The Committee Speaks

Here is what members of the House Judiciary panel said about the historic vote to recommend impeachment of President Clinton:

Republicans

Bob Inglis (S.C.)

What we’re witnessing here is a conflict, a clash, between two very different views. One view is that there is absolute truth; the other view is that everything is relative. [Clinton] is the epitome of someone who says there is no truth, everything is relative. And that’s the big conflict here. For those of us who believe that there’s truth, that telling the truth is crucial and that there are right statements and there are wrong statements, we find it incumbent upon us to act.

Bob Goodlatte (Va.)

Our Founding Fathers established this nation on a fundamental, yet at the time untested, idea that a nation should be governed not by the whims of any man but by the rule of law. Implicit in that idea is the principle that no one is above the law, including the chief executive. We must ask ourselves what happens to our nation if the rule of law is ignored, cheapened or violated, especially at the highest level of government.

Steve Chabot (Ohio)

The president of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, has engaged in a pattern of cover-up and deceit. Standing alone, each individual offense is extremely serious. Collectively, they’re overwhelming. . . . It has become apparent to me that impeachment is the only remedy that adequately addresses this president’s illegal and unethical acts.

Ed Bryant (Tenn.)

When one wants to blame the Congress for all of this . . . I want to issue the reminder that it was President Clinton and only President Clinton who consistently made wrong choices instead of right choices and who brought us to this point of national exhaustion.

Bob Barr (Ga.)

Sadly, I believe the case we are discussing today is but a small manifestation of President Clinton’s utter and complete disregard for the rule of law. Throughout his presidency, his administration has been so successful at thwarting investigations and obstructing the work of Congress and the courts that it may be decades before history reveals the vastness of his abuse of power, or the extent of the damage it has wrought. President Clinton apparently subscribes to the same theory Richard Nixon articulated in a 1977 interview: “. . . When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” That was dead wrong then, and it is dead wrong today.

Stephen E. Buyer (Ind.)

What are the consequences if this committee leaves a known perjurer in the Oval Office? First, perjury and obstruction of justice drive a stake in the heart of the rule of law. . . . If the president can lie repeatedly without remorse with regard to his personal conduct, can the president be trusted by the American people, by Congress, by foreign governments, to conduct the official business of the United States?

Elton Gallegly (Simi Valley)

This is about a president of the United States lying under oath, undermining our legal process and violating his oath of office. It is about violating Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. President Clinton’s actions clearly fall under the heading of high crimes and misdemeanors. . . . When he lies under oath, he undermines the integrity of our judicial system and threatens the rights and liberties of every one of us.

Charles T. Canady (Fla.)

The Constitution does not authorize a censure of a president who is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution provides for the impeachment of a president who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Do we have so little faith in our Constitution and the institutions of our government that we will turn aside from the pattern established in our Constitution and devise what we consider a better way to call the president to account for his misdeeds? . . . The answer is clear. We must say no.

George W. Gekas (Pa.)

Falsehood under oath has the capacity to destroy a branch of government, two branches of government, as a matter of fact, all three branches of government. If it’s uttered by the president of the United States, he is diminishing the presidency, the executive branch. If he does so in a court of law, he is trampling against the walls of security that the court system provides all of us.

F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.)

What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law. Our failure to bring President Clinton to account for his lying under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal justice under law will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations. I want those parents who ask me the questions to be able to tell their children that even if you are president of the United States, if you lie when sworn “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” you will face the consequences of that action.

Howard Coble (N.C.)

And the centerpiece to this scenario, I am convinced, ladies and gentlemen, is not sex; it is indeed perjury. . . . as best I can determine, there are no exceptions to the perjury statutes. And if we turn a blind eye to perjury in this instance, what precedent do we establish when subsequent cases involving perjury must be resolved fairly and impartially? . . . I take no joy in discharging this duty before us, but it remains our duty nonetheless.

Bill McCollum (Fla.)

The president is the chief executive officer of the nation, the chief law enforcement officer of the nation and our military’s commander in chief. If we tolerate such serious crimes as perjury and obstruction of justice by the president of the United States and fail to impeach him, there will be grave, damaging consequences for our system of government. . . . If he has committed these crimes and is not impeached, a terrible message will go out across the country . . . that there is a double standard and that the president of the United States is above the law.

Lamar S. Smith (Texas)

By any common-sense measure, the president did not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as his oath required. . . . We should not underestimate the gravity of the case against the president. When he put his hand on the Bible and recited his oath of office, he swore to faithfully uphold the laws of the United States--not some laws, all laws.

Edward A. Pease (Ind.)

Our business does include . . . the performance of public duties, the integrity of the judicial process and the protection and defense of the Constitution. Accordingly, I have concluded that perjury and false statements under oath, obstruction of justice and abuse of the office of the presidency are all impeachable offenses. I believe, given the facts before this committee, that each of them has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence in this case.

Chris Cannon (Utah)

I believe profoundly that the behavior of this president is unacceptable because I agree with John Jay, one of our Founding Fathers, who said, “When oaths cease to be sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights become insecure.” . . . We do want the president and those around him and future presidents and those around them to know that we will not allow weakness of character, willfulness or any other trait of a president to undermine the sacredness of oaths.

James E. Rogan (Glendale)

The evidence clearly shows that the president engaged in a repeated and lengthy pattern of felonious conduct, conduct for which ordinary citizens can and have been routinely prosecuted and jailed. This simply cannot be wished or censured away. With his conduct aggravated by a motivation of personal and pecuniary leverage rather than by national security or some other legitimate government function, the solemnity of my own oath of office obliges me to do what the president has failed to do: defend the rule of law.

Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.)

If this is a vote of conscience, and I believe it is, it is going to come down to a Republican conscience versus a Democratic conscience. . . . And only time will tell who got it right. . . . I still believe that every president of the United States, regardless of the matter they are called to testify about before a grand jury, should testify truthfully, and if they don’t they should be subject to losing their job.

William L. Jenkins (Tenn.)

Since 1960, one president has been tragically assassinated. One president was driven out of office and did not seek reelection. One president was caused to resign. Three good presidents were voted out of office after one full or a partial term of office. Only one president thus far in almost four decades has served two full terms in office. The presidency, I think, is under attack. But amid this concern there has been little mention that presidents themselves can strengthen the presidency by conducting themselves in a manner that brings pride and admiration and confidence to the minds of all our citizens.

Asa Hutchinson (Ark.)

Our nation has survived the failings of its leaders before, but it cannot survive exceptions to the rule of law. . . . There will always be differences between the powerful and the powerless. But imagine a country where a Congress agrees the strong are treated differently than the weak, where mercy is the only refuge for the powerless, where the power of our positions govern all of our decisions. Such a country cannot long endure.

Henry J. Hyde (Ill.)

Perjury is not sex, obstruction is not sex, abuse of power is not about sex. It’s important to understand that none of the proposed articles include allegations of sexual misconduct. The president is not accused of marital infidelity because such conduct is essentially private. But when circumstances require you to participate in a formal court proceeding, and under oath you mislead the parties and the court by lying, that is a public act and deserves public sanction. Perjury is a crime with a five-year penalty. Now, what all this boils down to is what do we think of the oath? Is it a ceremonial formality or does it mean something?

Mary Bono (Palm Springs)

Like so many others, I am disappointed that the office of the presidency has been reduced in stature by the legal hairsplitting and stonewalling that the president and his lawyers have engaged in for the past seven months. According to his own defenders, the president engaged in sinful actions that were morally wrong. So many twisted definitions of a very simple fact: The president of the United States committed perjury before a federal grand jury.

Democrats

Robert C. Scott (Va.)

We have been warned repeatedly that these allegations are nowhere near what is necessary to overturn a national election and to impeach a president. Despite these cautionary flags, this committee has turned a deaf ear to hundreds of years of precedent and to the Constitution that has kept this country strong and unified. In fact, by proceeding with an inquiry based on allegations that do not meet that high standard, we have done irreparable harm to our system of government.

Melvin L. Watt (N.C.)

I believe . . . that without the rule of law we have anarchy in this country. My friends, what the rule of law says is that you can convict, you can charge, you can impeach a president only when that standard is met. The Constitution of the United States defines the grounds for impeachment as “bribery, treason or other high crimes or misdemeanors.” What do the words mean? Are we going to disregard that?

Steven R. Rothman (N.J.)

Some argue that the House Judiciary Committee does not have to delve into the whole case. We can just ship it along to the Senate and let them get to the truth. They talk as if we were passing a bill to determine what the national flower should be. But what we are debating here is the impeachment of a sitting president of the United States, twice elected by the people. It strikes at the very heart of our Constitution and the balance of powers that has served us so well for more than 200 years--a balance of powers that has included a very high bar for the impeachment of a president, one which apparently the Republican majority now wishes to significantly lower.

William D. Delahunt (Mass.)

The president committed serious indiscretions. In the effort to conceal his misdeeds he compounded them, abusing the trust of those closest to him and deliberately, cynically lying to the American people. Knowing this, the people went to the polls on Nov. 3 and rendered their verdict. And it is illegitimate for a lame-duck Congress to defy the will of the electorate on a matter of such profound significance. The voters did not condone the president’s behavior. Far from it. But they knew the difference between misdeeds that merit reproach and abuses of office that require a constitutional coup d’etat.

Martin T. Meehan (Mass.)

I observe the polls indicating that the American people overwhelmingly oppose impeachment, observe how we have conducted this impeachment inquiry, and I find myself suspecting that I am witnessing some grand scheme to convince the American people not to take this process seriously, to tune us out and let us commit a constitutional wrong without anybody noticing. For those who might hope for this outcome, let me say to you that whether or not the American people tune us in today or in the following days, history will not tune us out.

Sheila Jackson-Lee (Texas)

Yes, the president did mislead the American people, and he alone must respond to them. However, have the accusations of perjury been proven to warrant impeachment? No. Have the accusations of obstruction against the president been proven to warrant impeachment? No. Have the accusations of abuse of power against the president been proven to warrant impeachment? No.

Zoe Lofgren (San Jose)

We now consider removing the president of the United States from the office to which he was twice elected . . . for misconduct that is hardly a high crime or misdemeanor. For more than 200 years, a directly elected chief executive has been one of the great distinctions between our wonderful country and parliamentary democracies. . . . The people’s will must not be overridden by those who claim to know better, by those who believe they know what is best for the American people.

Maxine Waters (Los Angeles)

This is a sad time in the history of this nation. We are on the brink of a Republican partisan impeachment of the president of the United States of America. The articles of impeachment are not based on his undermining of the Constitution, not based on actions that threaten the security of our nation, not based on treason, bribery or a threat to our democracy but rather because of the blind, political determination of individuals who are philosophically and diametrically opposed to Bill and Hillary and their politics.

Rick Boucher (Va.)

Not all presidential misconduct, whether criminal or non-criminal, justifies impeachment. To quote this committee’s report, “Only that misconduct which is seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of the duties of the presidential office will justify a use of the impeachment power.” . . . The facts now before this committee . . . simply do not rise to that standard.

Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.)

The proponents of impeachment have provided no direct evidence of impeachable offenses. They rely solely on the findings of a so-called independent counsel who has repeatedly mischaracterized evidence, failed to include in his report exculpatory evidence and consistently misstated the law. We must not be a rubber stamp for Kenneth Starr. We have been entrusted with a grave and awesome duty by the American people, by the Constitution and by history. We must exercise that duty responsibly.

Barney Frank (Mass.)

The notion that this sort of lying always brings the harshest sanction is simply not true. And people have said, “Well, are you going to say that just because everybody does it, it’s all right?” No. That’s never true. It is true, however, when people who have given one punishment in one case and then want to give a much harsher punishment in a very similar case make that argument, it’s legitimate to say they are motivated by something other than what they admit.

Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.)

If we vote articles of impeachment, I fear that we will be setting a precedent that could seriously weaken the office of the presidency, whether the president is removed from office or not. In my judgment, we will be substantially lowering the bar for removing a sitting president so that we will be in danger of all too frequently investigating presidents and seeking to remove them from office.

John Conyers Jr. (Mich.)

If our hearings have made anything clear, it is that the distinction between personal misconduct and official misconduct has constitutional significance. Most Americans believe that their personal sex life is personal and should not serve as a basis for a wide-ranging criminal investigation of themselves or any citizen, and yes, not even the president. . . . Under our constitutional system of government, if the president misbehaves in a way that does not impact on his official duties, the remedy still lies in the voting booth.

Robert Wexler (Fla.)

So wake up, America! Our government is about to shut down. The public’s business will grind to a halt. The Senate, the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives will all be hostage to a process that never should have been triggered in the first place. If you’re sick of all-Monica-all-the-time, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Be prepared to turn on your TV and watch the chief justice of the Supreme Court swear in Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp, endless testimony in front of the whole world, showcasing America at its most absurd.

Thomas M. Barrett (Wis.)

The president’s actions were wrong. It was wrong for him to make false statements concerning his reprehensible conduct with a subordinate, and it was wrong for him to take steps to delay discovery of the truth. . . . [But] it was not a grave and dangerous offense against the state. It does not threaten our republic, and we need not remove him to protect our democracy.

Howard L. Berman (Mission Hills)

As regards the basic concept of what constitutes an impeachable offense . . . I know it when I see it. And on balance, given the totality of the wrongdoing and the totality of the context, this isn’t it. . . . The president’s behavior that reflects so badly on the presidency and the country, the president’s disregard for his obligations as a law-abiding American, the president’s refusal to respect a common-sense interpretation of the English language, this conduct does not rise to the level that justifies thwarting the public’s mandate as expressed in the 1996 election.