This
morning,we commence our second public hearing in fulfillment of the
mandate
imposed on us in House Resolution 581. While the business of
impeachment
is rare, and happily so, it becomes necessary from time to
time
when
circumstances require that it be exercised as a constitutional
counterbalance
to allegations of serious abuse of presidential power.
It
is part of the series of checks and balances that exemplify the genius
of our
founding
fathers. Throughout our history, we've had a number of impeachment
inquiries,
but this one represents a historical first. Never before has
an
impeachment
inquiry arisen because of a referral from an independent counsel
under
Section 595(C) of the statute.
For
that reason, we have no precedent to follow on the involvement of the
independent
counsel in our proceedings. However, it seems both useful and
instructive
that we should hear from him since he is the person most familiar
with
the complicated matters the House has directed us to review.
We're
holding this hearing to learn the facts surrounding this situation,
including
those in the referral that Judge Starr sent us Sept. 9, 1998,
and to
determine
whether those facts justify our voting on articles of impeachment.
Everyone
should understand how this process works. Under the
Constitution,
the House of Representatives has the sole power to make
accusations
known as articles of impeachment. They may do so by a majority
vote.
If
the House makes such accusations, they are then sent to the Senate for
trial.
The Senate may convict by a two-thirds vote.
Our
founding fathers wisely determined that one chamber should accuse and
the
other should judge.
We
began our work on Nov. 9 at the hearing when we were enlightened by
the
testimony of two panels of outstanding academics about the history
and
nature
of the impeachment process. Today the search for the truth continues
as
we
turn to the underlying facts.
And
as we begin that search, we turn to one person, Judge Starr, who has
a
comprehensive
overview of the complex issues we face. I thought we should
have
that overview before we hear from other witnesses.
As
we announced earlier this week, we will hear from other witnesses in
live
hearings
and in depositions as we move toward a final resolution.
In
addition, we have yet to hear from the president. And I can assure my
colleagues,
if and when the president would want to testify, he may have
unlimited
time to do so.
In
any event, we are hopeful that the pledge of cooperation we received
from
his
attorneys will soon be fulfilled.
Let
me repeat my New Year's resolution. It's my fervent hope we will be
able
to conclude this inquiry before the new year turns. I'm hopeful that
all
members
will bear this in mind as we conduct this search for truth with
all
deliberate
speed.
There
are many voices telling us to halt this debate, that the people are
weary
of
it all. There are other voices suggesting we have a duty to debate the
many
questions
raised by the circumstances in which we find ourselves, questions
of
high
consequence for constitutional government.
David
Broder, writing in The Washington Post yesterday, suggested that
in
our
hearings, "We will define as a nation the standard of honesty we're
going to
impose
on our president."
What
is the significance of a false statement under oath? Is it essentially
different
from a garden-variety lie? A mental reservation? A fib? An evasion?
A
little
white lie? Hyperbole?
In
a court proceeding, do you assume some trivial responsibility when you
raise
your right hand, and swear to God to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and
nothing
but the truth?
And
what of the rule of law --that unique aspect of a free society that
protects
you
from the fire on your roof or the knock on your door at 3 a.m.? What
does
lying
under oath do to the rule of law?
Do
we still have a government of laws and not of men? Does the law apply
to
some
people with force and ferocity while the powerful are immune? Do we
have
one set of laws for the officers and another for the enlisted? Should
we?
These
are but a few questions these hearings are intended to explore. And
just
perhaps, when the debate is over, the rationalizations and the
distinctions
and
the semantic gymnastics are put to rest, we may be closer to answering
for
our
generation the haunting question asked 139 years ago in a small
military
cemetery
in Pennsylvania --whether a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated
to
the proposition that all men are created equal can long endure.
Back
To Perfect Documents