allegation.

    As a matter of fact, if you listen to the telephone conversations between Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp, you will see Linda Tripp carefully guiding her to get to Vernon Jordan. She suggests to her that Vernon Jordan could really get her a job, that what she needed to do was to find a way to get to Vernon Jordan because he was a powerful man with a lot of friends. And she literally put a string through her nose and just led her right through, to her going back to Betty Currie, asking if they could get some help from Vernon Jordan.

    The president did not ask Vernon Jordan. Nowhere in the document do you see the president in a conversation with her, saying that he will give her job assistance if she will not testify. Nowhere do you see him asking anybody to do anything. But what you see is a very aggressive young woman who knows what she wants. And she has learned a lot about how to stay in people's faces, how to get what she wants, how to ask for it, how to get to the next person higher up.

    And she does it quite well. She bugs everybody. She ensnares a lot of people into this circle of trying to get her a job. And she keeps pestering and sending notes.

    And we know about this because we have interns in our office. Some are very aggressive, and they let you know what they want right away: "Ms. Waters, can you introduce me to" -- "can you get me in a party with the president?"; "Can you get me on a campaign?"; "I want to be the press person."

    Oh, some of them really go after it. And when they come here, they do their work oftentimes. But they are at the parties, and they find out where the big things are happening. They want to rub shoulders.

    And that's what she was all about, and that's how she did it. There is nothing in this information that shows that the president and Vernon Jordan "dropped everything they were doing," as Mr. Barr said.

    Now that's really putting a spin on it -- to say the president of the United States and Vernon Jordan dropped everything that they were doing in order to get Monica Lewinsky a job. And let me tell you something. He referred to her as second or third rate. Well, we have interns that come into our office, and they may come in making no money or very little money, or they may just be volunteer, but they're not second- or third-rate people! Even if they come in at entry-level rates, they just happen to be people breaking in the door, getting a job for the first time. They're not second or third rate! We have some first-rate people in low-paying jobs, and to identify her, a college graduate who is bright, who is computer literate, who keeps the damnedest records I've ever seen -- this women docufied (sic) -- documents everything! She's not a second- or third-rate person, she's very bright, she knows how to go after a job and to get people doing what she wants them to do.

    This is a bunch of baloney, but I could argue this case in court and win. I could win because they have no documentation, they have nothing but the spinning of someone like Mr. Barr, and that's dangerous! And why am I so fixed on this? I request unanimous consent for two more minutes --

    REP. HYDE: The gentlelady wants two more minutes. She --

    REP. WATERS: Let me tell you why I'm so fixed on this. I'm fixed on this because I think Mr. Ken Starr is the poster boy for all of the bad prosecutors in America. What does that mean? That means you have prosecutors who abuse people, who use their powers to make people plea bargain because they don't know their rights. They perjure. I don't care whether you are from the right wing or the left wing or in the center. I am with you in fighting against bad prosecutors. I was sympathetic to the people up at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and they certainly are not over on the left. I was sympathetic to them because there's nothing worse than being descended on with the gun and the badge and you're powerless to fight that kind of power.

    Americans, you'd better listen because we're talking about Ken Starr today, and you're hearing people make up information, make up documentation. This could be your child, your wife, your friend tomorrow who has found themselves in a very difficult situation with an abusive prosecutor who will do whatever is necessary to convict you. That's what this is all about. It's not simply about Bill Clinton. This is about justice in America. How does the justice system work? You don't know about it until you come in contact with it.

    But God forbid you get a Ken Starr or a Bob Barr. You don't ever want that.


    REP. HYDE: That gentlelady's time has expired. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.

    REP. ED BRYANT (R-TN): Move to strike the last word.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's recognized for five minutes.

    REP. BRYANT: I'm not sure if I can follow that presentation, but I certainly have seen lawyers in court do worse.

    In response to my friend, Bill Delahunt, who is a very experienced, good prosecutor from Boston, we had a sort of a dangling question there at the end. He had asked would I, as a prosecutor myself, take this case to court. And I hear that this is a private matter consistently, that this is just private matters, and it was to an extent. Again, the U.S. attorney, the prosecutor from Massachusetts doesn't handle divorce cases. And up to a point, that was about all it would have been had anybody been interested in the case.

    But from the point in which it went from just allegations about sex to an active cover-up, that's when it came into public domain and when the law started being violated regarding perjury, obstruction of justice and tampering with witnesses, hiding evidence. And you can isolate these in a vacuum all you want and talk about them and take a statement out of context and it sounds perfectly innocent, but you do have to look at the big picture. You do. You don't throw away your common sense. You have to look at the big picture, and you have to look at the results.

    And as I mentioned yesterday in my statement, just -- this point about the job. This lady was aggressive. She tried for months to get a job. She had friends in high places and could not get a job. But low and behold, within 24 hours of signing an affidavit which exonerated the president, she got the job, in New York with a Fortune 500 company.

    The evidence was in her apartment one day, and then almost by magic, it was in the president's personal secretary's house under the bed, hidden, just there.

    So you have to look at these things in a big picture. And you can't ignore those. These things just don't happen by magic.

    But in answering my friend's question, you have to look at several issues, and I would be hard, he said, if this weren't the president. But you have to look at it if this were another high- elected official of something. If it were the everyday person, they wouldn't have the opportunity to do the abuse, to perform the level of abuse that occurred in this case.

    So I think you have to look at it as a very visible person, a person that, once this comes out, they're going to say, "Well, why didn't you look at this person? Why didn't you prosecute this person? Because he's famous? He's rich? He's powerful?"

    So that is a special consideration.

    In fact, that's in the U.S. attorney's manual. That was discussed a little bit two days ago when we had this panel. And Ron Nobles brought that up and said sometimes you have to send it to main Justice to prosecute it because they're going to say, "Well, you know this person and you're giving them special treatment." And so forth.

    So you have to be extremely careful there, and especially somebody like the president. I never had the opportunity to prosecute the president, and I hope I never do. But the person who's the chief law enforcement official, the fact that he brought other people into this and caused other people to commit crimes, the fact there is a cover-up here, the fact that you are vindicating the laws against perjury and obstruction of justice vouchsafing, as Griffin Bell said, the fact that all this lying and cover-up occurred in a sexual harassment case, you have to vindicate that lawsuit. You have to protect the rights of people to file these lawsuits because they're difficult to file, they're difficult to prove.

    So at the risk of being named an unreasonable prosecutor by a couple of these folks who have testified here in the past, I would have to say I would have carried this case to court.

    And would yield back the balance of my time.

    REP. HYDE: Thank the gentleman.

    Anyone seek recognition?

    REP. MEEHAN: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: Mr. Meehan?

    REP. MEEHAN: Move to strike the last word.

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

    REP. MEEHAN: You know, Mr. Chairman, sitting here on this article and listening back and forth for the last four hours or so, there's an old joke that comes to mind when I hear the case for Article III, and it goes something like this, to the best of my memory.

    A physicist, chemist and an economist are stranded on a desert island. Now, there's little food on the island so they're all starving. Suddenly a can of soup floats ashore. They're all elated until they realize they don't have a can opener. Then the physicist has an idea. He says, "You know, if you drop that rock over there at a certain angle from a palm tree of a certain height on the top of the can, it will pierce the top of the can and we can eat." The chemist replies, "Well, that's interesting, but I have a better idea. We can mix some of the sand over there with some of the salt water, ground up the palm leaves, smear it -- the resulting paste -- on the top of the can, leave it out in the sun and the top of the can will eventually dissolve." Well the economist leaped up after listening to his colleagues to speak on the subject, nodding his head. Finally the economist said, "That's great stuff. But I think I know how to deal with this. Assume a can opener." (Laughter.)

    Mr. Chairman, I call Article III the "assume a can opener" article. Monica Lewinsky tells us no one asked her to lie, no one promised her a job in return for her silence. Betty Currie tells us that she didn't feel the slightest bit pressured when she spoke with the president about her civil -- following his civil deposition. We know that Ms. Currie wasn't a witness at the time. The job assistance and the cover stories between the president and Ms. Lewinsky long pre- dated Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in any way, shape or manner in the Jones case. No one accuses the president of saying very much, if at all, in response to Ms. Lewinsky's suggestions that the gifts be concealed. No one testified that the president told Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit.

    In short, there are no hard facts to support any obstruction of justice charge. So in the absence of any hard facts, we just assume a conspiracy. We assume implicit understandings. We assume subtle suggestions, tacit agreements, bad intent. We assume a case from nothing.

    Mr. Chairman, there's a reason why few consider this article to have any chance of approval on the House floor, even though its central allegation, obstruction of justice, sounds much more serious than mere perjury.

    It is because there are no hard facts to support the charge, just assumption after guess after inference. Not the stuff our Founding Fathers anticipated for the constitutional equivalent of the atom bomb.

    I urge opposition to this clearly misguided, unproven article of impeachment, and yield back the balance of my time.


    REP. HYDE: Thank the gentleman.

    Mr. Pease, the gentleman from Indiana.

    REP. ED PEASE (R-IN): Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

    REP. PEASE: And I yield two minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble.

    REP. HOWARD COBLE (R-NC): I thank the gentleman from Indiana. If you would, if you would yield to my friend, Mr. Watt, two minutes and get me out of his dog house, I would be appreciative.

    REP. PEASE: I would be pleased to. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

    REP. MELVIN WATT (R-NC): I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I was on a roll at the time you-all interrupted me, and you've given me a whole hour to cool off. (Laughter.) But I appreciate the time anyway.

    I was going to conclude my story, and it actually follows with what Mr. Meehan said, because you can put all this stuff together if you have a conspiratorial mind, and you can draw the conclusion that the majority is drawing, but it just is not supported by any evidence. I mean, you've got to do a lot of speculating.

    Now, one of the things they're speculating about is that, well, Vernon Jordan couldn't possibly get a job or try to get a job for somebody as terrible, although reliable in her testimony, I would say, as Ms. Lewinsky. And you should be aware that I have a member of my staff who drove Mr. Jordan to the negotiations for the debate preparations in the last campaign. In the process of getting there, as he was parking, and Mr. Jordan was in the car, he backed into a pedestrian. And Mr. Jordan has actually made several efforts to -- offers to try to get him a job. I mean, that's the kind of guy that Mr. Jordan is.

    Now, sure, it's not consistent with your theory that somebody could just have an innocent motive, that they could be helping out somebody.

    But it's just as consistent that Mr. Jordan -- and I know him -- is that kind of person.

    REP. PEASE: Mr. Watt, I need to reclaim my time to say something here.

    REP. WATT: All right.

    REP. PEASE: But I want you to finish.

    REP. WATT: I am going to yield back to you.

    But my point is that you are seeing these ghosts behind every tree. And you know, you package all this stuff, as Mr. Meehan has said, and you come to what appears to be a rationale conclusion, but it's not very rationale.

    I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Pease be given four minutes.

    REP. PEASE: (Laughs.) Thank you, Mr. Watt. I don't think I'll need it. I won't ask for it. I am trying to do some cleanup here.

    Mr. Delahunt asked a question of Mr. Hutchinson, and I wanted to give him time to answer that question on my remaining time.

    REP. HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Mr. Pease. And I understand that Mr. Bryant answered this.

    But the question was is whether these cases would be prosecuted if the president was an ordinary citizen. And I would just respond very quickly that the ordinary citizen would have -- only be considered from a standpoint of probable-cause proof, a very low standard as to whether the prosecutor would bring charges.

    We are looking at this as an impeachable offense, which we should at a very high burden. So I think that we are looking at this much closer than the average citizen would. And I think with an eyewitness testimony, it would be a good case to bring forward.

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

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

    REP. FRANK: Could I ask unanimous consent that he be given one additional minute to respond to my question?

    REP. HYDE: Yes, one additional minute, if he chooses to.

    REP. FRANK: Thank you.

    REP. PEASE (?): I'd be happy to.

    REP. FRANK: Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. PEASE: Certainly.

    REP. FRANK: Thank you.

    You just said that if the president were an ordinary person, the prosecutor would look at this only from a level of probable cause. Yet we heard all these prosecutors say that, although you only need probable cause for grand jury indictment, prosecutors look at a case as to whether they'll prosecute it, and properly so, as to whether they are likely to get a jury conviction. So they would be looking at a much higher standard than probable cause. Isn't that correct?

    REP. HUTCHINSON: Well, I heard that testimony, and it was interesting. And I think that a prosecutor does look to see what the likelihood of getting a conviction is. But I think also that when you are talking about sexual abuse cases -- there are a lot of cases that they are very tough to bring, but the interests of justice require it to go forward.

    And always, lots of times you don't know what is going to happen with the jury. I think a prosecutor is in a little bit of trouble whenever you start figuring out what a jury is going to do. You have to look at this; and in your heart, if you believe this case has the merit to go forward, it should. And let a jury determine that.

    REP. HYDE: The question occurs on Article III.

    REP. WEXLER: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: Oh, Mr. Wexler.

    REP. WEXLER: Thank you. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman.

    I would just like to spend a little bit of time examining this alleged, corrupt scheme to conceal evidence that the president allegedly engaged in, and I use the word corrupt scheme to conceal evidence because that's, of course, what is alleged in the articles of impeachment, and to do so, I would like to employ what I think was a noteworthy argument advanced by Mr. Barr just a couple of moments ago. And if I understand Mr. Barr's argument correctly, it essentially went that because the president is admittedly a smart, intelligent man, that it is appropriate to infer or use circumstantial evidence because, naturally, a smart, intelligent man would not create a chain of evidence that so directly establishes that he obstructed justice.

    I can buy that. That's a reasonable proposition.

    So let's apply that proposition to the allegations against the president. This smart, intelligent man, according to the president's accusers, arranged on December 28th, earlier in the day, with a corrupt motive, to retrieve all the gifts that he gave to Monica Lewinsky. And this intelligent, smart man apparently was so taken by his incredibly wise retrieval of the gifts that he wanted to up the stakes later in the day. He gave her some more gifts! So earlier, on December 28th, the president, with corrupt mind, said, "Here, we're going to create this big scheme to take back the gifts." And that same intelligent man, later on in the day, so taken with himself, said, "Here's some more gifts." I guess he just wanted to do it all over again in a couple of days so he could do that same corrupt scheme to get them back. It just doesn't make sense.

    And then let's look at the job quest -- so-called "we're going to keep Monica on the team" I think it was explained by either Mr. Schippers or someone else -- we've got to keep Monica on the team, we've got to get her a job!

    But of course they've got to get over one tremendous hurdle -- the job search started long before Monica Lewinsky was ever on the witness list. So knowing that, creatively the president's accusers, they say, well the job search itself wasn't an impeachable event, that wasn't corrupt; what was corrupt was when the president intensified the job search. The job search that started for months, well that was okay; it was just when he got serious about it, when he intensified it, it became impeachable.

    But this same smart man, this same intelligent man, who apparently thought it was so important to keep Monica Lewinsky on the team, he never thought to get her a job at the White House like she wanted. (Snapping his fingers) How'd he miss that one? So that's this intelligent man that concocted this extraordinary scheme to conceal evidence and get a job, but he forgot two things -- he didn't conceal any evidence because he gave it back to her, and he forgot to get her a job.

    Ladies and gentlemen, does anybody reasonably believe that this is what we impeach a president of the United States over? This is as circumstantial as it gets. This employs the ability of reading somebody's mind. And we have now concluded that in order to get us the impeachable evidence, this intelligent president, this intelligent president did some extraordinarily stupid things. And that is now the basis of his obstruction of justice count.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum, is recognized for five minutes.

    REP. MCCOLLUM: Thank you very much, Chairman.

    Well we've heard a lot tonight about these seven parts of the obstruction of justice article, and I think it is important for us to keep in mind a couple of things. One is I wish, as one of the members on the other side had said earlier, the record did show that all of this was made up. But unfortunately, it is not made up and nobody's made it up. It's before us and we have to deal with it, and that's why we're here tonight.

    Secondly, I think it's important to remember that this is the article we discussed earlier in the day that originally came forward saying "one or more of the following." There are seven of them. Not every one of them may rise to the same level of proof that the others do. The strict version that we have to send something forward to trial, as has been stated tonight, is "probable cause." I happen to think we need to have a little higher than that, and most of us do, and I think "clear and convincing" has been more or less the general standard most of us agreed to.

    A couple of these seven I think go beyond that. I would say that I'm convinced from the evidence that we have before us that if I were on a jury, I would convict the president beyond a reasonable doubt. But all of them are clear and convincing, and surely to any reasonable person there would be probably cause to take these to trial for crimes if you were going to take these to trial before a jury.

    Now, let's look at this. We're not surmising about this, as somebody said earlier. We're talking now about, yes, some circumstantial evidence. I don't know many crimes that are committed in this country that are taken to trial, of any sort or type, in which there is not circumstantial evidence. Most of them involve that. And a great many of them have only circumstantial evidence. There aren't too many cases of murder where you have the eye witness, at least where you have a trial. Usually you have somebody who is going to plead to that. Where you actually have to go to trial, you don't usually have the goods from the eye witness there; you have circumstantial evidence.

    What we have today is very compelling circumstantial evidence. We know the president of the United States was facing a lawsuit, a civil suit we've talked about a lot tonight, a sexual harassment civil rights suit. He was worried about that suit, no doubt. And again, whether you agree with Paula Jones' right to bring the suit or whether or not he should have been required to testify, the courts ruled he did, and he had to go forward and testify.

    Now, long before that came up and long before Monica Lewinsky was subpoenaed, we know that there was an agreement between the president and Monica Lewinsky that if they were ever asked, they would lie about the relationship. That's a fact. A certain period of time goes by. There is that famous call on the night of December 17th after the president learns Monica is on the witness list, and they have the discussion that's very clear. And I think this is one of the strongest, it's the very first one of the seven obstruction of justice charges that are in this article.

    On that night, they have this discussion about the fact she's going to be a witness, and she's worried about it. And she says to the president, What do I do about it? And he suggests that she might file an affidavit. And in that discussion he suggests she might use the cover stories -- which, by the way, form the basis for the second obstruction of justice charge. Well, you could always tell them that Betty, you know, was the reason you came down here and so forth.

    At any rate, both of them knew that night that it was going to be a false affidavit. It didn't have to be explicitly stated. They talked about cover stories that night. And Monica Lewinsky said, in a sworn statement to the grand jury when asked about all of this, when she did say, of course, that the president didn't tell me to lie, but he did suggest things that would lead me to believe that he expected we were going to. And she says, quote, "It wasn't as if the president called me and said, `You know, Monica, you're on the witness list, this is going to be really hard for us, we're going to have to tell the truth and be humiliated in front of the entire world about what we've done,' which I probably would have fought him on, probably. That was different.

    And by him not calling me and saying that, you know, I knew what that meant." Unquote.

    Now that's what she's testified to, and that's very consistent with the circumstances we're in here, in this situation. So I'm convinced, myself, beyond a reasonable doubt -- and I think it would be pretty easy for a prosecutor to convince a jury -- that the president indeed obstructed justice with regard to suggesting this affidavit, expecting it to be false.

    But that isn't the end of the story. Moving very rapidly in that process, you know, on the 18th -- I should say on the 19th of December -- that was on the 17th -- the president -- I shouldn't say the president -- Monica Lewinsky received a subpoena for the gifts that we've talked about, and in that subpoena was a very explicit request for any dresses or hat pins and so forth that the president might have given her. "And it screamed out at me," she said, the hat pin, which was the first gift that had been given to her. And so she then tries to make some contact with the president. He has indicated he wants to give her more gifts, and finally, after Christmas, on December 28th, she goes into a meeting with the president and has that meeting in which he is going to give her the gifts that's so famous that's been discussed.

    In that meeting -- in that meeting, she says, Mr. President, the hat pin is here. This is a big problem, it's been subpoenaed. And she's worried about it. Well, he says -- you know, she says, maybe I ought to give this to Betty Currie. Maybe we ought to give the gifts and the packages up. And he says, let me think about it, or words to that effect.

    That very day, on December 28th -- Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask your -- unanimous consent for three additional minutes to wrap this up.

    REP. HYDE: Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for three additional minutes.

    REP. MCCOLLUM: Thank you.

    On December 28th, again that very same day that the president and Monica have this discussion where she gets the Christmas gifts and where she came to discuss this with the president about what do I do with the gifts, she goes home and Betty Currie calls her. Now there are circumstances we've discussed earlier about this, but the fact is we have the record showing Betty Currie made a call on that date -- despite all of the other disputes -- to Monica Lewinsky. And there's no question that she then picks up the gifts. Heavy circumstantial evidence, but I think it all fits into the big pattern, the big picture that's here.

    Time is passing. About this time, by the way, Vernon Jordan gets cooking looking for a job. He'd been asked by Monica Lewinsky a long time before all of this to look for a job. She'd suggested that to him a long time ago -- remember what Mr. Schippers told us about yesterday when we went through that whole sequence of events? But he didn't really do anything about it until, lo and behold, on January 7th, she finally signs the affidavit which he's been aware of she has been preparing. She has been going around, talking with him a lot about the hat pin and so forth. Once she signed it on January 7th, lo and behold, on January 8th, just coincidentally, he calls Mr. Perlman at Revlon, and she has a job. Bang, just like that.

    That's why the obstruction of justice charge is in here for that. The coincidences aren't coincidences; they're a pattern.

    On the 17th of January the president testifies -- the famous deposition over which we've passed perjury and articles of impeachment charges. And just after that, he calls Betty Currie -- remember, he had explicitly told her that -- or explicitly said that she had things she could tell to the court in that deposition. So he calls her and has her come over the next day, and that's when he reads off the litany that's in one of these obstruction of justice charges down there -- the list -- one, two, three, four.

    Now, some people say she was never a witness. I want to make a final point on this one -- very important point. And that is that courts have ruled that the solicitation of false testimony from a prospective witness may provide the basis for a conviction of obstruction of justice. In a court case I'm sitting here reading from in Federal Circuit Court, the defendant tried to induce two witnesses to provide a false alibi. Neither individual had been subpoenaed and neither had any intention of testifying. The court went on to say, "Any corrupt behavior to influence any party or witness, whether successful or not, in this situation constitutes obstruction of justice, prohibited by the law."

    So whether Betty Currie was a witness or not a witness, the president certainly had reason to believe that she was going to be, she was truly a prospective witness in that case, and I believe that is one of the most compelling "beyond a reasonable doubt" obstruction of justice charges that are in this particular article of impeachment, Article IV (sic).

    And then after all that, beyond that --

    REP. : Article III.

    REP. MCCOLLUM: Article III. Excuse me.

    Beyond this, the president went on to talk to his -- two days later, and so forth, to his Cabinet, to his White House aides, telling them even bigger whoppers about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky than he had told to the court in the days before that.

    REP. HYDE: The gentleman's --

    REP. MCCOLLUM: So it's a picture that's wrapped up. I think it's clear; it's clear and convincing, Mr. Chairman, and I believe that Article III should go forward to the trial and we should pass that article of impeachment --

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

    REP. MCCOLLUM: It's clear and convincing to me.

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

    REP. ROTHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.

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

    REP. ROTHMAN: Thank you. I would like to step away from the lawyer minutiae -- you could call it other things -- and try to put some of this in perspective.

    What's going on? What's going on here in the House Judiciary Committee? The Republican majority is trying to impeach the sitting president of the United States. That's what's going on right now. They've already passed two articles of impeachment to impeach the sitting president of the United States, now they're on Article III of impeachment.

    Now what's the Constitution have to say about this? The -- (aside) -- gentlemen! (Returning) The Constitution says that a president can only be removed on the showing of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. It doesn't say you can remove a president for bad behavior. It doesn't say you can remove a president for having bad character. Some of those ideas were thrown around in the 1700s but were rejected by the drafters of the Constitution who said, you know, we want a strong presidency for four years.

    That's what's given our country stability for a long time, that we can't remove our president whenever the majority party in the Congress says so. The people say so every four years whether the president stays. They say the president committed impeachable offenses. I believe that anyone who wants to impeach the sitting president of the United States must bear the burden of proving it.

    Okay, so what's the appropriate burden of proof? Clear and convincing evidence. So, who brought the proof? We had Judge Starr come forth, who was not an eye witness to anything. He admitted that many times. We had Mr. Schippers come forth, who is a lawyer who summarized his inferences and conclusions from transcripts of other people's testimony, people who were never cross-examined. So you had those bunch of lawyers bring the case for impeachment.

    Then you had another bunch of lawyers on the other side defending the president -- Kendall, Ruff and Lowell -- who refuted and rebutted every single allegation of impeachable offense raised by the accusing set of lawyers. And that's what we've got. We had a bunch of historians say, most of them say, these would never be impeachable offenses. We had a bunch of Democratic and Republican former prosecutors who said none of these things would be indictable, we would never indict for any of these. And then you had the American people, who say, hey, we've heard this for a long time, all the details, we don't think this is impeachable.

    You know who wasn't before us? Not one single fact witness. So you've got all of these neutralizing lawyer talk -- some say he did it, some said he didn't -- all arguing from inference. Not one fact witness brought before us. And they say we're convinced by a clear and convincing standard, when all of the lawyers disagreed with each other and not one fact witness came forth.

    Is that the basis on which we're going to overturn our last election of the presidency? For the third time in American history, we're going to impeach a president without a reading of the burden of proof? Some say, well, we have to uphold the rule of law. Well, what rule of law? If the president lied in a civil deposition, there were civil courts to enforce it. Maybe that's why he paid $850,000 civil court settlement, because he knew he would pay a big fine in the civil courts. They upheld the civil court rule of law.

    The criminal courts can sue the president, and he can go to prison once he leaves office, if he committed perjury and any criminal offenses. So there the rule of law does apply to this president, just like every other American. But what we're talking about is not upholding the civil law or criminal law. We've got civil courts and criminal courts to do those. We're talking about whether the third punishment should be imposed, impeachment. But it is a punishment that is imposed upon the nation, the people who elected this president. And I dare say, where you have no one who came forth as a fact witness and have competing neutralizing lawyer talk to defend and rebut every allegation of impeachment, and most Americans say it's not impeachable, most historians say it's not impeachable, most prosecutors say they wouldn't p[prosecute, that they haven't met their burden of proof.

    Now, I was there when the president waved his finger on TV at us and said he didn't have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, and I've got kids and I think lying is wrong and I teach my kids not to lie.

    And that adulterous, wrongful behavior, in my White House, was wrong. And I believe the president should be punished for lying to the American people. I don't need to hear from the eyewitnesses. I was an eyewitness to those offenses, and so I would be willing to censure the president for what I know, with my own eyes and ears, took place and what he admitted to. When he waved his finger at us and said no sexual relations, and he wasn't under any civil deposition definition of sexual relations at that time, he was just talking to us on TV, he lied to us and should be punished for that and censured for that as well as having the affair with the intern in the White House.

    But let us not forget that there has been no meeting of any reasonable burden of proof on any of the allegations -- none of them -- and they're about to approve the third article of impeachment against our sitting president for the -- only the third time in American history. The America people must tell their representatives in Congress if they don't think this president should be impeached because no reasonable burden of proving his guilt has been established. They must stop what will be one of the saddest moments in American history from taking place -- the removal of a sitting United States president on no -- with no reasonable proof.

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

    The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett.

    REP. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Clear and convincing -- clear and convincing -- clear and convincing. We all agree that that's the standard that must be met.

    Paragraph number 6 -- "On or about January 18th and 20th, 21st 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness."

    We're talking about Betty Currie. He's going to influence her in that proceeding. Never mind that the period of discovery is going to end several days from there and that she's not on the witness list. Clear and convincing? I don't know.

    Let's look at the evidence.

    "I was never really alone with Monica, right?" "You were always there when Monica was there, right?" "Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?" "You could see and hear everything, right?" "She wanted to have sex with me, and I cannot do that."

    Is that clear and convincing evidence that he was trying to influence here testimony in that proceeding? I don't think so.

    But there's more. It's not just that proof, you've got to have some other proof.

    This is from Mr. Schipper's report. "He made sure that this was a face-to-face meeting, not an impersonal telephone call. He made sure that no one else was present when he spoke to her. He made sure that he had the meeting in his office, an area where he was comfortable and could utilize its power and prestige to influence future testimony."

    Clear and convincing? You could have also said, "They met at the office." Because that's what happened, they met at the office. He worked in the Oval Office, she worked outside. How often does the boss come out to the desk? Usually the boss says to the person, "Come on in." That's what usually happens. Clear and convincing? I don't know.

    But there's more. The president has an explanation for this. "I thought we were going to be deluged by the press comments because we had entered the eye of the hurricane here." He had given his testimony in the deposition in the Paula Jones suit. Of course, as we all know and as, again, the report indicates, the president had an option. He could have said nothing. This is what Mr. Schippers says: "He could abide by Judge Wright's order to remain silent and not divulge any details of his deposition." Would have made a lot of sense. Presumably, of course, the other side is going to do the same; there would never be any leaks coming from the other side in the Paula Jones suit.

    And so the president, the only motive he would have would be to influence her testimony in a lawsuit in which the discovery period was about to end. But the reality is the president knew what was going on. The president knew even when he was taking that deposition because he knew that his political opponents were paying for that lawsuit. He knew that. And he knew there were going to be leaks. Now, maybe he was paranoid or maybe he wasn't.

    January 22, 1998 was a Thursday. NBC Nightly News -- the transcript: "NBC News has learned that the president did admit to sleeping with Gennifer Flowers in his Saturday statement to Jones' lawyers, but the president believes that does not constitute a long affair." Now how did that come out? How did that come out? I don't think the president did that. Did that come out from Paula Jones' side?

    Could it be possible that the president thought that he was going to be asked, or Betty Currie was going to be asked questions about

    Monica Lewinsky? I think it's entirely possible. I think that he knew what was coming. And maybe he did want her to lie, maybe he wanted her to lie to the press -- maybe he wanted her to lie to the press because he didn't want the press to know that he had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

    The Republicans would have you believe that that's clear and convincing evidence.

    Ladies and gentlemen, that is not clear and convincing evidence. Maybe, maybe not.

    Yield back the balance of my time.

    REP. HYDE: I thank the gentleman. The chair yields himself two minutes. I just want to say people watching this on television might get the wrong idea that we're -- if we pass these articles of impeachment, we're throwing the president out of office. That's exactly not true.

    REP. BARRETT: Point of information -- or point of -- if I could make a point.

    REP. HYDE: Point of interruption. Go ahead. (Laughter.)

    REP. BARRETT: Point of interruption.

    REP. HYDE: Yes.

    REP. BARRETT: If I could just read, "Wherefore," from the first article, "Wherefore William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office."

    REP. HYDE: Well, you understand we don't do the trial in the House.

    REP. BARRETT: I understand that. But --

    REP. HYDE: You understand the trial occurs in the other body.

    REP. BARRETT: I understand that.

    REP. HYDE: What we do is we find whether there is enough evidence to warrant submission to the Senate for them to conduct the trial and for them to impose whatever sanction they choose by a two- thirds vote. That's the process. And our founding fathers were very wise to have the accusatory body not be the adjudicatory body.

    So all -- you may leave the room -- all we -- (laughter/applause) -- yes, Miss Waters? What is it?


    REP. WATERS: I don't want you to be frightened when I want to engage you. I want you to stand up for what you believe in. Now let talk.

    REP. HYDE: I'm trying.

    REP. WATERS: Mr. Chairman --

    REP. HYDE: I'm trying.

    REP. WATERS: -- I do not want you to use your awesome power to send a message to the citizens of this country that we're not involved in a most extraordinary effort that leads to the impeachment of the president of the United States of America. This is the significant part.

    REP. HYDE: Well, I'd like to --

    REP. WATERS: You are getting the ball rolling here in this committee.

    REP. HYDE: -- I'd like to take back my time, and I get the gentlelady's message. I'm not saying what we do is insignificant. I think it is highly significant and portentious and requires great care and great study and great analysis. But I am suggesting to the gentlelady, we do not conduct that trial. We merely decide whether there is enough evidence now.

    We get on the question of evidence, and I've heard repeatedly, especially from the gentleman near the end of the first row, that they didn't have a chance to test the credibility of any witnesses. Well, we accepted 60,000 pages of transcripts, grand jury transcripts, depositions, statements under oath, all under oath. We accepted Monica Lewinsky's testimony because it was given under a grant of immunity that would be declared null and void if she lied.

    So we were willing to accept all of that testimony under oath, and if the Democrats wanted to question it, why in the world didn't they invite these people up to testify under oath --

    REP. ROTHMAN: Point of personal privilege?

    REP. HYDE: -- and undergo the withering cross-examination of several of your lawyers.

    REP. FRANK: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: Please let me finish.

    REP. FRANK: I thought you were. I apologize.

    REP. HYDE: I'm on a roll now, and -- (laughter) -- as soon as I'm through, I'll -- why didn't you call them in for deposition? Why didn't you put them to the crucible of cross-examination? You had that opportunity, but you chose to bring us professors, historians and law deans, which is wonderful and entertaining and illuminating. But when you say that you didn't have a chance to test their credibility --

    REP. ROTHMAN: Point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: -- that rings a little hollow.

    REP. ROTHMAN: Point of personal privilege.

    REP. HYDE: Well, I'll let you stretch it that far, but I didn't mention your name.

    REP. ROTHMAN: Well, you meant me. (Laughter.)

    REP. HYDE: Well, I did mean you. All right. (Laughter.)

    REP. ROTHMAN: You did. And thank you for that.

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to speak on this point of personal privilege.

    First of all, you keep saying 60,000 documents. Well, the 60,000 documents were about civil deposition and grand jury testimony where nobody was cross-examined.

    REP. GOODLATTE: Regular order, Mr. Chairman. This is not a point of personal privilege.

    REP. ROTHMAN: I'm allowed to finish my point of personal privilege, Mr. Goodlatte, if I may. Thank you, my friend.

    REP. HYDE: We're nearing the end, folks. Let's take a deep breath.

    REP. GOODLATTE: Go ahead.

    REP. ROTHMAN: Thank you. Thank you very much.

    In my judgment, what the Republican majority would have us do is turn American fairness and due process on its head. They want the accused, President Clinton, to prove his innocence. What they brought to prove the case against him are two lawyers -- Judge Starr and Mr. Schippers -- arguing inference and conclusions from portions of transcripts of depositions and grand jury testimony. The Democrats responded --

    REP. HYDE: I'm going to have to retrieve my time.

    REP. ROTHMAN: -- with lawyer talk. They say that's --

    REP. HYDE: Mr. Rothman, may I regain my time.

    That's really not so. That testimony has been taken. It's under oath, under penalty of perjury. I know the oath may be a matter of some question with some of us, but we think the oath is significant. And we were willing to accept that. And if you questioned it, you had every opportunity to do that.

    Now I swing to Mr. --

    REP. FRANK: Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. ROTHMAN: I would say that you unreasonably accepted a low burden of proof that didn't constitute clear and convincing evidence.

    REP. HYDE: That's your --

    REP. ROTHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: That's your opinion.

    The gentleman from Massachusetts.

    REP. FRANK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I appreciate your swinging my way -- (laughter) -- and I -- I -- the chairman said he would swing to me --

    REP. : Regular order.

    REP. : Regular order, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

    REP. FRANK: Mr. Chairman, I only -- I only quote you, Mr. Chairman, but I -- I do now -- I do want to take serious issue with a profound point. I really do think that we have a series of issues here, and I -- we will rejoin it later, but I didn't want to let it go undiscussed now.

    I was struck, Mr. Chairman, by your statement that we're not here throwing the president out. I must say, to the extent that I wasn't clear what the public perception is of what we're doing, I am inferring from your disavowal that this is -- as much as any member of the House can do to get the president out of office, that there is some uneasiness about it. And I have to say I think it is a grave error constitutionally to denigrate what we are doing. Yes, it is true that as a consequence of this the president will not be instantly thrown out of office. It is also true that the only justification and basis for this proceeding and that only basis on which members can honestly vote for these articles is their conviction that the president ought to be thrown out of office. And I think there is a tendency that we have seen over the past few months to try to lighten up impeachment and to take as profound an instrument as can exist in a democratic society -- the cancellation of an election by people not themselves the electorate -- and it has to be there from time to time -- but to reduce its impact that way or at least to reduce our part in it, that's I think one of the most important philosophical differences between us.

    REP. HYDE: I hear the gentleman, and it is a respectable point of view, but I thoroughly disagree with it. I think you denigrate the role of the Senate, which has the important adjudicatory role to weigh the evidence, to study what it wants and agree and disagree, and then our founding fathers made it extraordinarily difficult to eliminate a president from office by requiring a two-thirds vote, and that's why I have always said unless this is done bipartisanly -- and tragically there is no bipartisanship here -- but I'm hopeful if, if it gets to the Senate, there would be bipartisanship. But absent that, there will be no --

    REP. SCHUMER: May God help other presidents.

    REP. : Mr. Chairman?

    REP. : Will the gentleman yield?

    REP. SCHUMER: God help other presidents, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. : Would the gentleman yield?

    REP. : Mr. Chairman?

    REP. : Mr. Chairman, regular order.

    REP. SCHUMER: Mr. Chairman, as somebody who doesn't want to denigrate the Senate, probably more than anybody else on this committee --

    REP. : Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: I -- I think it's --

    REP. : Regular order.

    REP. HYDE: I think it's a sad greeting to you as you come over there to a denigrated body.

    REP. SCHUMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. WATERS: All the reason for this --

    REP. : Mr. Chairman?

    REP. SCHUMER: Let me just say -- and I appreciate the chairman yielding --

    REP. : Mr. Chairman?

    REP. SCHUMER: -- two things. Number one, I do --

    REP. ROGAN: Mr. Chairman? I move to strike the last word.

    REP. HYDE: Yes, you may.

    Charles, could you please --

    REP. SCHUMER: Yes, my one minute.

    REP. HYDE: -- say what you want to say in one minute?

    REP. SCHUMER: What I want to say is, I just do want to underscore -- first, I do think, by the way, if, God forbid, this gets to the Senate it will be bipartisan, it will be a bipartisan vote against removing the president, with a small number of Republicans voting for it.

    But my point is similar to Mr. Frank's. I was sitting in the ante room there, and as somebody who has such respect for you, I was just shocked almost that you would, as we close this hearing, say, "Now don't worry, folks, we're not getting rid of the president right here" when it seems that the majority, in all of these hearings and with these articles has endeavored to do everything it can to get rid of the president. So because you have a few more hurdles to overcome, please! To the public it is perfectly clear, I hope, that should the mechanism, the very serious mechanism, the used only twice in 200 years mechanism, that the chairman and his colleagues seek to unleash, if it rolls in the direction they seek, the president will be gone, and that's what they want!

    REP. HYDE: Well, the gentleman --

    REP. SCHUMER: That is indeed what they want!

    REP. HYDE: Senator? No, Senator --

    REP. SCHUMER: I yield back.

    REP. HYDE: Now I have been very indulgent. We've had a seminar here. I think it's important for the public to understand the constitutional provisions of the function of the House and the function of the Senate, which has been blurred over, and that is my point.

    REP. : Mr. Chairman?

    REP. ROGAN: Mr. Chairman?

    REP. HYDE: Now, the gentleman from -- okay, Mr. Rogan.

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

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

    REP. ROGAN: Mr. Chairman, echoing the comments of the chair a moment ago, talking about the importance of the public to understand the constitutional function, I too think that is important, and I think that that is something that has been somewhat misconstrued, in fact greatly misconstrued, over these last days.

    We keep hearing about the sanctity of the election process to the Constitution. And I have no quarrel with that. But the election is not the only constitutional process that guarantees us having a president taking office and serving office. The fact that a person is elected to the office of the presidency of the United States does not allow them to take the office of the presidency and to assume those powers. There is a prerequisite. Even after an election, the Constitution requires that before the elected person may become the president, they must take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    And even after that oath is taken, they still are not allowed to remain in office if that oath is violated and the Congress finds that impeachable offenses have occurred. The same Constitution that gives us the electoral process, that gives us the oath also gives us the process for removal of the president when they violate that oath. And it gives us the process of replacing that president with another popularly elected official, in this case, the vice president.

    Dr. Larry Arne (ph) has written on this subject, and I'd like to just read for the record briefly an excerpt of his latest open letter to Congress, which addresses this point directly.

    "A point has been made that it is a serious matter to overturn an election. True enough. But elections have no higher standing under our Constitution than the impeachment process. Both stem from provisions of the Constitution. The people elect a president to do a constitutional job. They act under the Constitution when they do it. At the same time, they elect a Congress to do a different constitutional job. The president swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. So does the Congress. Everyone concerned is acting in ways subordinate to the Constitution both in elections and in the impeachment process.

    "If a president is guilty of acts justifying impeachment, then he, not the Congress will have overturned the election. He will have acted in ways that betray the purpose of the election. He will have acted not as a constitutional representative, but as a monarch, subversive of or above the law.

    "If the great powers given the president are abused, then to impeach him defends not only the results of the election, but that higher thing of which elections are in service: namely, the preeminence of the Constitution as the institution under which we pursue the security of our rights. We are all subordinate to that."

    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: I thank the gentleman.

    REP. CANNON: Mr. Chairman, I have a request for unanimous consent.

    REP. HYDE: Yes, Mr. Cannon?

    REP. CANNON: I request unanimous consent to submit into the record an article from George magazine entitled, "Sidney Strikes Again." This is an article about Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, who has a controversial reputation for planting favorable Clinton stories in the press, helped the historians -- that's the 400 historians -- create the ad that recently got some publicity. So if I can submit that, I'd appreciate it.

    REP. HYDE: Without objection, so ordered.

    Now I'm going to go down the line. Mr. Berman. This is for a unanimous consent request? For what purpose do you seek recognition?

    REP. HOWARD BERMAN (D-CA): To strike the last word.

    REP. HYDE: You've always spoken, I'm told.

    REP. BERMAN: Not in two articles. In Article I, I spoke.

    REP. HYDE: We have it down that you spoke on Article III. Well, those are our records. Want to tell me after --

    REP. BERMAN: I'd like to see clear and convincing evidence of that. (Laughter.)

    REP. HYDE: Clear and convincing.

    Who else? For what purpose does Mr. Berman seek recognition?

    REP. BERMAN: To strike the last word.

    REP. HYDE: No, I'm sorry, you --

    REP. BERMAN: No, I'm sorry. This is a factual dispute, but I'm willing to go under oath. I have not spoken on Article III.

    REP. HYDE: All right, go ahead. Take your five minutes. Go ahead.

    REP. BERMAN: But I haven't spoken. I mean, you said it like --

    REP. HYDE: Well, we've mooted that question. We've mooted that. Go ahead.

    REP. BERMAN: All right. Because my friend, the chairman, had said it like he was giving me a second five minutes, and I just wanted to make sure that we understand.

    My only point here is, I think if the chairman had said, "People understand by the result of the action we are doing today, the president will not be removed from office, but I and all the others who are voting of these articles of impeachment want the president removed from office, are voting for a resolution which says that these articles warrant impeachment and trial and removal from office and a bar to office in the future," that that would have been a more accurate statement. I just think we should get away from the notion that this is some kind of prosecutorial probable cause, we're just kicking it over to the Senate for a trial.

    I have heard a number of my colleagues on the other side say very sincerely that they are not taking their role as a grand jury, they are seeking -- they are applying standards of evidence like "clear and convincing," and they believe that it justifies the impeachment, the conviction, the removal from office.

    That's what the resolution says, and I think that's -- I think that's the accurate conclusion to conclude from people's support of these articles of impeachment.

    I yield back.

    REP. HYDE: Thank the gentleman. Who else is seeking -- Mr. Scott? For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

    REP. SCOTT: I would ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for two minutes.

    REP. HYDE: Without objection, so ordered.

    REP. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I was astounded by what -- some of what was said about our role. First of all, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey wasn't the only one that's been insisting on fact witnesses. We can't -- we couldn't call fact witnesses because we didn't know the allegations and the allegations that we knew were not impeachable, but the fact is that the record reflects that a motion was defeated on a party-line vote that would have provided for fact witnesses to be called after the allegations had been ascertained. That motion was defeated on a party-line vote.

    And look at the evidence we've got. We think it's, quote, "under oath," but the under oath only reflects answers to questions selected by prosecutors, answers not subject to cross-examination nor answers which were subject to any refuting by others.

    Mr. Chairman, the rule of law prevents us from doing what you're trying to do here by trying to remove the president from office. Most of the debate that the Founding Fathers participated in in setting the impeachment article in the Constitution -- most of the debate was how to keep Congress from doing it. It wasn't how to get the president out of office. You had this provision -- it would be too easy, that provision, that would be too easy. They ended up with treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors -- a very high standard. In the words of the counsel, "it's for traitors and felons." And not all felons would even qualify for that.

    So I -- Mr. Chairman, we are removing the president from office. The resolution is clear, that wherefore William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal -- that's what we're voting on, and people ought to be exactly clear of what's going on.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

    REP. HYDE: Thank the gentleman.

    The question occurs on Article III. All those in favor signify by saying "Aye."

    (Chorus of Ayes.)

    REP. HYDE: All opposed say "No."

    (Chorus of Noes.)

    REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman.

    REP. HYDE: In the opinion of the chair, we're going to have a roll call. Clerk will call the roll.

    REP. CONYERS: Request a roll-call vote.

    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.

    REP. GRAHAM: Aye.

    CLERK: Mr. Graham votes "Aye."

    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: The clerk will report.

    CLERK: Mr. Chairman, there are 21 Ayes and 16 Noes.

    REP. HYDE: And the article is agreed to, and the committee stands in recess until 9:00 A.M. tomorrow morning.

    (Bangs gavel.)


    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