[Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton - The Evidentiary Record Pursuant to S. Res. 16 - Index to Senate Document 106-3, Vols. I-XXIV]
[Volume VII - Transcript of October 5, 1998 presentations of David Schippers and Abbe Lowell, and debate on H. Res. 581, beginning an impeachment inquiry. Committee Print, Ser. No. 8, December 1998]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


106th Congress                                                 Document
 1st Session                      SENATE                         106-3
_______________________________________________________________________



                       IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT
                       WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

                               __________

                         THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD
                         PURSUANT TO S. RES. 16
                               VOLUME VII


Transcript of October 5, 1998 presentations of David Schippers and Abbe 
 Lowell, and debate on H. Res. 581, beginning an impeachment inquiry. 
               Committee Print, Ser. No. 8, December 1998


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13



   Printed at the direction of Gary Sisco, Secretary of the Senate, 
         pursuant to S. Res. 16, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (1999)

                January 8, 1999.--Ordered to be printed


105th Congress                                               Ser. No. 8
2d Session                  COMMITTEE PRINT                  
_______________________________________________________________________



    AUTHORIZATION OF AN INQUIRY INTO WHETHER GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE 
   IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
                                 STATES

                               __________

  MEETING OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HELD OCTOBER 5, 1998

                     PRESENTATION BY INQUIRY STAFF
                  CONSIDERATION OF INQUIRY RESOLUTION
                     ADOPTION OF INQUIRY PROCEDURES

                               __________

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS


                        Henry J. Hyde, Chairman

                                     
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13

                             DECEMBER 1998

                                 ------

                U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
 53-446                WASHINGTON : 1998
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
 Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402



                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                   HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
    Wisconsin                        BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida               CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania        HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas                JERROLD NADLER, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California           ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida           MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina           ZOE LOFGREN, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana            MAXINE WATERS, California
ED BRYANT, Tennessee                 MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
BOB BARR, Georgia                    ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee        STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY BONO, California

                             Majority Staff

         Thomas E. Mooney, Sr., General Counsel-Chief of Staff
          Jon W. Dudas, Deputy General Counsel-Staff Director
         Diana L. Schacht, Deputy Staff Director-Chief Counsel
               Daniel M. Freeman, Parliamentarian-Counsel
       Paul J. McNulty, Director of Communications-Chief Counsel
                    Joseph H. Gibson, Chief Counsel
                         Rick Filkins, Counsel
                       Sharee M. Freeman, Counsel
                       Peter J. Levinson, Counsel
                       John F. Mautz, IV, Counsel
                     William E. Moschella, Counsel
                        Stephen Pinkos, Counsel

George M. Fishman, Chief Counsel     David P. Schippers, Chief 
Mitch Glazier, Chief Counsel             Investigative Counsel
John H. Ladd, Chief Counsel            
Raymond V. Smietanka, Chief Counsel  Susan Bogart, Investigative 
Laura Ann Baxter, Counsel                Counsel
Daniel J. Bryant, Counsel            John C. Kocoras, Counsel
Cathleen A. Cleaver, Counsel         Berle S. Littmann, Investigator
Vince Garlock, Counsel               Charles F. Marino, Counsel
James W. Harper, Counsel             Jeffery J. Pavletic, Investigative 
Susan Jensen-Conklin, Counsel            Counsel
Debra K. Laman, Counsel              Thomas M. Schippers, Investigative 
Blaine S. Merritt, Counsel               Counsel
Nicole R. Nason, Counsel             Albert F. Tracy, Investigator
Glenn R. Schmitt, Counsel            Peter J. Wacks, Investigator
Jim Y. Wilon, Counsel                Diana L. Woznicki, Investigator

                             Minority Staff

         Julian Epstein, Minority Chief Counsel-Staff Director
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority General  Abbe D. Lowell, Minority Chief 
    Counsel                              Investigative Counsel
David G. Lachman, Counsel            Sampak P. Garg, Investigative 
Cynthia A. R. Martin, Counsel            Counsel
Stephanie J. Peters, Counsel         Steven F. Reich, Investigative 
Samara T. Ryder, Counsel                 Counsel
Brian P. Woolfolk, Counsel           Deborah L. Rhode, Investigative 
                                         Counsel
                                     Kevin M. Simpson, Investigative 
                                         Counsel
                                     Lis W. Wiehl, Investigative 
                                         Counsel


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                            COMMITTEE PRINT

                                                                   Page
October 5, 1998..................................................     1
Opening Statement by The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a 
  Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and 
  Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary...........................     2
Opening Statement by The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a 
  Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan and 
  Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Judiciary............     4
Opening Statements by Committee Members..........................     7
Presentation by David P. Schippers, Majority Chief Investigative 
  Counsel........................................................    55
Presentation by Abbe D. Lowell, Minority Chief Investigative 
  Counsel........................................................    82
H. Res.____.............................................    99
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to the Hyde Resolution 
  Offered by Mr. Boucher, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Scott, Ms. Lofgren, and 
  Ms. Waters.....................................................   100
Amendment to the Hyde Resolution Offered by Mr. Berman...........   144
House Committee on the Judiciary Impeachment Procedures..........   220

                   MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Prepared statement of Charles E. Schumer, a Representative in 
  Congress from the State of New York............................    12
Letter from Kenneth Starr dated September 25, 1998...............    55
Prepared statement of David P. Schippers, Chief Investigative 
  Counsel........................................................    70
Prepared statement of Abbe D. Lowell, Minority Chief 
  Investigative Counsel..........................................    92
Article from The Washington Post, ``The Impeachment Inquiry''....   108
Article from The New York Times, ``The Judiciary Vote''..........   108
Letter to Hon. Newt Gingrich dated October 2, 1998...............   120
Statement of The Honorable Bob Barr, a Representative in Congress 
  from the State of Georgia......................................   164
Judicial Watch Interim Report on Crimes and Other Offenses 
  Committed by President Bill Clinton Warranting His Impeachment 
  and Removal from Elected Office................................   164


    AUTHORIZATION OF AN INQUIRY INTO WHETHER GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE 
   IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
                                 STATES

                              ----------                              


  MEETING OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HELD OCTOBER 5, 1998

                              ----------                              

                     PRESENTATION BY INQUIRY STAFF
                  CONSIDERATION OF INQUIRY RESOLUTION
                     ADOPTION OF INQUIRY PROCEDURES

                              ----------                              

                        MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1998

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in 
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde 
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Henry J. Hyde, F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., Bill McCollum, George W. Gekas, Howard 
Coble, Lamar S. Smith of Texas, Elton Gallegly, Charles T. 
Canady, Bob Inglis, Bob Goodlatte, Stephen E. Buyer, Ed Bryant 
of Tennessee, Steve Chabot, Bob Barr, William L. Jenkins, Asa 
Hutchinson, Edward A. Pease, Christopher B. Cannon, James E. 
Rogan, Lindsey O. Graham, Mary Bono, John Conyers, Jr., Barney 
Frank, Charles E. Schumer, Howard L. Berman, Rick Boucher, 
Jerrold Nadler, Robert C. Scott, Melvin L. Watt, Zoe Lofgren, 
Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Martin T. Meehan, William D. 
Delahunt, Robert Wexler, Steven R. Rothman, and Thomas M. 
Barrett.
    Majority Staff Present: Thomas E. Mooney, Sr., general 
counsel-chief of staff; Jon W. Dudas, deputy general counsel-
staff director; Diana L. Schacht, deputy staff director-chief 
counsel; Daniel M. Freeman, parliamentarian-counsel; Joseph H. 
Gibson, chief counsel: Rick Filkins, counsel; Sharee M. 
Freeman, counsel; John F. Mautz, IV, counsel; William 
Moschella, counsel; Stephen Pinkos, counsel; Sheila F. Klein, 
executive assistant to general counsel-chief of staff; Annelie 
Weber, executive assistant to deputy general counsel-staff 
director; Samuel F. Stratman, press secretary; James B. Farr, 
financial clerk; Elizabeth Singleton, legislative correspond- 
ent; Sharon L. Hammersla, computer systems coordinator; Joseph 
McDonald, publications clerk; Shawn Friesen, staff assistant/
clerk; Robert Jones, staff assistant; Michael Connolly, 
communications assistant; Michelle Morgan, press secretary; and 
Patricia Katyoka, research assistant.
    Subcommittee on the Constitution Staff Present: John H. 
Ladd, chief counsel; and Cathleen A. Cleaver, counsel.
    Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property Staff 
Present: Mitch Glazier, chief counsel; Blaine S. Merritt, 
counsel; and Vince Garlock, counsel.
    Subcommittee on Crime Staff Present: Paul J. McNulty, 
director of communications-chief counsel; Glenn R. Schmitt, 
counsel; Daniel J. Bryant, counsel; and Nicole R. Nason, 
counsel.
    Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims Staff Present: 
George M. Fishman, chief counsel; and Laura Ann Baxter, 
counsel.
    Majority Investigative Staff Present: David P. Schippers, 
chief investigative counsel; Susan Bogart, investigative 
counsel; Thomas M. Schippers, investigative counsel; Jeffery 
Pavletic, investigative counsel; Charles F. Marino, counsel; 
John C. Kocoras, counsel; Diana L. Woznicki, investigator; 
Peter J. Wacks, investigator; Albert F. Tracy, investigator; 
Berle S. Littmann, investigator; Steve Lynch, professional 
staff member; Nancy Ruggero-Tracy, office manager/coordinator; 
Patrick O'Sullivan, staff assistant; and Heather McLaughlin, 
staff assistant.
    Minority Staff Present: Julian Epstein, minority chief 
counsel-staff director; Perry Apelbaum, minority general 
counsel; Samara T. Ryder, counsel; Brian P. Woolfolk, counsel; 
Robert Raben, minority counsel; Anita Johnson, assistant to 
chief counsel-staff director and clerk, executive session, and 
Dawn Burton, minority clerk.
    Majority Investigative Staff Present: Abbe D. Lowell, 
minority chief investigative counsel; Lis W. Wiehl, 
investigative counsel; Deborah L. Rhode, investigative counsel; 
Kevin M. Simpson, investigative counsel; Steven F. Reich, 
investigative counsel; Sampak P. Garg, investigative counsel; 
John P. Flannery, special counsel; Maria Reddick, staff 
assistant and clerk, executive session; Stephanie Peters, 
counsel; and David Lachmann, professional staff.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HENRY J. HYDE, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE 
                           JUDICIARY

    Mr. Hyde. The committee will come to order. It is the 
intention of the Chair to conduct today's meeting in the 
following manner.
    First, I will make opening remarks for a period not to 
exceed 10 minutes, and then Mr. Conyers, the ranking Democrat, 
will be recognized to make opening remarks for a period not to 
exceed 10 minutes.
    After the conclusion of those two statements, each member 
will be recognized for 5 minutes to make an opening statement. 
The Chair normally likes to be liberal on the 5 minutes, but I 
think you can understand with all of the members here doubtless 
seeking to make an opening statement, we will have to be rather 
rigid on the 5 minutes. So I ask you to not ask for extensions 
of time, if possible.
    Second, we will then receive a presentation from Mr. 
Schippers for a period not to exceed 1 hour and a presentation 
from Mr. Lowell for a period not to exceed 1 hour.
    Thirdly, I will offer a resolution relating to the 
authorization of an investigation of whether the House should 
undertake its constitutional responsibility to impeach the 
President of the United States of America. At that point, 
members will be recognized under the 5-minute rule to offer 
amendments to the proposed resolution.
    Fourth, I will offer proposed committee rules of procedure 
for the impeachment inquiry. At that point, members will be 
recognized under the 5-minute rule to offer amendments to the 
proposed rules of procedure.
    I think if we respect the time constraints we have, we can 
finish this this evening, and we are going to make every effort 
to do that.
    Mr. Conyers. If the Chairman will yield, I concur with the 
procedure you have outlined. I think it is fair, and I think it 
leads to an orderly beginning of this very serious matter 
before us. Thank you.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank my friend. The Chair recognizes himself 
for 10 minutes.
    On September 18th, the House of Representatives passed a 
resolution with strong bipartisan support, 363 to 63, directing 
the referral from the Office of Independent Counsel to this 
committee with instructions that it be reviewed and released by 
the 28th of September, unless the committee thought certain 
information should be held back in the interests of privacy or 
to protect innocent people.
    The House thus placed in our care the task of reviewing 
more than 60,000 pages of materials in less than three weeks 
and ultimately deciding what should be placed in the public 
domain. We have not always agreed on how to handle this 
information, but we have agreed on the vast majority.
    I believe we can also agree that we could not have 
accomplished this daunting assignment if not for the tireless 
work of the committee staff, both Democratic and Republican, 
who worked day and night, sometimes around the clock, to 
prepare these materials for our review. These men and women 
rose to the occasion and our gratitude goes out to them.
    On September 11th, the Office of Independent Counsel 
transmitted materials to the House of Representatives that in 
its opinion constituted substantial and credible evidence that 
may constitute grounds for impeachment of the President of the 
United States. The appointment of an Independent Counsel had 
been recommended by Attorney General Janet Reno and appointed 
by and served under the direction of the United States Court of 
Appeals. Judge Starr was selected by a three-judge panel, 
appointed by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
    Today, it is our responsibility and our constitutional duty 
to review those materials referred to us and recommend to the 
House of Representatives whether the matter merits a further 
inquiry. Let me be clear about this: We are not here today to 
decide whether or not to impeach Mr. Clinton. We are not here 
to pass judgment on anyone. We are here to ask and answer this 
one simple question: Based upon what we now know, do we have a 
duty to look further or to look away?
    We are constantly reminded how weary America is of this 
whole situation, and I dare say most of us share that 
weariness. But we 
Members of Congress took an oath that we would perform all of 
our constitutional duties, not just the pleasant ones. As 
Chairman Peter Rodino stated in 1974, ``We cannot turn away out 
of partisanship or convenience from problems that are now our 
responsibility, our inescapable responsibility to consider. It 
would be a violation of our own public trust if we as the 
people's representatives chose not to inquire, not to consult, 
not even to deliberate, and then pretend that we had not by 
default made choices.''
    This will be an emotional process, a strenuous process, 
because feelings are high on all sides of this question. But 
the difficulties ahead can be surmounted with good will and an 
honest effort to do what is best for the country.
    In the first year of the Republic, Thomas Payne wrote, 
``Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like 
men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.'' For almost 200 
years, Americans have undergone the stress of preserving their 
freedom and the Constitution that protects it.
    We are going to work expeditiously and fairly. When we have 
completed our inquiry, whatever the result, we will make our 
recommendations to the House. We will do so as soon as we can, 
consistent with principles of fairness and completeness.
    I anticipate several objections to our procedures from our 
Democratic friends, the first of which deals with their demand 
that we establish first, before proceeding with any inquiry, 
what the standards are for impeachment. We don't propose, 
however, to deviate from the wise counsel of former Chairman 
Peter Rodino, who during the Nixon impeachment inquiry 
published a staff report rejecting the establishment of a 
particular standard for impeachment before inquiring into the 
facts of the case.
    Let me quote from Chairman Rodino's report: ``Delicate 
issues of basic constitutional law are involved. Those issues 
cannot be defined in detail in advance of full investigation of 
the facts. The Supreme Court of the United States does not 
reach out in the abstract to rule on the constitutionality of 
statutes or of conduct. Cases must be brought and adjudicated 
on particular facts in terms of the Constitution. Similarly, 
the House does not engage in abstract advisory or hypothetical 
debates about the precise nature of conduct that calls for the 
exercise of its constitutional powers. Rather, it must await 
full development of the facts, an understanding of the events 
to which those facts relate.''
    The 20th century has been referred to often as the American 
century. It is imperative we be able to look back at this 
episode with dignity and pride, knowing we have performed our 
duties in the best interests of the entire country. In this 
difficult moment in our history lies the potential for our 
finest achievement, proof that democracy works.
    I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Hyde.
    And to my colleagues all, we meet today for only the third 
time in the history of our Nation to consider whether or not to 
open an inquiry of impeachment against the President of the 
United States. For more than 200 years we have been guided by 
that brilliant legacy of our Founding Fathers and of our 
Constitution which generation after generation has helped us 
endure the difficult political and social questions that face 
us.
    I am quite certain that the drafters of that document might 
shake their heads in puzzlement at the action that is proposed 
by the majority that we take here today. By now we are all 
familiar with the constitutional standard for impeachable 
offenses: treason, bribery and other high crimes and 
misdemeanors. One of our great Founding Fathers, George Mason, 
said that the phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' refers to 
presidential actions that are great and dangerous offenses or 
attempts to subvert the Constitution.
    Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Paper Number 65, 
wrote that impeachable offenses relate chiefly to injuries done 
immediately to society itself.
    Two hundred years later, this committee was called upon to 
consider the standard for impeachment of a President in 1974, 
and at the risk of dating myself, I remain the only member of 
the committee serving today who was there then.
    Our staff issued a report in February of that year that has 
become a model for scholars and historians alike. The report 
concluded that impeachment is a constitutional remedy addressed 
to serious offenses against the system of government, and it is 
directed at constitutional wrongs that subvert the structure of 
government or undermine the integrity of office and even the 
Constitution itself.
    Those words are as true today as they were in 1974. An 
impeachment is only for a serious abuse of official power or a 
serious breach of official duties. On that, the constitutional 
scholars are in overwhelming agreement.
    The failure to even articulate a standard of impeachment 
against which the evidence can be measured, a step the 1974 
committee took prior to any investigation, is not only a 
failure of this investigation into the President. The tactics 
of the investigation into the President have also, in my 
judgment, been an offense to the tradition of this great 
country and to the common sense of the American people.
    Only yesterday we learned that Judge Starr may have himself 
misled the American people regarding his contacts with 
President Clinton's mythical adversaries and his coordination 
with Paula Jones' attorneys for over a year before he sought to 
investigate the so-called Lewinsky matter.
    Then Mr. Starr, month after month, apparently leaked raw 
grand jury material to the press, not for legal reasons, but 
only to embarrass the President of the United States, an act 
for which Mr. Starr himself is currently being investigated.
    Then the Republican leadership directed this committee to 
dump tens of thousands of pornographic raw grand jury material 
on the citizens of this land, and denied the President any 
semblance of due process rights in doing so.
    Now, I believe the American people have a deep sense of 
right and wrong, of fairness and of privacy, and I believe this 
investigation has offended those sensibilities.
    Who are we in this country and what is it that we stand 
for? Do we want to have prosecutors with unlimited powers, 
accountable to no one, who will spend millions of dollars 
investigating a person's personal life, who then haul before 
grand juries every person of the opposite sex the person has 
had contact with, who then record and release videos to the 
public of the grand jury questioning of the most private 
aspects of one's sex life?
    Now, there is no question that the President's actions were 
wrong. I submit to all of you that he may be suffering more 
than any of us will ever know. But I suggest to you, my 
colleagues across the aisle, in every ounce of friendship that 
I can muster, that even worse than an extramarital relationship 
is the use of Federal prosecutors and Federal agents to expose 
an extramarital relationship.
    Yes, there is a threat to society here, but it is from the 
tactics when an at-all-cost prosecutor is determined to sink a 
President of the opposition party.
    Our review of the evidence sent with the referral convinces 
many of us of one thing: There is no support for any suggestion 
that the President obstructed justice or that he tampered with 
witnesses or abused the power of his office.
    A couple of examples. The referral alleges that the 
President attempted to find Ms. Lewinsky a job in order to buy 
her silence, but the evidence, the Starr evidence, makes clear 
that the efforts to help Ms. Lewinsky find a job began in April 
of 1996, long before she was ever identified as a witness in 
the Jones case. And she herself testified that ``No one ever 
asked me to lie, and I was never promised a job for my 
silence.''
    Likewise, while the referral contends that the President 
tried to hide gifts he had given her, the evidence makes clear 
that Ms. Lewinsky and not the President initiated the transfer 
of those items to the President's secretary.
    Finally, by alleging abuses of power by the President, the 
Independent Counsel has simply repackaged his basic allegation 
of lying about sex in a quite transparent effort to conjure the 
ghost of Watergate.
    Finally, the President's statements under oath in the 
dismissed Paula Jones case were legally immaterial to the case 
and would have never formed the legal basis for any 
investigation, again raising the specter that this 
investigation may have been tainted with politics.
    This is not Watergate, it is an extramarital affair. 
Americans know, and want to finish this, and 99 percent of the 
facts are already on the table. The investigatory phase will be 
far less significant than in previous congressional inquiries.
    There are only a handful of witnesses that can provide us 
probative information, all of whom have been before the grand 
jury three, four, five and six times. It is unlikely that any 
of the witnesses will change their testimony. In fact, much of 
this investigation, quite amazingly, turns on whether or how 
Mr. Clinton touched Ms. Lewinsky. It sounds like a parody, but 
it is not. It is what Speaker Gingrich and many Republicans are 
proposing with this resolution.
    The open-ended Republican proposal will be seen exactly for 
what it is if it is brought forward this morning: a means for 
dragging this matter out well past the upcoming elections. An 
open-ended impeachment inquiry threatens to subvert our system 
of constitutional government. There is no need for this 
investigation to be open-ended when we can, because of its 
limited factual predicate, close it down within 6 weeks.
    Mr. Chairman, over the past weeks you and I have worked 
more closely together than at any other time in our careers, 
and I want to thank you for many untold efforts that you have 
made, including providing committee Democrats the Watergate 
rules of operation which we sought. We have worked in a 
bipartisan manner on some of the issues that have confronted 
us, and while your hands may have been tied by your leadership 
on others, you know as well as I that whatever action this 
committee takes must be fair, it must be bipartisan, for it to 
have credibility. The American people deserve no less, and 
history will judge us by how well we achieve that goal.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Hyde. Thank you very much, Mr. Conyers. Now for 5 
minutes for purposes of an opening statement, the Chair is 
pleased to recognize Mr. Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Today we begin the task second only in gravity to Congress' 
power to declare war. It is important at the outset to note 
that this debate is not about the fact that President Clinton 
had an affair with Monica Lewinsky and then lied about it to 
his family, his staff, his Cabinet and to the American public. 
It is about Judge Starr's finding that the President violated 
his oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 
truth in a successful attempt to defeat Paula Jones' civil 
rights suit against him.
    The material before us contains evidence that President 
Clinton perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition and in 
his testimony before the grand jury, knowingly had his lawyers 
submit a false affidavit in the Jones case, conspired to 
conceal gifts he had given Monica Lewinsky, tampered with 
witnesses and obstructed justice.
    What is the difference between lies about an affair to 
family and friends and those made under oath during legal 
proceedings? Plenty.
    Our legal system is based upon the courts being able to 
find the truth. That is why there are criminal penalties for 
perjury and obstruction of justice. Even the President of the 
United States does not have a license to lie. Deceiving the 
courts is an offense against the public and it prevents them 
from administering justice.
    Every American has a constitutional right to a jury trial. 
The jury finds the facts. The citizens on the jury cannot 
correctly find the facts if they do not get truthful testimony.
    When Americans come to visit their capital city, they see 
the words ``Equal Justice Under Law'' carved in the facade of 
the Supreme Court building. Those words mean that the weak and 
the poor have an equal right to justice, as do the rich and the 
powerful.
    If the evidence against the President is true, it is clear 
his wrongful conduct was designed to defeat Paula Jones' legal 
claims against him, claims the Supreme Court in a 9 to 0 
decision said she had the right to pursue.
    Paula Jones' suit claimed her civil rights were violated 
when she refused then-Governor Clinton's advances and was 
subsequently harassed at work, denied merit pay raises, and 
subsequently forced to quit. She had the right to get evidence 
showing other women such as Monica Lewinsky got jobs, 
promotions and raises after submitting to Mr. Clinton.
    When someone lies about an affair, they violate the trust 
their spouse and family place in them. But when they lie about 
an affair in a legal proceeding, they prevent the courts from 
administering equal justice under law. That is an offense 
against the public, made even more serious when a poor and weak 
person seeks the protections of our civil rights laws against 
the rich and the powerful.
    The President denies all the allegations. Someone is lying 
and someone is telling the truth. An impeachment inquiry is the 
only way to get to the bottom of this mess. It will give 
Congress and the American public one last chance to get the 
truth and the whole truth. If this inquiry uncovers the whole 
truth, we will have gone a long way to putting this sad part of 
our history to rest.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    People have talked about what divides us on this committee, 
but I think there is one thing that I know from my 
conversations with my colleagues across the committee that 
unites us: Almost all of us wish we weren't here. Almost all of 
us think this is an unfortunate situation. It is not why we 
came here. We came here to try and make public policy and 
improve people's lives.
    This is a part of our duty and we do it. The question is, 
how do we do it? The chairman phrased the issue quite clearly, 
that we will deal with this threshold issue, and it is the 
scope of this inquiry.
    We have debated the question of time, although we appear to 
be getting some convergence on that. The last I heard we were 
talking about November 25th, the chairman was talking about the 
end of the year. If one assumes they are not too busy on 
Thanksgiving and Christmas Day, that timetable starts to look 
somewhat similar.
    But timing is really a secondary issue. Timing is driven by 
scope. The question we have to deal with and the question that 
will be presented in our resolution is this: Do we look into 
what Kenneth Starr has referred to us, or do we get into an 
open-ended effort to find something somewhere that can justify 
continuing this process?
    Kenneth Starr has given us a very incomplete report. For 
more than 4 years he has been studying the Whitewater matter, 
the FBI files, the Travel Office and other matters. He began 
this year, more than 3 years after the start of his operation, 
to look into Monica Lewinsky. Now he gives us the most recent 
thing he has looked into and we have silence on the others. I 
think that is clearly because Mr. Starr, reflecting his bias, 
follows the principle that if you don't have anything bad to 
say, don't say anything at all.
    But that ought not to be the cue for this committee. What 
we have is this problem: I think as we have talked about it, 
there is a fear on the part of many who want to destroy Bill 
Clinton, who didn't like the 1992 election and didn't like the 
1996 election and would like to undo it, there is a fear that 
the matters in the Starr referral do not carry enough weight to 
justify an impeachment.
    The Chairman himself in a very fair way yesterday, 
apparently on television said that he did not think there were 
now votes in the Senate for impeachment, and that wouldn't be 
the case unless public opinion moved. What we have to resist, 
and I do not impute this to the Chairman, but there are other 
people who I think have this motive, what we have to resist is 
an effort to keep going to try and move public opinion.
    The Chairman said we shouldn't look away, we should look 
further. I agree. What we shouldn't do, however, is adopt a 
resolution which says: Let's look around. Let's see what we can 
find. Let's see if we can find something in Whitewater and the 
FBI files and the Travel Office and the Campaign Finance 
Office.
    I sat in two congressional hearings on Whitewater, once 
under Democrats, once under Republicans. Next door in the 
Burton committee they have investigated ad infinitum, perhaps 
ad nauseam. We have had investigations into all of these 
things. No one has yet come up with anything.
    That is why we resist so strongly a resolution that says 
let's just look into the whole thing, take what Kenneth Starr 
said about Monica Lewinsky and that matter and let's look into 
it, would be overwhelmingly adopted. Some of my colleagues 
agree with my friend from Michigan that even that doesn't 
justify going further.
    The problem for many of us is, we did create a statute and 
appointed an independent counsel. I don't think much of the job 
he has done, but he is there and has that statutory 
responsibility. Therefore, I think we have to look at what he 
said. But let's look at what he said. Let us not turn this into 
an impeachment inquiry in search of a high crime. Let's look at 
what Mr. Starr charged the President with and decide.
    I must say, having read the Newt Gingrich report and the 
Richard Nixon report, that by those standards I don't believe 
that what Mr. Starr has accused the President of justifies 
impeachment. That has not been the historical standard for 
those kinds of misdeeds.
    But what we have is a recognition, I am afraid, on the part 
of others that the Starr report does not rise to the 
appropriate level, that they cannot get the President on that, 
although it certainly is to the President's discredit and 
certainly could lead to some harsh criticism of the President. 
And what we object to is the resolution, which is so open-ended 
as to keep hope alive that we can find something so negative 
about the President, even in ground that has been gone over so 
frequently. That is why we propose an inquiry that is only 
about the Starr referral on Monica Lewinsky.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    What we are embarking upon today is something none of us 
really want to be doing. We are looking into the question of 
whether we have an impeachment inquiry of the President of the 
United States. Impeachment is not good for the country, the 
inquiry is not good, it would be better if we were not here 
today, but, unfortunately, the circumstances are grave and the 
situation merits our at least inquiring, it seems to me.
    The issue is not whether the President should be impeached 
today. That is an issue for another day for us to decide, and 
we shouldn't prejudge any of the facts or the evidence until we 
have heard that, if indeed we go forward with an inquiry. The 
question today for us is, do the allegations that have been 
presented to us by Kenneth Starr in his report merit further 
investigation? Some say they do not. I think most of us say 
they do and are only debating the manner in which we proceed.
    This is not about jaywalking, it is not about driving under 
the influence. Those are not major crimes for which any 
President would be impeached. But I would suggest to you that 
what it is about is whether or not we can sustain the 
constitutional form of our government without going forward at 
this point. It is about the separation of powers in the three 
branches of government, the legislative, the executive and the 
judicial. It is about whether or not what the President may 
have done, if gone without punishment, without being impeached, 
without being removed from office, would undermine the judicial 
system, the third branch of our government.
    There are serious questions that have been posed here. If 
it were proven that the President of the United States 
committed a felony crime of lying under oath in a deposition in 
a sexual harassment case, or if it were proven that the 
President of the United States committed a felony crime of 
lying to a grand jury under oath, or if it were proven that the 
President of the United States obstructed justice by trying to 
encourage someone to file a false affidavit or encouraging 
other matters that would conceal the evidence from a court or 
grand jury, would, if that were the case, if those were proven, 
would it undermine our system of justice if the President of 
the United States were not impeached or removed from office?
    I would submit that indeed it would undermine our system. 
It would undermine it because when you swear to tell the truth, 
the whole truth and nothing but the truth when you take an 
oath, when you become a witness in a court, you are doing what 
is necessary to make our system of justice work. Truthfulness 
is the glue that holds our justice system together. When people 
believe that the President of the United States can lie, commit 
perjury, and get away with it, what are they going to say the 
next time they have to go to court? And thousands of them do 
every day in this country, and they are expected to tell the 
truth when they get on the witness stand or face the crime of 
perjury.
    I would suggest to you that it should be noted that today 
in our Federal system, there are 115 people serving time in 
Federal prison at this present moment for perjury before a 
grand jury or a Federal court, 115 people. I don't know if the 
President committed these crimes of perjury, but if he did, 
that alone it seems to me would merit impeachment and removal 
from office.
    We know for a fact, and I would like exhibits put up, to 
show this, that Judge Walter Nixon, Jr. was impeached on May 
10th, 1989, by a vote of 417 to nothing by the House of 
Representatives for committing perjury. It says right there, in 
the course of his grand jury testimony, and having duly taken 
the oath that he would tell the truth, the whole truth and 
nothing but the truth, Judge Nixon did knowingly and contrary 
to his oath make material, false or misleading statements to a 
grand jury, and he was impeached 417 to nothing.
    In the next exhibit, please, Judge Alcee Hastings, now one 
of our colleagues, was impeached on August 3, 1988, by a vote 
of 413 to 3, for a similar lying under oath for perjury.
    It seems to me that these are serious matters. I don't 
know, again, whether the President committed perjury. That is 
what it is all about, for us to determine that.
    But whether or not he committed even the other matters, 
witness tampering, obstruction of justice, or all of the other 
allegations that Kenneth Starr has presented to us as major, 
serious felony criminal offenses, even if it were only shown to 
us that the President of the United States lied under oath and 
committed perjury in the civil deposition he took, or even more 
seriously, before the grand jury when he testified just a month 
or so ago, if that is all that is proven, that is enough for us 
to impeach and enough for him to be thrown out of office. And 
if we were not to do that, I submit it would undermine our 
constitutional system and destroy the foundation of our 
judicial system.
    So it is serious today. We do have the basis for going 
forward with an investigation and an inquiry resolution, and I 
submit that is what we will do before the end of the day.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The very distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Schumer.
    Mr. Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to tell 
the American people about the decision I have reached in this 
case and how I have reached that decision.
    After a careful reading of the Starr report and the other 
materials submitted by the Office of Independent Counsel, as 
well as a study of the origins and history of the impeachment 
clause of the Constitution, I have come to the conclusion that 
given the evidence before us, there is no basis for impeachment 
of the President.
    I believe that, given the evidence before us, the only 
charge possible against the President is that he lied to the 
grand jury and at the deposition about his extramarital affair 
with Monica Lewinsky. Even assuming the facts presented by the 
OIC thus far to be true, that crime does not rise to the level 
of high crimes and misdemeanors cited in the Constitution.
    It is my view that the President should be punished and 
that Congress should quickly reach consensus on a suitable and 
significant punishment. Then we should move on and get back to 
solving the serious problems like the deepening economic crisis 
abroad, and issues close to home like education, health care 
and security for seniors.
    Mr. Chairman, the OIC has basically made three allegations 
against the President: perjury, obstruction of justice and 
abuse of power. They all stem from the admitted improper 
relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
    To me it is clear that the President lied when he testified 
before the grand jury, not to cover a crime but to cover 
embarrassing personal behavior. And, yes, an ordinary person in 
most circumstances would not be punished for lying about an 
extramarital affair, but the President has to be held to a 
higher standard and the President must be held accountable. 
That said, the punishment for lying about an improper 
relationship should fit the crime.
    The OIC's case for obstruction of justice is not 
supportable by the evidence. Monica Lewinsky herself 
volunteered that no one had asked her to lie or promised her a 
job in exchange for silence. Indeed, her efforts to find a job 
preceded any notion that she might have to testify in the Paula 
Jones case or any other case.
    The abuse of power claims by the OIC are in my view the 
most frivolous. To suggest that any subject of an 
investigation, much less the President with obligations to the 
institution of the presidency, is abusing power and interfering 
with an investigation by making legitimate legal claims, using 
due process in asserting constitutional rights, is beyond 
serious consideration.
    It is the charges of obstruction of justice and abuse of 
power where I believe that Ken Starr seriously overreached. He 
knew that if this case was only about sex and lying about sex, 
that it would not be found impeachable by Congress. So he made 
allegations that simply could not be supported in a court but 
allowed him to release a salacious report. This casts into 
serious doubt his impartiality.
    Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, Mr. Chairman, 
states that the President may be removed from office on 
impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, and other 
high crimes and misdemeanors. The framers intended impeachment 
to apply to public actions related to or affecting operations 
of government and not to personal or private conduct, even if 
that conduct is wrong or may be considered criminal.
    My full written testimony has an in-depth discussion of 
precedents and opinions on this matter. Let me just say, that 
whether you cite the Federalist Papers or legal scholars like 
Justice Story, the President's actions, while wrong and 
inappropriate and possibly illegal, are clearly not 
impeachable.
    In conclusion, I would support a motion of censure or a 
motion to rebuke, as President Ford suggested yesterday, not 
because it is politically expedient to do but because the 
President's actions cry out for punishment, and because censure 
or rebuke, not impeachment, is the right punishment.
    It is time to move forward, and not have the Congress and 
the American people endure a specter of what could be a year-
long focus on a tawdry but not impeachable affair. The world 
economy is in crisis and cries out for American leadership, 
without which worldwide turmoil is a grave possibility. The 
American people cry out for us to solve the problems facing 
America, like health care, education and ensuring that seniors 
have a decent retirement. This investigation now in its fifth 
year has run its course. It is time to move on.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Schumer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles E. Schumer, a Representative in Congress 
                       From the State of New York
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to tell the 
American people about the decision that I have reached in this case, 
and about how I reached that decision.
    After a careful reading of the Starr report and the other material 
submitted by the Office of the Independent Counsel, as well as a study 
of the origins and history of the impeachment clause of the 
Constitution, I have come to the conclusion that there is no basis for 
impeachment of the President.
    I believe that given the evidence thus before us, the only charge 
possible against the President is that he lied to the Grand Jury and at 
the deposition about his extra-marital affair with Monica Lewinsky. 
Even assuming the facts presented by the Office of the Independent 
Counsel thus far to be true, that crime does not rise to the level of 
high crimes and misdemeanors cited in the Constitution.
    It is my view that the President should be punished and that 
Congress should quickly reach consensus on a suitable and significant 
punishment. Then we should move on and get back to solving the serious 
problems like the deepening economic crisis abroad and issues close to 
home like education, health care, and security for seniors.
    Let me begin by saying that I took this responsibility somberly and 
seriously. We are determining whether the Congress should undo and void 
the legitimate democratic expression of the people's will in our most 
American of all civic acts - the election of our President.
    I studied the allegations and the evidence and measured them 
against the standard set forth in the Constitution of high crimes and 
misdemeanors.
    I refused to be swayed by my deep disappointment in the actions of 
the President. Or my view that what the President did was irresponsible 
and wrong.
    Mr. Chairman, the OIC has made basically three allegations against 
the President: perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power--
they all stem from the admitted improper relationship with Monica 
Lewinsky.
    The OIC's main charge is perjury.
    To me it is clear that the President lied when he testified before 
the grand jury and at the Paula Jones deposition--not to cover a crime, 
but to cover embarrassing personal behavior. And yes, an ordinary 
person in most instances would not be punished for lying about an 
extramarital affair.
    But the President has to be held to a higher standard and the 
President must be held accountable. That said, the punishment for lying 
about an improper sexual relationship should fit the crime.
    The second charge is obstruction of justice.
    The OIC's case for obstruction of justice--in my judgement--is not 
supportable by the evidence. Monica Lewinsky herself volunteered that 
no one had ever asked her to lie or promised her a job in exchange for 
silence. Indeed the tapes of Monica Lewinsky and her confidant Linda 
Tripp--tapes made unbeknownst to Ms. Lewinsky--revealed that no such 
promise was made.
    The testimony of Ms. Currie and Vernon Jordan do not make a 
persuasive case of obstruction of justice, as well. At best the 
evidence is contradictory and inconsistent and would not be entertained 
in a court of law.
    The third charge is abuse of power.
    The abuse of power claims by the OIC are, in my view, the most 
frivolous. To suggest that any subject of an investigation--much less 
the President with obligations to the institution of the Presidency--is 
abusing power and interfering with an investigation by making 
legitimate legal claims, using due process and asserting constitutional 
rights, is beyond the ken of serious consideration.
    The President--on the advice of counsel--asserted privileges, filed 
motions and made claims of executive privilege that were all legally 
proper. He won some and lost some. But no court seriously claimed that 
the arguments were frivolous or in bad faith. If there is any reason to 
think so, then the proper remedy is a Rule 11 procedure--not 
impeachment.
    I have said very little about Ken Starr during the course of his 
investigation. But it is these two charges of obstruction of justice 
and abuse of power, where I believe that Ken Starr seriously 
overreached. He knew that if this case was about sex and lying about 
sex, that it was not impeachable. So he made allegations that simply 
could not be supported in a court but allowed him to release a 
salacious report. This casts into serious doubt his impartiality.
    Article II Section 4 of the Constitution states that the President 
may be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of, 
treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The Framers 
intended impeachment to apply to public actions related to or affecting 
the operations of the government and not to personal or private conduct 
even if that conduct is wrong or may be considered criminal.
    The Committee on Federal Legislation of the Bar Association of the 
State of New York published a study on impeachment in 1974 in which it 
concluded that:
    ``The Framers had in mind that only conduct which in some broad 
fashion injures the interest of the country as a political entity be 
the basis for impeachment and removal. The phrase 'other high crimes 
and misdemeanors' should accordingly be construed as referring only to 
acts which, like treason and bribery, undermine the integrity of the 
government.''
    In Federalist Paper Number 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
    ``The subject of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed 
from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or 
violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with 
peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to 
injuries done to the society itself.''
    Even the manager of the impeachment case against President Andrew 
Johnson said that impeachment requires conduct that is ``in nature or 
consequences subversive of some fundamental or essential principle of 
government, or [is] highly prejudicial to the public interest.''
    What President Clinton did was wrong. It was inappropriate. I 
believe he lied to the grand jury. But what he did is clearly not an 
impeachable offense as outlined in the Constitution and interpreted by 
legal scholars.
    In conclusion, I would support a motion to censure, or a motion to 
rebuke as President Ford wrote yesterday--not because it is the 
politically expedient to do--but because his actions cry out for 
significant punishment. And because censure and rebuke, not 
impeachment, is the right punishment.
    He should not walk away unscathed by the Congress. He should not 
receive a slap on the wrist. But his actions do not rise to the level 
of high crimes and misdemeanors.
    It is time to move forward and not have the Congress and the 
American people endure the specter of what could be a year long focus 
on a tawdry but not impeachable affair.
    The world economy is in crisis and cries out for American 
leadership--without which worldwide turmoil is a grave possibility.
    The American people cry out for us to solve the problems facing 
America--like health care, education, and ensuring that seniors have a 
decent retirement.
    This investigation, in its fifth year, has run its course. It has 
occupied too much of our attention. And it is time to move on.

    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentleman. It is time to move on.
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gekas. Mr. Chairman, I will move on.
    It is time once again to reassert what the role is of the 
Congress in these impeachment proceedings, which begin today 
with the possibility of a vote, to vote to move into inquiry on 
impeachment. The House of Representatives acts as a gigantic 
grand jury to which referral will be made by this Judiciary 
Committee, acting as a kind of prosecutor-investigator body to 
evaluate the evidence with which to make presentation to the 
grand jury. Then the grand jury, this grand House of 
Representatives, would evaluate the evidence and say in one way 
or another, yes, there is sufficient evidence to allow the 
trier of fact to conclude that certain offenses, impeachable 
offenses, have indeed occurred.
    Keeping that in mind, we have the responsibility of 
reviewing and re-reviewing the referral by the Independent 
Counsel, which in itself is a duty imposed upon us by statute 
and by the Constitution. In the referral there are allegations, 
again, for the evaluation of this committee.
    I have had difficulty, for instance, in one allegation in 
which the Independent Counsel says the President repeatedly and 
unlawfully invoked the executive privilege to conceal evidence 
of his personal misconduct from the grand jury. I have 
difficulty with his conclusion that this assertion of executive 
privilege on the part of the President was unlawful.
    But that is not for me to conclude and to come to a firm 
termination of thinking simply because I have doubts about it. 
That is why I have to inquire further into what justification 
there is for the allegation by the Independent Counsel that 
indeed it was an unlawful gesture, this assertion of executive 
privilege. If I had my way, I would remove that right now as 
not being worthy of discussion, but we need to inquire further. 
I could be dead wrong on that.
    For instance, the Independent Counsel goes farther in 
substantiating that portion of his allegations, that the 
Supreme Court had spoken on this, that in similar circumstances 
in the case against President Nixon the assertion of executive 
privilege was unsatisfactory and even perhaps illegal. But that 
is not enough for me. We must inquire further.
    So it is on the question of perjury, to which much 
commentary has been already attributed by my colleagues. In the 
courthouse which is so familiar to all of us in every seat of 
every county government in the United States, the entire 
structure is bolstered not by the concrete of its foundation, 
but by the oath, an oath taken by the judge to execute his 
responsibilities, an oath taken by the jury to exercise its 
responsibilities, an oath by the sheriff, by the bailiff, by 
the clerk of court, an oath to administer justice, or else all 
of us lose the chance at justice.
    To allow then a witness at this courthouse scenario, which 
is so familiar to all of us, to pervert the entire process, the 
rights of everyone concerned, by giving false testimony, by 
committing perjury, crushes down against that courthouse and it 
collapses because of that one fatal flaw that could arise in 
any single case, whether it is a traffic ticket or murder in 
the first degree. If we cannot as American citizens recognize 
the necessity for a strong perjury statute and its enforcement, 
then we are our own worse enemies in what we feel has to be the 
further answer of establishing and maintaining justice in our 
country.
    So I am not yet satisfied that there is guilt or innocence 
with respect to the perjury allegations, but, by darn, it is 
worth a fuller inquiry by this body.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired. I thank the 
gentleman.
    The distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    How we conduct these hearings may be as important as the 
ultimate decisions we reach. Perhaps there is a political gain 
for Republicans or for Democrats to spin a public relations 
angle on every procedural question, every vote, every statement 
during these hearings. I don't think so. The only effect of the 
spinning from either side of the aisle is to cloud thought and 
degrade whatever dignity Congress still has left. This public 
relations spinning makes me dizzy. Let us seek some common 
ground.
    Every 4 years the people vote for a President. This popular 
decision is a defining moment of our constitutional system. The 
people's vote is almost sacred and should not be altered except 
under the most extreme circumstances.
    The impeachment process is a constitutionally mandated 
procedure for undoing the people's will, but only when the 
President is found guilty of treason, bribery or other high 
crimes and misdemeanors.
    The impeachment process is not a legal proceeding. We are 
not a courtroom. The impeachment process should not be used as 
a legislative vote of no confidence on the President's conduct 
or policies. We are not governed by a parliamentary system. The 
impeachment process is not a rubber stamp for the latest 
feedback from the political pollsters. The Constitution invests 
the House of Representatives, not the Gallup poll, with the 
sole responsibility for the impeachment process.
    The majority party has an obligation to recognize that 
``high crimes and misdemeanors'' has a meaning. All felonies 
are not high crimes and misdemeanors. All high crimes and 
misdemeanors are not felonies. Because of the deference the 
Constitution gives to the person who wins a presidential 
electoral college vote, the standard for impeachment is far 
more complicated and subtle than a straight reading of a 
criminal statute. Our deliberations must reflect that reality.
    The minority party has an obligation to recognize that a 
Democratically controlled Congress, at the urging of President 
Clinton, passed a statute that allowed for the naming of an 
Independent Counsel by a three-judge panel. The Independent 
Counsel was in turn given the approval by a Democratic Attorney 
General to pursue the Monica Lewinsky matter.
    I may feel that connections to Whitewater were flimsy and 
tenuous, I may even regret my vote for the independent counsel 
statute, but the fact remains, no matter what I think, that 
statute is the law. The Attorney General gave the okay. That 
same statute requires the Independent Counsel to report what he 
believes are grounds for impeachment to the House. It is our 
obligation to proceed to decide whether the Independent 
Counsel's contentions are in fact grounds for impeachment.
    This is not just about sex, but it is colored by sex. That 
coloration could be viewed by some as irrelevant. That 
coloration could be viewed by some as mitigating criminal 
wrongdoing. It is up to this committee to decide, in this 
uniquely political and legal and democratic forum, the 
significance of the context and how, if at all, it affects our 
determination of whether impeachable offenses have been 
committed.
    I don't share some Members' reluctance to release data to 
the general population. The American people are not children to 
be protected by big brother through government control. But the 
children of America ought to be protected, if at all possible, 
from a public exposure of irrelevant, if indeed it is 
irrelevant, sexually explicit hearings regarding the President. 
Toward this end, I suggest that whatever rules of procedure are 
adopted, our first order of business is to resolve if the 
events portrayed in the Starr report's narrative rise to the 
level of an impeachable offense.
    Toward the end of finding common ground, and at Congressman 
Delahunt's suggestion, I joined with him and two Republicans, 
Asa Hutchinson and Lindsey Graham, to request that the chair 
and ranking member, ask the Independent Counsel to forward, at 
the soonest possible time, any new information he believes 
relevant to these proceedings. Some of us assume no additional 
information exists and would like the air cleared. Others read 
the Starr report and assume there is more to come.
    Whatever our expectations, we recognize, without regard to 
political implications, how vital it is to know the limits and 
the scope of the proceeding. Our request was forwarded to Mr. 
Starr. I urge the Independent Counsel to communicate 
immediately his intent regarding 595(c) information about any 
other matter he is charged with investigating, if any exists.
    This is a difficult and emotional process. Many of us have 
extremely strong feelings regarding its outcome and procedures. 
The more we are able to overcome those passions and work 
together, the better for both parties, the better for America.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 
Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, some House Democrats have in my opinion 
unfairly and inaccurately accused Republicans of being fiercely 
partisan and unfair. My Democrat friends asked for a Watergate-
Rodino model. Now they claim they don't want it. The moral of 
that story is you can never get too much of what you don't 
want. Be careful what you request, it may be granted.
    If Republicans had sought to be unfair, it could have been 
accomplished by stacking the staff deck. During the Watergate 
hearings, a total of 134 staffers were assigned, 12 of whom 
represented the Republican side. What have these current 
Republicans done regarding staffing? One hundred thirty-four, 
as in the Watergate era? Indeed not. The staff in the President 
Clinton investigation is the grand total of 21--14 Republicans, 
7 Democrats. Not 122 to 12, but 14 to 7. Obviously fair.
    The Democrat strategy in portraying Republicans as unfair 
is designed to divert attention from the issue at hand, and it 
is obviously effective, Mr. Chairman, because here am I 
consuming my time refuting their inaccurate claims. But when 
one is falsely accused and maintains silence, silence then 
becomes assent.
    Now, for the issue at hand. Many say, conclude this matter 
immediately. We do not have the luxury of doing so, if we 
properly discharge our constitutional duty. An inquiry, not 
necessarily an impeachment, but an inquiry of impeachment must 
inevitably follow.
    Equal justice under the law, powerful words previously 
mentioned by my friend from Wisconsin. We must remain blind to 
bias and other distractions when applying the laws, no matter 
whether we are applying it to an average citizen or to the 
President of the country, and we must remain evenhanded and 
impartial before deciding to ascribe guilt or innocence to a 
person as the truth may warrant.
    That in fact is what we are doing here today. A society 
founded upon the rule of law is one which values truth. Without 
it, we have no courts which will function. In its absence, we 
have no civil society. This ultimately means that citizens in 
our Republic, regardless of the power they have or the position 
they hold, must make an obligatory commitment to observe the 
law. As Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``Obedience to the law is 
demanded as a right, not asked as a favor.''
    Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that our fellow Americans will 
be understanding as we continue this process and hopefully 
conclude same sooner rather than later. Constituents send mixed 
messages, as each of you know. In calls last week, one said if 
I don't vote to impeach the President, never to come back home. 
A second call said if I don't conclude this hearing today, as 
if I could do that, she will never vote for me again, implying 
that she had voted for me previously. Yet a third call, my 
friends: ``I hope Coble dies a painful death from prostate 
cancer.''
    Now, I am not going to be intimidated by that third call. 
The first two calls I am going to weigh very soberly. But 
finally, my friends, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues on both 
sides, it is we, after we examine the facts and evidence 
thoroughly, it is we who must exercise our best judgment.
    I thank the Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    As the committee today establishes the boundaries and the 
rules of proceeding for its formal inquiry, the most careful 
consideration should be given to both of the procedural 
alternatives that will be before the members this afternoon. 
Whatever the outcome of the formal inquiry, history will recall 
the process that we employ. What we do today will become part 
of the constitutional fabric for future impeachment inquiries.
    Just as today we seek the guidance and the instruction of 
precedent from the formal inquiries of past years, future 
Congresses, when confronted with allegations of impeachable 
conduct, will examine closely our decisions in this time. The 
rules we set, the process that we employ, the balances we 
achieve to assure that the rights of all are protected and that 
the Nation's interests are served, will influence not just the 
course of this investigation but future impeachment 
investigations as well.
    Bearing that reality in mind, I urge that the most careful 
consideration of these rules be provided. The activity upon 
which we are embarked lies at the very heart of our 
constitutional structure, and it is essential that our 
decisions today and in the coming days be motivated not by a 
partisan interest but by the public interest; that they be made 
not for reasons of expediency, but that they be made with a 
view toward the lasting effect that they will have.
    Later today I will urge the adoption of a process which 
meets this test. It will be limited to the matters that have 
been referred to this committee by the Office of Independent 
Counsel, and those are the matters that today we actually have 
before us. It will require that as a first essential step, the 
committee conduct a thorough review of the constitutional 
standard for Presidential impeachment which has evolved over 
the last two centuries.
    Before the investigation phase of our work begins, we 
should establish a shared understanding of that constitutional 
standard, of the fact that the framers of the Constitution did 
not intend for impeachment to be a punishment for individual 
misconduct, of the fact that they intended for impeachment to 
occur only when that misconduct is so substantial and is so 
important to the functioning of the office of the President 
that it is absolutely incompatible with our constitutional 
system of government.
    Our process will then require that the allegations of the 
Independent Counsel each then be compared to the historical 
constitutional standard, and that only those allegations which 
meet that threshold test become the subject of our formal 
inquiry. These initial steps are essential to an orderly 
review. They are required for the committee to follow the path 
so clearly marked for us by the constitutional framers and by 
our congressional predecessors for the past 200 years.
    When we consider later today these procedural alternatives 
for the conduct of our investigation and our formal review, I 
urge the members to keep these fundamental principles in mind.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, we are here today to decide 
whether the serious charges against President Clinton merit 
further inquiry. We are not here to determine guilt or 
punishment. If necessary, that is for another time and place. 
President Clinton already has admitted to inappropriate 
behavior that he himself called wrong, and the Independent 
Counsel has presented substantial evidence that the President 
may have lied under oath, obstructed justice and abused his 
office.
    The committee now has a constitutional responsibility to 
fulfill. If we are to do so and seek the truth, we must proceed 
with our inquiry. This will not be an easy task; in fact, it 
will be a difficult ordeal for all Americans. But we will get 
through it: we are a great Nation and a strong people. Our 
country will endure because our Constitution works and has 
worked for over 200 years.
    As much as one might wish to avoid this process, we must 
resist the temptation to close our eyes and pass by. The 
inquiry into the President's conduct must go on for one simple 
reason--the truth matters. The President holds a public office 
we rightly regard as the most powerful in the world. The 
President serves as a role model for us and for our children. 
He influences the lives of millions of people. That is why no 
President should tarnish our values and our ideals.
    Actions do have consequences; the difference between right 
and wrong still exists, and honesty always counts. 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. When he swore before a 
judge to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 
truth, he assumed responsibility for doing just that.
    Now it will be up to us to decide if there is sufficient 
evidence that he violated his sacred public trust. More than 
150 newspapers already have called for President Clinton's 
resignation. Many others have expressed dismay about his 
behavior. Prominent Democratic leaders have courageously spoken 
out.
    Senator Joe Lieberman: ``. . . the President apparently had 
extramarital relations with an employee half his age and did so 
in the workplace, in the vicinity of the Oval Office. Such 
behavior is not just inappropriate, it is immoral and it is 
harmful, for it sends a message of what is acceptable behavior 
to the larger American family, particularly our children. . .''
    Senator Robert Kerrey: This is not a private matter. This 
is far more important for our country and threatens far more 
than his presidency.
    And former Senator Bill Bradley: ``Any time the President 
lies, he undermines the authority of his office and squanders 
the public's trust, and that is what he did.''
    Certainly these Democratic leaders know you can't defend 
the indefensible. There are others, though, who would like to 
change the subject, who would like to talk about anybody else 
but the President and about anything else except the 
allegations of lying under oath, obstruction of justice and 
abuse of office. Such efforts are an affront to all who value 
truth over tactics, substance over spin, principles over 
politics.
    I hope that there will be a bipartisan vote by the 
Judiciary Committee today to support Chairman Hyde's inquiry 
resolution. Almost 25 years ago, a similar vote occurred on a 
nearly identical resolution by Chairman Rodino concerning 
President Nixon. Then, every single Republican joined the 
Democrats in seeking the truth.
    No one is eager to undertake this task. But good can 
result, and lessons can be learned, such as: No one is above 
the law. If you do something wrong, you must pay a price. If 
you don't treat others with respect, it can hurt you. The 
outcome of this inquiry can be a public reaffirmation of core 
values, honesty, respect, responsibility. As we go forward, we 
do so not as partisans but as fact-finders and truth seekers. 
And it is my hope that we go forward together, the American 
people and their representatives in Congress, united in our 
love of country and in our desire to seek a wise and just 
result for all.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This committee faces today a task of monumental and 
historic proportion. The issue in a potential impeachment is 
whether to overturn the results of a national election, the 
free expression of the popular will of the American people. 
That is an enormous responsibility and an extraordinary power. 
It is not one we should exercise lightly. It is certainly not 
one which should be exercised in a manner which either is or 
would be perceived by the American people to be unfair or 
partisan.
    The work of this committee during the Nixon impeachment 
investigation commanded the respect and the support of the 
American people. A broad consensus that Mr. Nixon had to go was 
developed precisely because the process was seen to be fair and 
deliberate. If our conduct in this matter does not earn the 
confidence of the American people, then any action we take, 
especially if we seek to overturn the result of a free 
election, will be viewed with great suspicion and could divide 
our Nation for years to come.
    We do not need another ``who lost China'' debate. We do not 
need a decade of candidates accusing each other of railroading 
a democratically elected president out of office or of 
participating in a disguised coup d'etat. This issue has the 
potential to be the most divisive issue in American public life 
since the Vietnam War. Our decisions and the process by which 
we arrive at our decisions must be seen to be both nonpartisan 
and fair. The legitimacy of American political institutions 
must not be called into question.
    We have had 6 years of investigations into the life of this 
President by special prosecutors, House and Senate committees 
and assorted free-lance conspiracy theorists. And what do we 
know? We know that Vince Foster was not murdered but committed 
suicide. We know that nothing has come of the so-called 
Whitewater scandal. Nothing has come of Filegate. Nothing of 
Travelgate. What we are left with are 11 allegations stemming 
from the President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky which we 
must now assess.
    In doing so, we need to consider what sort of wrongdoing is 
impeachable. We need to remember that the framers of the 
Constitution did not intend impeachment as a punishment for 
wrongdoing but as a protection of constitutional liberties and 
of the structure of the government they were establishing 
against a President who might seek to become a tyrant.
    In 1974, the House accepted the findings of this committee 
in which it reported that impeachable offenses ``are 
constitutional wrongs that subvert the structure of government 
or undermine the integrity of office and even the Constitution 
itself and thus are high offenses in the sense that word was 
used in English impeachments.''
    Further, ``not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to 
constitute grounds for impeachment. There is a further 
requirement, substantiality. Because impeachment of a President 
is a grave step for the Nation, it is to be predicated only 
upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the 
constitutional form and principles of our government or the 
proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential 
office.''
    The committee stated the issue clearly. ``The crucial 
factor is not the intrinsic quality of behavior but the 
significance of its effect upon our constitutional system or 
the functioning of government.''
    We should, therefore, first determine the standard we will 
use to determine what is an impeachable offense. As far as I am 
concerned, we could simply reaffirm the report of this 
committee adopted by the House in 1974.
    Then we should inquire which of the 11 allegations, if 
proven to be true, would meet the standard and would be, 
therefore, impeachable offenses. Only then would it make sense 
to examine the evidence relating to those allegations, if any, 
determined to constitute impeachable offenses, in order to 
determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify going 
forward with formal impeachment proceedings.
    This is the logical process put forward in the Democratic 
alternative that will be offered later today. It offers us a 
fair, deliberative, focused and expeditious procedure. Only 
this or a similar procedure can guarantee the confidence of the 
American people in our work.
    We need to remember that we are tinkering with the results 
of a free election. Our national unity and the stability of our 
government depends on the manner in which we exercise the 
extraordinary power and duty thrust upon us by the 
Constitution.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Nadler. Fifteen seconds.
    Mr. Hyde. Certainly.
    Mr. Nadler. Let us exercise that power in the logical and 
fair manner proposed in the Democratic alternative and not in 
the unfair and partisan manner which we have proceeded so far 
and which the majority proposal would continue.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, I would like to start by complimenting you on your 
efforts to make this process as open, as fair and as bipartisan 
as humanly possible. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate that.
    In my 12 years in Congress, this is undoubtedly the most 
serious issue I have ever had to deal with and without question 
the most serious issue that any of us on this committee will 
likely ever have to deal with. Both Democrats and Republicans 
must recognize the gravity of the constitutional responsibility 
that lies before us. How we comport ourselves and how we 
resolve the question of whether or not to impeach the President 
will have implications for our political system and for our 
Nation for many generations to come.
    As we investigate these serious charges, I would appeal to 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to be dilatory or 
partisan. We should do our best to be evenhanded, and we should 
not let this issue drag on one day more than is absolutely 
necessary.
    Lastly, I would appeal to all my colleagues to concentrate 
on the facts. So far, this whole matter has been a contest of 
spin, spin, spin and more spin. We should get back to the hard 
work of analyzing the evidence for the purpose of reaching a 
just result. If at the end of our inquiry the facts do not 
support the charges, the President should be fully exonerated. 
On the other hand, if the facts support the allegations, we 
have a duty to move forward. However, either conclusion for or 
against impeachment must be grounded on facts and on the truth. 
For this reason, to arrive at a fair conclusion based on the 
evidence, I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to support this resolution.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, the allegations against our President are 
very serious and deserving of our attention. I don't know of 
anyone who has condoned his behavior. In fact, the President 
himself has said that his behavior was inappropriate, wrong, 
indefensible. He has apologized, said he was sorry and has 
asked for forgiveness.
    The question before us, however, is not whether we like or 
dislike or condone or condemn certain behavior. Our charge is 
much different and mandated by the oath we took to protect and 
defend the Constitution. Under Article II section 4 of the 
Constitution, we have the responsibility to determine whether 
any of the President's actions justify exercising Congress's 
power of impeachment. So we ask, even assuming all of the 
allegations in the 11 counts are true, do any of the 
Independent Counsel's allegations rise to the level of 
impeachable offenses? If so, we should investigate those 
allegations. On the other hand, if we continue to focus on 
charges that, even if true, do not constitute impeachable 
offenses, we will continue on a partisan charade simply to 
embarrass the President and divert attention from the other 
important issues before Congress and this committee.
    Mr. Chairman, I was happy to hear you announce last week 
that you have directed the Subcommittee on the Constitution to 
hold hearings on the question of what are impeachable offenses. 
Unfortunately, last week's happiness has led to today's 
disappointment in seeing that we will be voting on whether to 
open an inquiry before we have had the first hearing on 
impeachable offenses.
    This reminds me of the part in Alice in Wonderland where 
you are sentenced first and then you have the trial. Here we 
vote first and then we have the hearing.
    The importance of this initial step is crucial in this 
case, Mr. Chairman, because I am not aware of any 
constitutional scholar who believes that all of the allegations 
before us are impeachable offenses as intended by the framers 
of the Constitution. In fact, half of the leading authorities 
interviewed by the National Law Journal said that not only did 
none of the allegations reach that level but also said that the 
question was not even close.
    So it is in that light that we are asked to consider the 
standards for impeachment before we go further. And even if we 
don't adopt a standard, we should at least take a moment to 
consider the history and prior cases of impeachments rather 
than simply blurt out unreasoned, partisan feelings about 
whether or not we want the President to continue in office.
    Setting the standard for impeachment was the first thing 
they did in Watergate. We have not taken time to review either 
that standard as outlined by my colleague from New York or the 
Republican alternative offered during those proceedings. But, 
instead, we are taking the first initial step in a rational 
process. We have spent the first 3 weeks releasing thousands of 
pages of personal information, including salacious details of 
intimate sexual contact and rumors and innuendo, without ever 
determining whether or not the documents were relevant to 
allegations we will be investigating.
    During Watergate, the committee released only that 
information which was relevant to articles of impeachment which 
were adopted. In fact, much of the information in the Watergate 
proceedings has not been released yet, even though it has been 
over 2 decades since the inquiry was concluded. Instead of 
following this precedent of releasing only relevant documents, 
we violated that precedent on a party-line vote.
    In Watergate, the President's lawyer was able to review and 
cross-examine information before it was made public. Again, we 
chose to violate that precedent on a party-line vote.
    As a result of our failure to follow a reasoned approach, 
any decision we make as a result of this process may have 
already suffered a devastating erosion of public confidence. I 
hope this is not the case, but, Mr. Chairman, what is wrong 
with a fair and reasoned approach? If the President deserves to 
be impeached, he will be impeached at the end of a fair 
process, just as he will be impeached at the end of an unfair 
process. The only difference is that the product of a fair 
process will have legitimacy and respect, while the product of 
an unfair process will forever lack credibility and support.
    I hope that this committee will rise above partisanship and 
have the courage to pursue the fair process that our 
Constitution warrants.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Canady.
    Mr. Canady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is truly a sad train of events that has brought us to 
this day. Like most other Americans, I believe it is important 
that the issues confronting us be dealt with expeditiously. 
They should not be allowed to linger for month after month 
after month.
    But it is also important that these issues not be treated 
as inconsequential and swept under the rug. On the contrary, 
they must be dealt with through a thoughtful, deliberative 
process in which we focus on determining the truth and doing 
our duty under the Constitution.
    Today, as we consider whether to inquire further into these 
matters, it cannot be denied that there is substantial evidence 
before the committee to support the conclusion of the 
Independent Counsel that the President is guilty of multiple 
acts of perjury, obstruction of justice and other offenses. If 
the allegations of the Independent Counsel are substantiated: 
First, the President, through obstruction of justice and false 
statements under oath, sought to conceal the truth in a sexual 
harassment case. Then, the President engaged in a 7-month 
cover-up of those earlier offenses--a cover-up which culminated 
in the President's giving of false testimony to the grand jury 
in August.
    The President's lawyers now assert that even if the charges 
made by the Independent Counsel are true, the House has no 
recourse under the Constitution. This assertion is wrong, 
because the offenses charged--if proven--would constitute 
serious violations of the President's constitutional duty to 
``take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' violations 
that do undermine the integrity of the President's office, 
violations that subvert the public respect for law and justice, 
which is essential to the well-being of our constitutional 
system, such conduct falls within the scope of high crimes and 
misdemeanors and demonstrated by the history of the adoption of 
the Constitution and the impeachment cases over the last 200 
years.
    As a fallback position, the President's lawyers argue that 
before we institute an impeachment inquiry we must adopt a 
fixed definition of impeachable offenses. But in support of 
this argument, they do not cite a single impeachment case--not 
one solitary case--in which this committee adopted a fixed 
standard for impeachment as they suggest we must do now. In the 
Nixon case, this committee never adopted a fixed definition or 
standard for impeachable offenses. Not before the inquiry, not 
during the inquiry, not at the end of the inquiry. It is 
certainly true that in the Nixon case--after the House had 
voted to commence an impeachment inquiry--the staff of the 
Judiciary Committee prepared a report on ``Constitutional 
Grounds for Presidential Impeachment.'' But that report itself 
acknowledged that it offered, and I quote, no fixed standards 
for determining whether grounds for impeachment exist. The 
staff recognized, as Mr. Hyde noted earlier, that judgments 
concerning application of the constitutional standard must 
await the full development of the facts. . . ''
    More importantly, the inappropriateness of attempts to 
articulate a fixed standard for impeachable offenses was 
recognized by the founders. Alexander Hamilton in the 
Federalist number 65 stated that impeachment proceedings cannot 
be ``tied down'' by ``strict rules . . . in the delineation'' 
of impeachable offenses. Of course, it would be inappropriate 
for the committee to recommend the commencement of an 
impeachment inquiry in the absence of evidence that the 
President may be guilty of conduct rising to the level of an 
impeachable offense.
    The members of the committee have considered and weighed 
the pertinent background and history in reaching the judgment 
we reach today. Every member of this committee is keenly aware 
of the significance of the decision before us. We make that 
decision in full awareness that we are accountable for it to 
the people who elected us. When the President's lawyers argue 
that the commencement of an inquiry is ``for no stated reason 
at all,'' they have taken flight from reality. There are indeed 
reasons that we are here today, and the reasons are serious.
    Not long after the Constitution was adopted, one of the 
framers wrote, ``If it were to be asked, What is the most 
sacred duty and the greatest source of security in a Republic? 
The answer would be, an inviable respect for the Constitution 
and Laws--the first growing out of the last . . . Those, 
therefore, who set examples, which undermine or subvert the 
authority of the laws, lead us from freedom to slavery; they 
incapacitate us for a government of laws . . .''
    In whatever proceedings we undertake in this matter, Mr. 
Chairman, it is our solemn duty to set an example that 
strengthens the authority of the laws and preserves the liberty 
with which we have been blessed as Americans.
    Mr. Hyde. The distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    From the outset, I have been critical of the process----
    Mr. Hyde. Jim, would you move the lights to where the 
members can see them?
    Can you see them now? All right?
    The distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    From the outset, I have been critical of the process we 
have followed. I spoke against and voted against the original 
resolution which passed the House and have spoken and voted 
against each committee action to release more materials to the 
public.
    My opposition to releasing materials to the public has had 
nothing to do with whether the materials were favorable or 
unfavorable to the President. Recall that none of us even knew 
what these materials contained before we cast our first vote on 
releasing them. My opposition has been based on two principles:
    First, the Independent Counsel statute was passed solely to 
assure investigations, with integrity, of alleged illegal or 
impeachable conduct in the highest places in our government. 
The information obtained in such investigations was clearly 
intended to be used as evidence in either a criminal 
prosecution or in an impeachment process, i.e. for either a 
legal purpose or for a constitutional purpose.
    Second, and perhaps more importantly, our process in this 
country has always assured those accused of an offense certain 
due process rights: the freedom from unwarranted pretrial 
publicity, the right to be tried in a proceeding that assures 
due process of law, and the right not to be tried in the press 
or in the court of public opinion.
    The process the House and this committee have followed to 
date has violated these two principles. Today, as firmly as I 
have throughout the process, I reaffirm my belief that the 
process we have followed is unfair, unprecedented and 
unAmerican.
    But the majority of the House and the majority of this 
committee spoke, and we gave the public sexually explicit 
hearsay, gossip and other information. Information obtained by 
the Independent Counsel to be used for legal and constitutional 
purposes, we released to the public so members of the public 
could make their personal and political judgments. And they 
have.
    People have made their personal judgments. And let me say 
straight up that I have not had a single constituent who 
condones what the President did. But that is not the end of the 
story.
    People have also made their political judgments. Many who 
never supported the President anyway have used it as a 
reaffirmation of their existing disdain. Many have separated 
personal life from public policy and said, ``move on.'' Many 
have made their political judgment about whether the President 
should or should not resign. But that, too, is not the end of 
the story. There is nothing in our Constitution which mandates 
that Congress weigh in on the political judgment about whether 
the President should or should not resign.
    Nothing in our Constitution mandates that we, as Members of 
Congress, make either our own personal judgment based on our 
own personal standards or that we make a political judgment. 
But what our Constitution does mandate us to do is to make a 
constitutional judgment based on a constitutional standard. And 
on whether we meet and honor that mandate, the stability and 
foundation of our Nation, indeed the very rule of law depends. 
On whether we meet and honor that mandate, history will 
certainly judge us.
    In meeting and honoring that mandate, it seems to me that 
the starting place should be putting politics aside and having 
a clear understanding of what our Founding Fathers and our 
historical precedents say the constitutional standard means. 
Without that, we have no standards, and the process will become 
majority rule and partisan politics, as usual.
    I pray that my colleagues will rise to this challenge to 
put our Constitution, the rule of law and the principles our 
Founding Fathers left for us above politics. Our oath of office 
calls us to do this. I say to my colleagues, please answer the 
call.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I wonder whether I 
should get those lights, make sure I don't go over.
    This proceeding, I believe, is about the search for truth. 
It is about finding the truth in a very unfortunate 
circumstance. And the inquiry gives us the opportunity to find 
that truth.
    It occurs to me that we are very fortunate at this point to 
have agreement on that. Apparently, our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are going to offer an alternative, both of 
which, our alternative and theirs, would call for an inquiry. 
The question is the scope, the question is how it is to be 
done. But the good news is, apparently, we are in agreement 
that an inquiry is warranted.
    Now, there are some this morning who were rhetorically 
saying that there should not be an inquiry, that basically 
their minds are made up, there is no need to further pursue 
this matter, and it really just does not matter anyway. For 
those I think there is a very high burden, a very high burden 
of proof to say that it does not matter, we should just move 
along.
    I wonder what they do with the very lengthy report from Ken 
Starr. I wonder what they do with the very significant 
corroboration there. I suppose they just have to say that it 
just does not matter. But my hope is that America will continue 
to be a place of commitment to a central truth, a place of 
freedom coupled with responsibility.
    And, really, that is what we are about here. The question 
is whether the truth matters. And there are some who seem to be 
saying that the truth really does not matter. It does not 
matter whether the President lied under oath in the Paula Jones 
deposition or before the grand jury. It just does not matter 
whether the President obstructed justice. It does not matter 
whether the President tampered with witnesses.
    Basically, I think what those people who would assert that 
have to be saying is that power is what matters, power 
unconstrained by principle. And the risk for us there is that 
that seems to me to be a sure prescription for tyranny and what 
the founders wanted to avoid. They wanted a constitutional 
Republic where power was constrained by truth.
    John Adams said, he coined the phrase in 1774, ``a 
government of laws and not of men.'' If we are going to stick 
to that now, we must pursue the truth without regard to 
politics, without regard to the maintenance of power by anyone 
individual.
    Surely, this President is not above the law. None of us are 
above the law. We must seek the truth now.
    Now, I firmly believe that this is a matter that will 
define us as we go into the next century. I am happy to see 
that most of our colleagues have mentioned the tremendous 
historical significance of what we are doing here. Some have 
mentioned it in the context of the presidency and of this 
President.
    But I think there is something even greater at stake and 
that is, as a culture, are we going to declare as we go into 
the next century that truth matters? Again, some would have us 
say here today, it really doesn't. But I would hope that the 
conclusion we draw, not just in this committee, as we go 
forward with this inquiry, but on the floor of the full House, 
is that truth does matter. And if we reach that conclusion as a 
culture, then we will be prepared for the next American 
century, sure that where we started is where we will continue, 
a constitutional Republic committed to certain essential 
truths.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The distinguished gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think today is a day that is not only a sad one for our 
American republic but also one that is serious and has grave 
implications for our American political system. The public is 
very concerned about what we are doing here, and I have always 
found that when you have a concern, when you are losing your 
way, you can look to beacons to guide your way.
    Today, if we put our Constitution first, we will be able to 
find our way through the thicket that threatens our country and 
find a path that will serve us into the next century.
    I have been giving a lot of thought to the processes we 
have been using. It occurs to me we would be better off if we 
spent more time reading what George Mason and James Madison 
said to each other than what Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Tripp said to 
each other.
    It seems to me that there are Members of the House of 
Representatives, perhaps even members of this committee, who 
have very striking differences, even confusion about what the 
term high crimes and misdemeanors means in our constitutional 
system of government. And that is why we need to spend time 
talking about our Constitution and what the role of impeachment 
is in that wonderful system.
    There are some who say that a high crime and misdemeanor is 
a low crime, in which case we certainly would not need to 
involve the Congress in reviewing it. We could just call in a 
jury, a judge, prosecutor and a defense counsel and be done 
with it.
    There are others who say that a high crime and misdemeanor 
is to punish any kind of misconduct to enforce good behavior. 
If that is the case, we will have a parliamentary system of 
government instead of a constitutional one. In England, 
impeachment was used as a tool by Parliament to tame the king, 
but it was altered when our Constitution was written because we 
don't need to tame a king.
    We have three branches of government that are ruled by laws 
and because, as George Mason and James Madison said on 
September 8 of 1787, we may have no bill of attainder, we need 
to have a specific form of reference for the use of 
impeachment, and it is very limited. It is limited to those 
actions that are so serious and so threaten our constitutional 
system of government that we may not wait for the next election 
to take action. Ben Franklin referred to impeachment as the 
alternative to assassination.
    So we believe that, before we begin chasing facts, we ought 
to know what is the relevance of the facts we are chasing. What 
are we attempting to prove? That is why the proposal that will 
be later revealed is so important to so many of us. We need to 
know and have to reach a common understanding of what is an 
impeachable offense, what is a high crime and misdemeanor.
    I understand that there will be hearings after the vote 
taken today, but I think that that really is an abdication of 
our obligation in the Constitution and not consistent with 
Madison's endeavor to be specific and to avoid ex post facto 
laws. Even the resolution under which we are operating, H.Res. 
525, commits this committee to review the report and report 
back to the full House. That includes a determination of what 
constitutes grounds for impeachment, something that is never 
once referenced in the report from the Independent Counsel and 
that we have spent no time addressing.
    Finally, we must act not as Democrats or as Republicans in 
this matter but as Americans, because what we do will have an 
impact not just on the current holder of the presidency but our 
very system of government on into the future. If we fail to 
discharge our duties properly, we will contribute to the 
instability of our American political system at a time when the 
world looks to us for leadership, not only politically but also 
economically.
    So I hope that we can avoid the admonition in The 
Federalist paper 65, that there always will be the greatest 
danger that the decision to impeach--or not--will be regulated 
more by the comparative strength of the parties than by the 
real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. Let us take care to 
avoid what Alexander Hamilton feared.
    Mr. Hyde. The distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, consideration of an inquiry of 
impeachment against the President of the United States is a 
serious matter. This issue has serious consequences for the 
Nation. But serious matters require serious consideration. This 
committee has a constitutional duty and a moral duty to examine 
the charges against the President and to follow the truth 
wherever it leads.
    The charges against the President include perjury, witness 
tampering and obstruction of justice. These are serious 
charges, charges that cannot be wiped away by a mere wink and a 
nod and an apology or someone's interpretation of the latest 
public opinion poll.
    The standard that we follow and the standard we teach our 
children is that no person is above the law, including the 
President of the United States. The question before this 
committee is, did the President intentionally obstruct justice, 
misleading our judicial system and the American people as part 
of a calculated, ongoing effort to conceal the facts and the 
truth and to deny an average citizen her day in court? And were 
other offenses such as perjury and witness tampering committed 
as part of this effort, leading to a betrayal of the public 
trust?
    The chairman of this committee during the Watergate 
inquiry, Peter Rodino, focused on this standard in his 
historic, ``Constitutional Grounds for Presidential 
Impeachment,'' when he wrote: ``The framers intended 
impeachment to be a constitutional safeguard of the public 
trust.'' The State ratifying conventions provide evidence of 
this point as well, as framers in North and South Carolina, New 
York, Pennsylvania and Virginia all discussed impeachment in 
terms of violating the public trust.
    Amid the intense glare of the moment, we must keep in mind 
that what this committee is considering today is not 
impeachment or articles of impeachment. Nor is it about matters 
for which the President has apologized. Rather, the committee 
must decide, in light of the documented allegations of serious 
crimes committed by the President, all of which the President 
has repeatedly denied, whether we should take the next step in 
the constitutional process by fully and completely 
investigating the charges determining whether they are well-
founded, and deciding whether sufficient grounds exist for the 
House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power 
to impeach.
    The historic, fair and proper forum for the development of 
these documented allegations and for their consideration in 
light of the Constitution is an inquiry of impeachment. It is 
during an inquiry that all the evidence, both supporting the 
President's case and calling it into question, is examined and 
evaluated. It is during an inquiry that the President, his 
lawyers, and his defenders present their case. It is during an 
inquiry, not before, that the committee, after careful 
consideration of the facts and the historic precedents, applies 
it to the constitutional standard for impeachment.
    Finally, it is during an inquiry that the committee 
determines whether the President's conduct meets that standard, 
in violation of his oath to faithfully execute the office of 
President of the United States and in disregard of his 
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully 
executed.
    Mr. Chairman, after reviewing the documented allegations 
before this committee, all of which the President has denied, 
after careful consideration of the Constitution and the 
statements of its framers, and after examining the precedents 
for proceeding to the next step in the constitutional process, 
I believe that an inquiry of impeachment against President 
Clinton is necessary. The serious decision we make today is not 
about the next election, is not about partisanship, and is not 
about interpreting opinion polls--it is about upholding the 
rule of law and the Constitution and following the truth 
wherever it leads.
    If we did not proceed with this inquiry of impeachment, the 
committee would be doing a grave disservice to our 
Constitution, our House of Representatives and our sacred trust 
with the American people.
    Mr. Hyde. The distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 
this opportunity, and thank the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, 
for his leadership in these procedures that we will undertake 
today.
    Truth does matter, Mr. Chairman, and the Constitution 
matters as well. It is with great humility and somberness that 
I sit here today as an American representing the essence of our 
new America, a Nation filled with those who render justice and 
those who need it.
    This Nation, however, is not second-rate. Ours is a Nation 
that should not accept second-class justice for any American, 
be he or she President or citizen. Americans should never 
return to the time when some were held as chattel and others 
could not vote or hold property. I for one will never accept a 
second-class justice for any American, and we should not seek 
it today.
    This morning, my friends, the world is watching us, not so 
much for what they expect the committee to do but what they 
hope we will do. And that is to remove partisan politics from 
this process and, rather, to move constitutionally, calmly and 
deliberatively in reviewing the facts. Any other action would 
be premature and partisan. Unfortunately, as Justice Thurgood 
Marshall chastised the court in Payne v. Tennessee, power, not 
reason, may be the currency of this day's decisionmaking.
    Twenty-five years ago this committee undertook the 
constitutional task of considering the impeachment of Richard 
Nixon. The process was painstaking, careful and deliberative, 
and both the Nation and the world were reassured that America's 
200-year-old Constitution worked. Impeachment is final, 
nonappealable, without further remedy, a complete rejection of 
the people's will; and thereby, I believe, it must be done 
fully, beyond a doubt, without rancor or vengeance, complying 
with every woven thread of the Constitution.
    Today, by contrast, the world and the American people have 
been alternatively puzzled, confused and appalled by the 
reckless media circus our automatic dumping of documents has 
produced. With all the talk of Watergate in the air, I think it 
is time to remember four basic points we learned in 1974 and 
seem to have forgotten since then.
    First, impeachment, that is the decision of the House to 
accuse the President, in this instance, of treason, bribery or 
other high crimes and misdemeanors, is the end of a careful 
process of investigating the facts, considering whether they 
establish a threat to our constitutional form of government, 
and deciding to require the Senate to conduct a trial.
    We have not yet undertaken any of the responsibilities the 
Constitution imposes on us. Instead, we have let our agenda be 
completely driven by the views of an independent individual 
counsel mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. In Watergate, by 
contrast, this House did not begin a formal inquiry until after 
extensive investigation by the Judiciary Committee and after 
Senate hearings.
    Before we can talk responsibly about this impeachment 
inquiry process today, we need to do two things. We must first 
figure out for ourselves what actually happened. The 
information already before us suggests we cannot rely 
automatically on the OIC report. There is no fourth branch of 
the government.
    And then we must ask whether any of these facts establish 
an impeachable offense. A Yale scholar, Charles Black, said, in 
short, only serious assaults on the integrity of the processes 
of government, and such crimes that would so stain a President 
as to make his continuance in office dangerous to the public 
order, constitute impeachable offenses.
    Second, the Founding Fathers included impeachment as a 
constitutional remedy because they were worried about 
presidential tyranny and gross abuse of power. They did not 
intend impeachment or the threat of impeachment to serve as a 
device for denouncing the President for private misbehavior, or 
for transforming the United States into a parliamentary form of 
government in which Congress can vote ``no confidence'' in an 
executive whose behavior it dislikes. All Presidents of this 
Nation are elected the President of the United States, and it 
is not the prerogative of this committee to undo that election.
    Third, the framers of the Constitution never intended the 
availability of impeachment as a license for a fishing 
expedition. Never before has this House authorized a free-
ranging, potentially endless investigation into a public 
official's private behavior or his behavior before he attained 
Federal office. The Republican resolution calls for that today.
    As the Watergate Committee report explained, in an 
impeachment proceeding a President is called to account for 
abusing powers that only a President possesses. In Watergate, 
as in all prior impeachments, the allegations concerned 
official misconduct.
    Finally, while not every impeachable offense is necessarily 
a crime, the opposite is also true. Not every potential crime 
is an impeachable offense. The Founding Fathers deliberately 
chose the phrase ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and 
misdemeanors'' to convey their view that impeachment was to be 
limited to abuse of power or serious breach of trust. As James 
Wilson explained in the Pennsylvania ratification----
    Mr. Hyde. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. May I have an additional 15 seconds?
    Mr. Hyde. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. In that convention, far from being above 
the laws, the President is amenable to them in his private 
character and his public character.
    Finally, I say, as was indicated in the words of Martin 
Luther King, a legal scholar trained in injustice who said from 
the Birmingham jail, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice 
everywhere. Whatever attacks one directly affects all 
indirectly. I would simply say that truth matters, but in this 
instance, Mr. Chairman, the Constitution matters as well.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentlewoman.
    I want to congratulate the members. They have been doing 
very well in keeping within the 5 minutes. It is the proposal 
of the Chair, intention of the Chair to proceed with all of the 
opening statements, and then have a short lunch break and then 
come back with the briefings by the respective counsel, just so 
you know where we are headed and can plan accordingly.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Buyer.
    Mr. Buyer. Mr. Chairman, I think that the issue before us 
is very clear, and that is whether the Congress should continue 
to inquire about the conduct of the President to determine 
whether or not an impeachment is warranted.
    I agree with Mr. Inglis of South Carolina. What is obvious 
here to everyone is that with the Democrat minority now 
offering an alternative, the issue here is about scope and its 
duration; that there is no question, it appears, by this 
committee that we should conduct the inquiry of impeachment. I 
think that is what is most noteworthy of this action today, by 
listening to the remarks of Mr. Conyers.
    On a baseline question of whether we should proceed with an 
inquiry of impeachment, there is overwhelmingly bipartisan 
support on this committee. We may disagree about the details on 
scope or time, but what is important for the American people to 
listen here is that there is overwhelming bipartisan support to 
conduct the inquiry of impeachment.
    The office of the President of the United States is one in 
which is reposed a special trust with the American people. Due 
to his position and powers of his office, any President is 
entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The President takes an 
oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed.
    If the President as the chief law enforcement officer of 
the land violates the special trust by using the powers of his 
high office to impede, delay, conceal evidence in or obstruct 
lawsuits, investigations of wrongdoing, could that not be 
subversive to the constitutional government, doing great 
prejudice to the cause of law and justice, thus bringing injury 
to the people of the United States?
    Many might argue that the Starr report is sufficient on its 
face for Congress to determine its course of action. I would 
respectfully disagree with this assessment. The Judge Starr 
report and other aspects raise troubling questions that 
Congress needs to address.
    Every citizen is entitled to equal access to justice. 
Everyone is entitled to a day in court. The courts are not for 
the rich and the well-connected. Neither are the courts to be 
manipulated by the powerful, no matter who they are in our 
country.
    Paula Jones was seeking her day in court as a victim of an 
alleged sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act. The Starr report has raised allegations that 
the President may have lied, conspired to hide evidence, 
suborned perjury in an effort to deny Ms. Jones her due process 
right, her day in court. If the President as the chief law 
enforcement officer of the land deceives the courts, could that 
not be subversive to the constitutional government, doing great 
prejudice to the cause of law and justice, thus bringing injury 
to the American people?
    I also have concerns related to the President's role as 
Commander in Chief. The United States Constitution, Article I, 
Section 8: The Congress shall have the power to raise and 
support the armies, provide and maintain the Navy, make rules 
for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. 
I, as chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee of the National 
Security Committee, am detailed with the oversight function to 
do just that.
    America was appalled not long ago when they heard of 
incidents of sexual misconduct regarding Aberdeen Proving 
Grounds, Fort Jackson, Fort Leonard Wood, where drill sergeants 
were having consensual relations with trainees. And, rightfully 
so, the American people and Members of Congress were outraged 
by these drill sergeants. You see, these drill sergeants, even 
though they had consensual relations, by virtue of the power 
relationship, superior to subordinate, the court martials ruled 
that they could not have been consensual and the drill 
sergeants went to prison on rape.
    Under the Goldwater-Nichols Act, which sets forth the 
national command authority, it runs from the President as 
Commander-in-Chief to the Secretary of Defense to the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all the way to a lowly recruit. 
In the enforcement of these rules, I am charged to eliminate 
real and perceived double standards in the enforcement of laws 
and regulations that pertain to sexual misconduct, sexual 
harassment and fraternization in the United States military.
    Is it worthy of our inquiry to consider it a misdemeanor in 
office that the President, while acting in his role as 
Commander-in-Chief of the military, it is alleged that he was 
on the telephone with a subcommittee chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee discussing sending troops to Bosnia 
when he had a subordinate perform a sex act upon him? The 
discussion and decision of sending American sons and daughters 
abroad into harm's way is very, very serious.
    While I recognize that the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
does not apply to the President, clearly his conduct at a 
minimum would be unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman. In 
the military even a consensual relationship between a superior 
and a subordinate is unacceptable behavior, prejudicial to good 
order and discipline. Should we ask the members of the armed 
forces----
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Buyer. May I conclude?
    Mr. Hyde. You may have 15 seconds.
    Mr. Buyer. Should we ask the members of the armed forces to 
accept a code of conduct that is higher for troops than for the 
Commander-in-Chief? Should we accept a double standard, one for 
the President and one for others?
    There are many questions that are left to be asked in this 
inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The objective of the committee should be 
as torch bearers. The light of truth should never be feared.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would to thank you 
and our ranking member. As policymakers, we find ourselves in 
the difficult and sad position of deciding whether or not we 
should proceed with an inquiry to impeach the President of the 
United States. We are being asked to do this before we define 
what constitutes an impeachable offense.
    However, before this body advances towards an impeachment 
inquiry, let us consider this. Increasingly, Americans are 
suspicious of their government and our ability to be fair. I 
truly believe Americans want us to be fair. As chair of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, we have insisted on making fairness 
the top priority from the moment the Office of the Independent 
Counsel delivered the September 9, 1998 referral to the House 
of Representatives.
    The members of the Congressional Black Caucus have assigned 
ourselves the role of fairness cop because our history demands 
we must be the best advocates for ensuring that this process 
recognizes the rights of everyone involved. African Americans 
feel strongly about the issue of fairness, because we have had 
to fight hard for fairness in the criminal justice system. 
Democracy is threatened when a fair legal process is sacrificed 
to appease the passions of a few.
    After all the pontificating, posturing, and debating, let 
us think about what is happening to the rights of individuals. 
Let us take a look at the actions of the Independent Counsel, 
who appears to be gathering evidence by any means necessary.
    How would you feel if your daughter or your son was 
apprehended without an arrest warrant, held for 10 hours, 
discouraged from calling legal counsel, mocked for wanting to 
talk with you as a parent, lied to, misled, frightened, and 
pressured to be wired to entrap the President of the United 
States?
    Further, we must be concerned about the manner in which Ken 
Starr recklessly sought his evidence in working with Linda 
Tripp. It appears that Ken Starr offered to assist Linda Tripp 
to avoid indictment by calling the Maryland authorities on her 
behalf. Even though he knew she had committed a felony, he 
further wired her and sent her back to tape Monica Lewinsky so 
that he could get more evidence. It appears that he may have 
known, for longer than has been indicated, that an illegal 
wiring was going on.
    Simply put, fundamental fairness and due process requires 
that we adhere to reason and precedent, or else we risk being 
viewed as no different than the lynch mobs which denied justice 
to the accused.
    Let us have a review of what the majority has done to date. 
First, it dumped 445 pages of a report needlessly filled with 
explicit sexual details on the public. Next, they released the 
President's videotaped grand jury testimony, along with more 
than 3,000 pages of similar materials.
    When that fizzled, Republicans then released 4,600 pages of 
transcripts and other grand jury testimony. The Republicans did 
this without giving the President the opportunity to review the 
materials prior to their release. However, when it came to one 
of their own, Speaker Gingrich, the Republicans afforded him 
the opportunity to review and respond to charges of perjury 
before disclosure to the public. Speaker Gingrich's documents 
remain under seal even today.
    Since September 9, the American public has witnessed a 
political party that has been willing to bombard the public 
with sexually explicit materials to further their partisan 
objectives. Ken Starr has spent over $40 million of the 
taxpayers' money and 4-\1/2\ years investigating the President, 
with the last 8 months devoted to the Monica Lewinsky matter.
    What this party is doing is undermining the process. 
Impeachment is the most serious decision for Congress to 
decide, other than declaring war. In the words of George Mason, 
the man who proposed the language adopted by the framers, 
impeachment should be reserved for treason, bribery, and high 
crimes and misdemeanors, where the President's actions were 
great and dangerous offenses, or attempts to subvert the 
Constitution, and the most extensive injustice.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Ms. Waters. I ask for 15 more seconds, please, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentlewoman may have 15 more seconds.
    Ms. Waters. I want the committee to consider this 
carefully. The power to impeach the President should not be 
casually used to remove a President or overturn an election 
simply because we do not like him or his policies. The 
Constitution is on trial, and I hope that we will uphold the 
Constitution and the civil rights of everybody involved.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentlewoman.
    The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Before this committee today is an issue of process, a 
process which is designed to seek the truth. While we all 
apparently now agree that an inquiry is necessary, all of us or 
none of us tread lightly in this area. The President of our 
country has been accused of 15 counts of violating the 
provisions of our Constitution as defined by the standards 
``high crimes and misdemeanors,'' many of which, if true, would 
have disastrous effects on our third branch of government, the 
judiciary.
    For some of my colleagues in this Congress, the issue 
simply boils down to the separation of the President's private 
life as opposed to his work as Chief Executive Officer of our 
Nation. But if that were the case, we would not be looking into 
the allegations of wrongdoing brought to us by an Independent 
Counsel appointed by a three-judge panel and supervised by the 
Attorney General.
    This is not a matter of private affairs, nor is it a 
question of infidelity between the President and his wife. This 
is also not about politics or polls. It is not about the 
economy. It is not about who is going to get more Democrats or 
Republicans elected in November, or even the possibility of a 
President Gore. No. This is about seeking the truth.
    At the end of the day, we may or may not achieve a 
bipartisan work product, but many of us on this committee can 
assure the public that it will be done in a nonpartisan 
fashion.
    My experience, as one of three former Federal prosecutors 
on this panel, has taught me that some matters cannot be rushed 
to judgment. Justice cannot be rushed, and we should not make 
arbitrary timetables on such an important task as this. This, 
in fact, was a concept that was thoroughly rejected three times 
during the Rodino hearings of 1974.
    We must work as a committee to preserve the integrity of 
that third branch of government, the judiciary. We must also 
set an example that truth is what we seek, and lying, 
especially under oath, is not permissible.
    We have impeached judges for similar offenses. There are 
Americans that are even in jail today for such offenses. We 
cannot simply ignore that portion of the rule of law which 
states that no man is above the law. The American people 
deserve more, and we as a Judiciary Committee and ultimately as 
a Congress, must and shall resolve this matter in a fair, 
nonpartisan, and expeditious manner.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my 
appreciation for your willingness to accommodate the minority 
on the issue of subpoena power and committee rules. Though 
there will be many deviations from bipartisanship today, I hope 
that we can build upon whatever consensus does exist and 
eventually proceed in a fully bipartisan manner.
    Mr. Chairman, three fundamental facts frame the challenge 
that this committee faces today. The first fact is that the 
President's behavior was wrong. He had an adulterous 
relationship with a White House employee half his age. He then 
misled the American people about the nature of that 
relationship and engaged in a dangerous game of verbal 
``Twister'' in his sworn testimony.
    The second fact confronting us is that not all wrongdoing 
amounts to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and 
misdemeanors. The Founding Fathers set the threshold for 
removing a President at a high level to prevent Congress from 
easily reversing the express will of the people.
    Finally, the third fact with which we must come to terms is 
the cost an extensive inquiry into the President's relationship 
with Monica Lewinsky will impose on our Nation. Indeed, a full-
scale extended impeachment inquiry will come at a steep cost to 
our country.
    The members of this committee should weigh these costs 
before voting for an endless impeachment inquiry, including the 
cost of the public discussion in our country. People are having 
x-rated conversations with our children at kitchen tables all 
across America, conversations they do not want to have. We 
already need V-chips to prevent our children from watching the 
evening news or reading newspapers, two things we used to 
encourage children to do.
    The cost to the institution of the presidency. Future 
Presidents will be saddled with the dangerous precedents that 
this committee has set and will set today. Meanwhile, the 
courts have already eroded presidential power in ways that both 
liberal and conservative legal experts find alarming. No one 
has heeded Justice Holmes' time-honored warning that the so-
called great cases make for bad law.
    The cost to America's global leadership. At a time when the 
world faces unprecedented economic and political upheaval, 
erratic international financial markets, terrorism, and 
bloodshed around the world, Americans want us to address the 
issues that affect their everyday lives and the lives of their 
children.
    Yet calls for action on these fronts have not made it even 
close to the headlines of the papers across America, which seem 
instead to be reserved for the detail of the day about Monica 
and Bill.
    Given these facts, our responsibility is clear. We must 
conduct an inquiry that is thoughtful and fair. And we must 
ensure that this inquiry does not drag on any longer than is 
necessary to sanction the President in a manner commensurate 
with the seriousness of his wrongdoing.
    It means the committee should first ascertain reasonably 
specific constitutional standards for impeachment, and then ask 
ourselves whether Ken Starr's best case against the President 
surpasses or falls short of that instead. If we fail to ask 
ourselves this fundamental question at the beginning of our 
inquiry, we have failed the American people.
    Prolonging an investigation that inflicts daily damage to 
our country, where the Independent Counsel's case on its face 
fell short of high crimes and misdemeanors, would be a 
wholesale abdication of our responsibility to pursue the public 
interest.
    The minority alternative before the committee would address 
threshold issues first, where they should be addressed. The 
minority resolution also imposes reasonable time limits for our 
examination of the President's conduct on the Lewinsky matter. 
The reality is that the committee already has all the evidence 
it needs to resolve the Lewinsky matter. In fact, the American 
people know more than they ever needed or wanted to know about 
this tawdry affair.
    Leaving the time and scope of this inquiry open-ended is 
certain to permit excursions into far-flung matters on which we 
have not even received a single page from this Independent 
Counsel. It is not in our country's best interest to have this 
committee be a stage for revivals of Dan Burton's and Al 
D'Amato's performances of the past few years.
    Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about the Watergate 
precedent. Individuals who have served on this committee in 
1994, like Peter Rodino, Caldwell Butler, and Bill Cohen, knew 
their responsibility was not to make a case against the man 
but, rather, to analyze facts and the law with a neutral eye 
and do what was best for our country.
    As the committee moves forward, I can only hope that we 
reverse the present course and put the national interest ahead 
of partisan interest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. I thank the Chairman.
    I, like most of my colleagues and, I suspect, most of the 
American people, would prefer that the President's actions did 
not force this hearing today. Regardless of how this committee 
and this Congress chooses to dispose of this serious matter, 
the Nation will have paid a dear price.
    The office of the presidency has been demeaned. The 
standards of public morality and decency have been diminished. 
And the American people have been forced to endure a painful 
process that could have been avoided.
    We must determine today if the evidence before us warrants 
further investigation. We do not sit in judgment. Our role is 
not to convict or punish or sentence, it is only to seek the 
truth. To fulfill our constitutional duty, we must determine if 
the evidence presented to date strongly suggests wrongdoing by 
the President, and if the alleged wrongdoing likely rises to 
the level of an impeachable offense; that is, a high crime or 
misdemeanor.
    Let me turn to the facts and the law on these two important 
issues. The materials submitted by the Independent Counsel have 
been the subject of intense public scrutiny and debate. What 
has emerged is the simple fact that, for whatever reason, it 
appears that the President was not truthful in giving testimony 
in a civil case, and in all likelihood, he was not truthful in 
subsequent testimony to a grand jury. Few have denied these 
conclusions.
    Those who would urge an end to this inquiry before it even 
starts frequently argue that impeachable offenses are only 
those which result in an ``injury to the state.'' They contend 
that perjury, or at least perjury relating to sexual matters in 
a civil action that was subsequently dismissed, results only in 
an injury to a private litigant and is not impeachable.
    That argument is wrong. It is a misstatement of the 
historic record. Since this is so important in determining 
whether President Clinton may have committed an impeachable 
offense, I am going to devote the balance of my opening 
statement to just that issue.
    Perjury has long been considered a crime against the state. 
By committing perjury, a person has interfered with the 
administration of justice. In 1890 the Supreme Court said, in 
Thomas v, Loney, that, and I quote, ``Perjury . . . is an 
offense against the public justice of the United States. . .''
    The U.S. Court of Appeals expressed similar sentiments in 
United States v. Manfredonia. When referring to perjury the 
Court stated, ``It is for wrong done to courts and 
administration of justice that punishment is given, not for 
effect that any particular testimony might have on the outcome 
of any given trial.''
    As a crime against the state, perjury was directly 
described as a high misdemeanor at its inception in 15th 
century England. The high misdemeanor description of perjury is 
significant. While considered a serious offense, perjury was 
not labeled a felony because the common law courts would have 
commanded exclusive jurisdiction. Instead, perjury was 
classified as a ``high misdemeanor.''
    In Hourie v. State, the Maryland Supreme Court gives us an 
historic perspective on what it called the ``high misdemeanor 
of perjury.'' The court said that, ``The phrase `high 
misdemeanor' connoted a new crime that was just as grave, in 
terms of its social consequences and in terms of its potential 
punishment, as the more ancient felonies themselves.''
    When State governments were first being established in the 
early days of the American Republic, perjury also was regularly 
listed in their constitutions as a ``high crime or 
misdemeanor,'' or some very similar phrase.
    The Kentucky Constitution, ratified in 1792, for example, 
stated that, ``Laws shall be made to exclude from suffrage, 
those who shall thereafter be convicted of bribery, perjury, 
forgery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.''
    The House and Senate have impeached Federal judges for 
perjury. Strong evidence exists that President Clinton may have 
committed perjury, and the historic record clearly demonstrates 
that perjury can be an impeachable offense.
    Based on the facts and the law, I have concluded that this 
committee has a constitutional duty to proceed to a formal 
impeachment inquiry. It is my sincere hope that we can proceed 
and work together in a bipartisan fashion to complete this task 
as expeditiously as possible, and do what is in the best 
interests of our country.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Many references have been made today to the conduct of the 
President. The issue before us today is not just about the 
conduct of the President. The real issue, the overriding issue, 
is how this committee will fulfill its own responsibilities at 
a moment of extraordinary constitutional significance.
    Some 3 weeks ago the Independent Counsel, Mr. Starr, 
referred information to Congress that he alleged may constitute 
grounds for impeaching the President. But it is not the 
Independent Counsel who is charged by the Constitution to 
determine whether to initiate an impeachment proceeding. That 
is our mandate. He is not our agent, and we cannot allow his 
judgments to be substituted for our own, or we will fail in our 
constitutional responsibility.
    I am profoundly disturbed at the thought that this 
committee would base its determination solely on the Starr 
referral. Never before in our history has the House proceeded 
with a presidential impeachment inquiry premised exclusively on 
the raw allegations of a single prosecutor, nor should it now.
    It is the committee's responsibility to conduct our own 
preliminary review to determine whether the information from 
the Independent Counsel is sufficient to warrant a full-blown 
investigation, and we have not done that. If we abdicate that 
responsibility, we will turn the Independent Counsel Statute 
into a political weapon with an automatic trigger aimed at 
every future President, and in the process, we will have turned 
the United States Congress into a rubber stamp. Just as we did 
when we rushed to release Mr. Starr's narrative within hours of 
its receipt, before even this committee or the President's 
counsel had any opportunity to examine it; just as we did when 
we released thousands of pages of secret grand jury testimony 
before either this committee or the President's counsel had an 
opportunity to examine it, putting at risk individual 
constitutional rights, jeopardizing future possible 
prosecutions, and subverting the grand jury system itself by 
allowing it to be misused for a political purpose. Just as we 
are about to do again by launching an inquiry when no Member of 
Congress, even now, has had sufficient time to read, much less 
analyze, all of the Starr referral.
    For all I know, there may be grounds for an inquiry. But 
before the committee authorizes proceedings that will further 
traumatize the Nation and distract us from the people's 
business, we must satisfy ourselves that there is probable 
cause to recommend an inquiry.
    That is precisely what the House instructed us to do. The 
chairman of the Rules Committee himself anticipated that we 
might return the following week, and I am quoting, ``to secure 
additional procedural or investigative authorities to 
adequately review this communication.'' Yet the committee never 
sought those additional authorities. Apparently we had no 
intention of really reviewing and examining the communication.
    That is the difference between the two resolutions before 
us today. The majority version permits no independent 
assessment by the committee, and asks us, instead, to accept 
the referral purely on faith. Our alternative ensures that 
there is a process, one that is orderly, deliberative, and 
expeditious, for determining whether the referral is a sound 
basis for an inquiry. If we adopt this approach, I am confident 
that the American people will embrace our conclusions, whatever 
they may be.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman and all Americans, imagine a place where a 
dictator, a king, a prime minister, or a President could walk 
into your home at any time and force you to accede to any 
demand, however unreasonable. Throughout history, including 
18th century Britain, such regimes have been the norm.
    The system of rule by law under which we live stands as a 
stark exception to an historically prevalent notion that a 
ruler can take whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and from 
any subject. As we so quickly, however, forget in times of 
stability and prosperity, our system is a fragile one, a brief 
flicker of light in an otherwise dark march of human political 
history.
    If we drop our guard, even for a moment, and allow a 
President to demand citizens to gratify his personal desires, 
and let him place himself in the way of laws designed to 
protect or to prevent such conduct, that light will be greatly 
dimmed, if not snuffed out.
    Our Founding Fathers understood the importance of 
restraining unbridled power because they grew up in a system 
that did not. The Constitution includes explicit provisions 
that protect us from the abuse of power, including provisions 
to prevent us from being forced to quarter soldiers, to stop 
the government from imprisoning us without cause, and to 
protect us from involuntary servitude.
    The facts of the case before us are not complex. Bill 
Clinton, first as Governor and then as President, using power 
entrusted to him, coarsely demanded personal favors from 
individual citizens. When one of those citizens refused, our 
Supreme Court voted unanimously to allow her access to the 
courts.
    Yet, instead of apologizing, Bill Clinton continued to 
abuse his office, to smear that citizen's name, and block her 
access to justice. Instead of telling the truth to the court 
and the grand jury, the President lied. Instead of cooperating 
with the court, he obstructed its efforts. At this very moment, 
government and private employees are working under his direct 
orders to block this committee's efforts.
    We are witnessing nothing less than the symptoms of a 
cancer on the American presidency. If we fail to remove it, it 
will expand to destroy the principles that matter most to all 
of us.
    Any system of government can choose to perpetuate virtue or 
vice. If this President is allowed to use the presidency to 
gratify his personal desires in the same way a corrupt county 
or parish boss solicits money for votes, future occupants will, 
sadly, do the same.
    If the proposition that perjury is sometimes acceptable and 
is allowed to stand, in the blink of an eye it will become 
acceptable in every case. Such a precedent would hang forever 
as an albatross around the neck of our judicial system.
    If we stand by while the President obstructs justice and 
destroys his enemies, our entire government will be 
contaminated with cynical disdain.
    The President of the United States controls at his 
fingertips the greatest arsenal of destructive power ever 
assembled in human history, just as the Governor of a State 
controls the State's police power. He has the ability to 
destroy one life or billions. He is the single individual 
charged with the constitutional duty of faithfully enforcing 
the laws, all the laws of the United States.
    When evidence emerges that he would abuse that power or 
fail in that duty, it is a matter of gravest constitutional 
importance. If we fail to address such charges, we will soon be 
left standing dazed and befuddled among the smoldering ruins of 
a great democracy. We will count the cost of choosing temporal 
stability over permanent justice, and policies over principle, 
in diminished freedoms, lost policies, lost lives, and ruined 
institutions.
    History is littered with the wreckage of nations whose 
leaders bury their heads in the sand as adversity appears on 
the horizon. America in 1998 must not suffer the same fate. In 
America we have a right not to be tapped on the shoulder and 
escorted to a room where a mayor, a Governor, a President, or 
someone with absolute power mistreats us.
    When such conduct occurs, it is the right of any citizen to 
seek ultimate redress in the one, the only, forum designed for 
that purpose, where each of us is on a level playing field with 
any other--our courts, the ultimate equalizer in our system of 
government.
    Mr. Chairman, I also would say that anyone who has made it 
their goal to hide the truth, obstruct this process today, or 
use it for political gain, should summon up whatever tattered 
remains of honor they have left, stand up, and walk out of this 
room, and taking with them such erroneous arguments as that the 
need to include graphic detail in the Starr referral was based 
on whim rather than the need to rebut the President's sorry 
attempt to deny reality and common sense alike.
    Mr. Chairman, imagine if all the journalists, lawyers, and 
staff who fill this room today disappeared. Imagine if they 
were replaced with the faces of all the great American heroes 
who have come before us, the patriots who pledged their lives, 
fortunes, and sacred honor to create our Republic, the men who 
gathered in Philadelphia 211 years ago to solidify that with 
the Constitution.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Barr. I would ask 15 additional seconds.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 15 additional 
seconds.
    Mr. Barr. The men who gathered in Philadelphia 211 years 
ago to solidify that with the Constitution, the young soldiers 
who bled to death on foreign shores to protect it, the 
prosecutors who put their lives on the line to enforce its 
laws, every teacher who has led her class in reciting the 
Pledge of Allegiance, could anyone look into the faces of those 
people and tell them it really doesn't matter that the 
President abused his power, lied to the American people, 
perjured himself, and subverted the rule of law? Anyone who can 
answer yes to that question does not have the right to sit here 
today.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman's time has again expired.
    The distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Mr. Chairman, many of our colleagues have 
referred to our role here today as the most important work a 
Member of Congress can perform. I sincerely hope not. This may 
be the most attention that this committee will ever receive. 
This may be the biggest news story in which we will ever play a 
part. But God help the Nation if this is the most important 
work we will ever do in Congress.
    Our work today is not about providing health insurance for 
more Americans, it is not about peace in the Middle East, or 
ending genocide in Kosovo. It is not about saving Social 
Security, reducing class sizes for our children, or approving 
the quality of life for even one single American.
    I am not proud of what we are doing here today, and I would 
like to tell you why. I am not proud of the personal conduct of 
the President that has cheapened our national discourse, 
confused our children, disillusioned our idealists, and 
empowered our cynics.
    While I am very proud of this President's accomplishments, 
I am not proud of his lapses in moral judgment.
    I am not proud of this prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, who has 
turned government in upon himself, distorted our system of 
justice in a politically-inspired witch hunt that rivals 
McCarthyism in its sinister purpose, that asks mothers to 
betray daughters, Secret Service officers to betray their 
highest charge, and lawyers to betray their clients, dead or 
alive, all in search of a crime to justify 5 years of work and 
more than $40 million of taxpayers' money.
    I am not proud of the political attack culture in 
Washington that stops at nothing to destroy the lives of public 
servants, and spawns the likes of Linda Tripp, whose concept of 
friendship I would not wish on my worst enemy.
    Nor am I proud of those in the media, who have fueled this 
indecent explosion and left objective journalism in its wake.
    Now, I would like to tell you what I am proud of. I am 
proud of this document, the Constitution of the United States 
of America. I am proud of the Founding Fathers who authored it 
and envisioned a standard for removing a President high enough 
to prevent it from ever being used for political purposes to 
overturn the will of the people.
    In the words of Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, and James 
Madison, a President shall be impeached for treason, bribery, 
or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Make no mistake about 
it, ``or other high crimes and misdemeanors'' means only those 
offenses that have the gravity and impact of treason and 
bribery.
    I am proud of the millions of Americans who have sifted 
through mounds of disturbing material to reach the commonsense 
conclusion that this behavior does not rise to the level of an 
impeachable offense and have asked us in a loud and clear voice 
to move on to the Nation's real business.
    I am also proud of the basic decency of the American 
people, who intuitively understand that morality is a complex 
equation, that good people sometimes do bad things, that moral 
people sometimes commit immoral acts. None of us should be 
defined only by our mistakes.
    Finally, impeachment is not about adultery. It is rooted in 
a constitutional standard that has met the test of time. It is 
about subversion of government. The President had an affair. He 
lied about it. He didn't want anyone to know about it.
    Does anyone reasonably believe that this amounts to 
subversion of government? Does anyone reasonably believe that 
this is what the Founding Fathers were talking about? For more 
than 200 years, since that convention in Philadelphia, Congress 
has never, never removed a President from office. Is this where 
we want to set the bar for future Presidents?
    I plead with this committee to end this nonsense. We have 
real work to do for the people who sent us.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentleman. I think I am supposed to 
admonish you against spontaneous demonstrations, but we will 
waive that perquisite of the Chair.
    The distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I recently visited Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. 
I went to see again the battlefield there and the cemetery, and 
to stand near the spot where President Lincoln delivered the 
Gettysburg Address. That place, in my mind, brings thoughts of 
hardship and sacrifice and courage and suffering and death on 
both sides of that great conflict. Our Nation survived that 
ordeal that divided us, and in time we grew strong as a result 
of it.
    Today this committee begins an undertaking with the 
potential to again divide our Nation. We should resolve at the 
beginning, and as long as it lasts, that our thoughts must be 
about our Nation and its well-being. If what we ultimately 
discover justifies it, the Congress should have no hesitation 
to say, shame upon anybody who would defile our Nation, proceed 
to a judgment, and hasten to administer the constitutional 
punishment provided.
    Under our system of government, every individual is 
important. All are entitled to fairness, but none is more 
important than any other, and that includes the President of 
the United States.
    If the evidence shows offenses that require action, we 
should have the courage, without fear or favor, without 
submission to threats or intimidation, to do our duty. If none 
are shown, we should abandon these efforts and proceed with the 
serious and important business of our Nation.
    In my mind, the task, although painful, is simple. We are 
bound by the Constitution and the laws. We have information, we 
have evidence, and we have recent precedents. These are 
ingredients that make up all the trials that have been 
conducted in the courts of our land for as long as we have been 
a Nation.
    The object of every trial is to learn the truth and to 
render justice. Our role today, and it has been said many times 
in this hearing, is elementary. It is much like a preliminary 
hearing. It is to determine if we should recommend to the House 
of Representatives whether an inquiry should take place. The 
burden required for this is far less than will be required at 
other stages, if any, of this proceeding.
    I hope to be fair, I hope to be impartial, I hope to be 
nonpartisan, I hope to follow the Constitution, I hope to 
follow the law, and I certainly will study the evidence 
carefully. I will be mindful, in all of these deliberations, of 
the memories of those who suffered and died and were left at 
Gettysburg and in all our Nation's conflicts, because it is 
those soldiers who have afforded us throughout history the 
privilege to engage in self-government.
    Today we are engaging in self-government. To them and to 
every American citizen, we owe the courage to do the duty that 
has been thrust upon us.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank you, Mr. Jenkins.
    The distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Over the past several weeks I have had a rare opportunity. 
It has been the opportunity to step into history and to try to 
learn from one of those who has set the standard for American 
fairness, and fairness for the Judiciary Committee, the former 
chairman of this committee, New Jersey's Congressman Peter 
Rodino.
    Over the past several weeks, we have talked on the 
telephone for hours. Last Thursday I had the great privilege of 
meeting him in his Newark office. I must say, I walked out of 
his office with an even greater awareness of our shared 
commitment to our constitutional form of government and how the 
decisions this committee will make must be made without 
partisanship.
    After a 4-year investigation, the Independent Counsel, Mr. 
Starr, has presented the House with 11 allegations of 
presidential misconduct. Our goal should be to resolve these 11 
charges without further delay. However, I will not give my 
consent to another blank-check, open-ended investigation of the 
President. That is not the role of our committee. It is not 
fair to the President, it is not fair to the country, and it is 
not in our national interest.
    If Mr. Starr has more charges, let him bring them forth 
now, or else we should resolve these Lewinsky charges before 
the end of this year. President Clinton engaged in a morally 
wrong relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and engaged in highly 
inappropriate conduct in trying to hide that relationship. He 
must be given an appropriate punishment that fits his offenses.
    But the questions for our committee and the Nation are two: 
What is the constitutional import of the President's 
misconduct? And, number two, what is the most appropriate 
punishment for the President's actions?
    No one wants to be partisan. Democrats, Independents, and 
Republicans want any inquiry into these matters to proceed 
fairly. I hope that as we vote on the motions of today and 
tomorrow, and as we conduct ourselves in the future, we will 
remember and be guided by the words Chairman Rodino spoke in 
this very room some 24 years ago: ``Our own public trust, our 
own commitment to the Constitution, is being put to the test. 
Let us leave the Constitution unimpaired for our children as 
our predecessors left it to us.''
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. Thank you, Mr. Rothman.
    The distinguished gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by reflecting 
back almost 25 years to a time in our history when young 
lawyers rose to positions of power in our Nation's Capital, 
lawyers with talent, intellect, and pedigrees from the best 
schools, lawyers such as Dean, Magruder, Liddy, Colson, all of 
whom wielded enormous power, but none who valued or respected 
the rule of law.
    Those lawyers were influenced by a President: Richard 
Nixon. During that time I, like many Americans, judged their 
actions and found them wanting. I observed the national ordeal 
from afar. I was studying law at the University of Arkansas. As 
a student, it was drilled into me that lawyers should have the 
highest ethical standards, that we are officers of the court, 
that we have a high responsibility to seek the truth, and that 
we should never allow a fraud to be committed upon the court.
    One of the brightest and most respected young law 
professors of that time was William Jefferson Clinton. The rule 
of the law was the mantra, and Watergate was the real-life case 
study.
    I know many are saying this is not Watergate, and I agree. 
The facts are different. But are not the important questions 
the same? Is the rule of law less significant today than 25 
years ago? Is unchecked perjury, if proven, less of a threat to 
our judicial system today than when Watergate was an example?
    In my judgment, these are not insignificant questions that 
our committee and the American people must answer. I am always 
asked: ``What do people in Arkansas say?'' As Arkansans, we 
would just as soon change the subject; but we are first 
Americans, and we know that as a country, if we ask the right 
questions and if we follow the Constitution, we will come to 
the right conclusion.
    Today I want to assure my colleagues and my fellow 
Arkansans that I do not know the conclusion of this matter. I 
do not have all the answers, but in my judgment, the first step 
is clear; we must seek out those answers.
    Based upon my own independent review of the evidence, it 
appears there exists reasonable cause to conduct a formal 
inquiry that is independent, that is fair, and leads to a 
speedy resolution.
    Let me address some of the arguments I have heard this 
morning. First of all, some say ``the President has admitted 
his error, let's move on.'' But we must remember, he has not 
admitted anything from a legal standpoint. He has denied legal 
wrongdoing. The Independent Counsel has submitted evidence that 
the President committed perjury, tampered with witnesses, 
obstructed justice, and abused the power of his office. In 
responding, the President has done what every citizen is 
entitled to do. He has proclaimed his innocence and challenged 
the proof on each charge.
    The denial on behalf of the President does not allow this 
committee to accept the charges as stated but, rather, formal 
hearings are necessary to weigh the evidence and to determine 
whether the proceedings should continue or whether impeachment 
is warranted.
    I also hear, ``This is just about sex, let us shut it down 
and go home.'' If the premise of that statement is correct, I 
agree. But when the President testified before the Federal 
grand jury, last August, I recollect everyone was emphasizing 
to the President, ``tell the truth.'' They were not encouraging 
him to lie. They were not saying, ``Mr. President, it is only 
about sex, do not worry about it.''
    These are not questions posed by friends in the locker 
room, these are questions presented before citizens vested with 
the responsibility to enforce the criminal laws of our land. 
Truth was expected by the American public, truth was required 
by the law of our land, and truth was demanded by all who hold 
the presidency in high esteem.
    Did the President tell the truth? He says yes. The 
Independent Counsel says no. Therefore it is necessary that we 
inquire further.
    The cynics claim this is a partisan struggle. Let me assure 
you that this is not about following a party, but it is about 
following the law and the Constitution, wherever that path may 
lead. It is not about which party has the votes, but it is 
about which position is closest to the concept of justice, 
equity, and historical precedents. Partisan loyalties must be 
checked at the door of this great institution we all serve. Now 
we must abide by our oath of office.
    The Constitution gives us the standard to follow. We cannot 
define impeachable offenses to a greater degree than the 
language of the Constitution, but we all agree the issue is the 
public trust. Our duty is not to punish anyone and our 
challenge is to avoid pettiness, but our goal should certainly 
be to determine whether a breach of the public trust has 
occurred and, if so, how best to repair it.
    As the prophet Nehemiah devoted his life to rebuilding the 
wall around Jerusalem in times of old, so let this committee 
commit itself to maintaining the wall of public trust in our 
society today.
    Thank you, I yield back.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is my first 
public hearing as the newest member of this committee, Mr. 
Chairman, and I am honored to serve on this committee under 
your leadership and the leadership of Mr. Conyers.
    Like the other members of this committee, I recognize the 
seriousness of the job before us. We must seek the truth. I 
also recognize that the American people expect us, in fact 
demand from us, that we do our job not as Democrats or 
Republicans, but as Americans, because ultimately what is at 
stake here is not Bill Clinton, but what is at stake is the 
future of the office of the presidency and its relationship 
with the Congress and the American people.
    When I first entered this hearing room only 2 weeks ago, 
that is how I honestly expected we would operate, simply as 
Americans. Of course, I recognized that we all came here either 
as Democrats or Republicans, but I sincerely believed that we 
would rise above that, that we would leave our partisan coats 
at the door and conduct these proceedings as 37 independent 
American jurors.
    I was wrong. I am convinced that every decision pertaining 
to the release of documents was made before any of us ever 
entered this room. I believe that decision was based on the 
perceived impact that that release would have, not only on 
President Clinton, but also on the congressional elections only 
4 weeks from now.
    That is wrong, too. Our decision should not be based on 
partisan advantage; our decision should be based on what is 
right for our country. I have been disappointed, Mr. Chairman, 
but I am an optimist. I believe that we can work together, that 
we must work together if our work is to have any credibility.
    Many comparisons have been made between Watergate and the 
issues before us. Some of those comparisons are valid, some are 
not. But even more instructive to our role, I believe, are the 
recent comments of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, the two 
national leaders most responsible for helping this country move 
beyond the Watergate nightmare.
    Jimmy Carter had a strong message. He criticized President 
Clinton for his actions and for not being truthful, a sober 
reminder that the President of the United States must provide 
moral leadership. Gerald Ford had an equally strong message. He 
stated, ``The time has come to pause and consider the long-term 
consequences of removing this President from office based on 
the evidence at hand.''
    He has not called for impeachment but, instead, suggests 
that a public rebuke in the well of the House would be a fair 
and appropriate resolution, commensurate with the offenses of 
President Clinton. Gerald Ford's concern is for our country and 
the damage to the institution of the President, not Bill 
Clinton. The comments of our two former Presidents provide a 
framework to move forward. President Clinton's conduct was 
wrong and he must be held accountable, but it would hurt our 
country in the long run to drag this matter out endlessly.
    It is time, Mr. Chairman, therefore, for a focused and fair 
inquiry. There must be finality to this process. For if there 
is one common thread tying the views of virtually every 
American together, it is this: The time has come to put this 
chapter of our history behind us, and move on to the matters 
that affect the lives of citizens throughout our country. Let 
us do it, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pease.
    Mr. Pease. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Today we address a subject which I suspect no member of the 
committee wishes were before us: whether to begin an inquiry of 
impeachment against the President of the United States. No 
matter what we may think regarding the actions of the President 
or the many others who have been much in the news these past 
months, it is not a good thing for the Nation that we find 
ourselves in the situation we now face. The days ahead of us, 
no matter their outcome, will be trying for each of us, for 
this institution, for the President, for our people.
    Yet, wishing it were otherwise will not make it so. For 
whatever reason, we are where we are, and it is our 
responsibility to make the best of it. Most of my thinking over 
the past month has been focused on how to do so.
    As an undergraduate at Indiana University, I had the good 
fortune to study with one of the Nation's great political 
scientists, Dr. Charles Hyneman. My life was affected deeply by 
his course in political philosophy as we studied the great 
thinkers, from Plato to the present. Much of our time was spent 
on the British and American writers, Hobbes and Locke and 
Burke, Jefferson and Madison, and the collective Publius of the 
Federalist Papers.
    I came to understand then, and believe even more firmly 
today, that the God-given freedoms which we enjoy are dependent 
on man-made mechanisms for their protection. In our system, 
those mechanisms are found in the Constitution and the laws 
adopted pursuant to the procedure it sets forth, and despite 
the temptation to trivialize procedure in the legal proceedings 
of the land or to complain about technicalities in process, a 
system of laws is at the heart of protecting the freedoms we 
cherish.
    In that course with Professor Hyneman, though, we did more 
than talk, and write, and theorize. I remember well his 
announcement one day that we would begin our field work on 
Saturday, meeting at his home for breakfast and being out for 
the entire day. He gave us no details, and I remember thinking 
it odd that a philosophy course would be conducting field work, 
but since I was a freshman, I was dutifully present.
    Two hours later, a half a dozen of us were scattered across 
the steps of the courthouse at Vevay, Indiana, the place where 
the local townspeople gathered on Saturday mornings to do the 
shopping and simply to talk about families and friends, about 
the ball game the night before, about the crops, about current 
events. We listened.
    I think I learned from that experience, and many others 
like it since, what the common values are that we share as a 
people, what the things are that are important in the lives of 
everyday Americans, what they expect from themselves, their 
neighbors, and their government. Among them are these: that 
they love their country; that they understand the need for 
heroes, and hope that some of them are in the Nation's 
leadership; that they believe that all people are entitled to 
be treated fairly; that their government will ensure both 
fairness and freedom.
    As I have struggled with today's questions, I return to the 
things affirmed for me in the hills of southern Indiana years 
ago, and reinforced through the years since: an appreciation of 
the common sense and the values of the people I represent and 
an understanding of the absolute necessity of a process to 
protect liberty.
    As a people, we share a heritage which provides a system 
for the determination of truth, where everyone who has an 
interest also has the opportunity to be heard. Our duty as 
members in the matter before us is to ensure that this heritage 
is sustained and enhanced here. It can only be so if we remain 
firm in our resolve to find the truth, no matter the political 
consequences. The Constitution provides our compass. I intend 
to follow it wherever it may take us.
    I yield the balance of my time.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentleman very much.
    The distinguished gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin, 
first of all, by expressing my appreciation to you for the 
thoughtful manner in which you have handled this matter. I 
believe that Americans generally are recognizing the 
thoughtfulness of your attempts to meet the reasonable demands 
of the Democrats. I was pleased to see that the Washington Post 
and the New York Times have opined in support of your positions 
on even those difficult issues of scope and duration.
    A few days ago, I held a town hall meeting in which Laurie 
Updike spoke of her two sons in the military. Paul is in the 
Navy and is stationed in Washington State. He has served on a 
ship in the Gulf. John is an Army marksman who is currently on 
his way to Russia and is then going to go to Bosnia.
    She shed tears while she spoke of her sons, not because she 
isn't willing for them to risk all in the defense of freedom, 
as embodied in our Constitution and our American way of life. 
She, along with the 500 or so other people who packed the 
audience and gave her a standing ovation, is concerned that the 
sacrifices her sons have to make may be in support of decisions 
that have to do more with the President's will to retain power 
than with our national interest.
    Laurie Updike's distrust of the President is a small 
insight into the gravity of what we are doing here today. It is 
the conduct of the President which has caused us to convene. 
This conduct has been decried in the most extreme terms by 
members of both parties. It deserves condemnation.
    For instance, the President of the United States was 
apparently engaged with Monica Lewinsky while he was on the 
phone trying to commit Sonny Callahan, the chairman of the 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Committee on 
Appropriations, to support his plans for Bosnia.
    In addition, it appears a number of women have taken the 
position that they had not had a sexual relationship with the 
President, only to later acknowledge that they had. Are they 
now trying to enter some sort of exclusive club, or were they 
pressured earlier? Their reluctance and apparent shame suggests 
the latter.
    What force may have been brought against them to influence 
their earlier decisions? Was that force derived from public 
office? Paula Jones had, she felt, a right to redress in the 
courts for sexual harassment. The President fought those claims 
but, in doing so, he appears to have lied. Can we allow those 
who disagree with our claims against them to lie in court?
    Our debate is just beginning as to whether that conduct 
which these examples demonstrate is so reckless as to justify 
impeachment. Yet my colleagues on the other side are demanding, 
ad nauseum, a clear standard for what constitutes an 
impeachable offense.
    They speak of the rule of law as requiring such a standard 
because they apparently misunderstand the meaning of the core 
concept of the rule of law. It does not require clarity. The 
law makes clarity paramount only in some narrow circumstances; 
for instance, it is a defense to a criminal charge that a 
statute is ambiguous. The President may, in the future, be 
subject to criminal charges and then all of his lawyers' 
parsing of words and terms may be relevant.
    In most other areas, the law is evolving. Just last year, 
the Supreme Court expanded the law of sexual harassment to 
include a supervisor of the same sex. In opposition to the 
clarity necessary in criminal matters, the rule of law is 
simple: that no person or position or organization is above the 
law.
    Here we are burdened to determine, each according to his 
conscience, after the facts are as clear as we can make them, 
if the President's conduct falls short of the standard the 
Founding Fathers left intentionally vague. Here we may be 
partisan in the highest sense. We must argue our views, we must 
look for facts and characterizations that favor our side.
    Mr. Barrett's recollection of the party line votes differs 
from mine, frankly. Not that that is inappropriate. But as I 
recall, the Republicans acceded to virtually every--in fact, 
every motion for redaction that was made in the last hearing 
that we held. There was a great deal of bipartisanship in that 
hearing.
    After the argument, we must set aside the partisan drive 
and vote for the truth as we see it. Our duty is to assure that 
the President is not above the law as set out in the 
Constitution. We as a committee are sitting to judge, but, at 
the same time, we will also be judged. Historians, with the aid 
of hindsight, are often harsh; but our children will be our 
harshest critics. Our children and their children's children, 
they must know that we know the difference between right and 
wrong.
    If we proceed unjustly, our colleagues will reject our 
determinations. If we urge drastic action, our rationale must 
be clear. If we judge rightly, we shall be honored. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. Thank you very much, sir. The distinguished 
gentleman from California Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today the House 
Judiciary Committee embarks upon a significant moment 
contemplated by our founders over two centuries ago. In 
offering my limited contribution to this morning's collection 
of thought, I want to set forth my own standards as we proceed.
    First, for as long as this matter remains within our 
jurisdiction, I shall speak of it not as a Republican but as an 
American. To use or manipulate these proceedings for any 
partisan advantage would be a national tragedy of manifest 
proportions. In times like these, each of us is obliged to 
check our party affiliation at the door.
    No member of this committee inherited their present 
responsibilities by swearing allegiance to any political party, 
to any President, or to any congressional leader. The common 
bond that connects us, each to the other, is our mutual oath of 
allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. We must 
view this oath with nothing short of reverence.
    Second, I entered these proceedings with no fixed 
conclusions as to whether the President committed potentially 
impeachable offenses. As a former gang murder prosecutor and 
trial court judge, I believe the presumption of innocence is 
not a courtesy we grant to the President; it is his as a matter 
of right. He need not beg our leave to obtain it. Rather, we 
must passionately respect and defend it.
    Third, despite some suggestion to the contrary, the purpose 
of this hearing is not for us to sit in moral judgment over the 
President's personal lifestyle. If this President, or any 
President, has engaged in marital indiscretions, this 
appropriately is the concern of a limited universe of people. 
It is the concern of his spouse, it is the concern of his 
family, it may well be the concern of those who entrusted him 
with high office. But it is not the concern of the House 
Judiciary Committee, nor is it the concern of the Congress of 
the United States. It is not our right or purpose to officially 
contemplate such matters in the abstract.
    However, it is both our purpose and our legal obligation to 
review the President's alleged conduct within the framework of 
the rule of law, and whether such conduct violated his 
obligation to faithfully execute the law.
    This is a very critical distinction, because up until now, 
the heritage of American jurisprudence has been that no person 
is above the law. Yet, despite the two centuries of tremendous 
sacrifice for this legacy, the ghosts of patriots past cannot 
compel us to maintain the standard that no person is above the 
law. Each generation ultimately makes that choice for itself.
    Theodore Roosevelt understood this when he said that no man 
is above the law and no man is below it, nor do we ask any 
man's permission when we require him to obey it. His words are 
important because Roosevelt made no exception to this ideal for 
those who happen to share his party affiliation or his 
political agenda. Roosevelt knew the rule of law had to apply 
to all men or it would apply to no man.
    President Kennedy echoed that sentiment shortly before his 
death, when he said that for one man to defy a law or court 
order he does not like is to invite us do the same. This leads 
to a breakdown of all justice. Some societies respect the rule 
of force. America respects the rule of law.
    Mr. Chairman, as we now proceed, may our committee, our 
Congress, and our people heed the call of our heritage to 
respect the rule of law and to uphold the truth, no matter 
where it shall heed. In doing so, we will honor our 
constitutional duty, and we surely will fulfill our ultimate 
obligations, both to conscience and to country. I yield back.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The distinguished gentleman from South Carolina Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The good news is me 
and Mary Bono stand between now and lunch, and we will try to 
be short.
    As we talk about history and how history will judge what we 
do, people are having to execute history. We are all tired. I 
am getting hungry. I want to get on with this. The public wants 
it over. The buzzing sound you may hear on your television is 
hopefully not me, but the spin machine is about to crank up 
here.
    Both parties, on October 5, 1998, have come to this 
conclusion: They both have a resolution investigating the 
conduct of the President. That is good news. Some of the 
questions we may have to ask later on to get the truth are 
distasteful, at best; but the truth is, I have no clue what I 
am going to do yet. I can tell you that and look you in the eye 
and honestly mean it. I don't know if censure is appropriate, 
we should just drop it, or we should throw him out of office.
    Nobody knows yet, in my opinion, who really has an open 
mind about this thing. Is this Watergate or Peyton Place? I 
don't know. Let me tell you, if I followed the polls, I know 
what I would do. In my district, people have no use for this 
President. None, zero, zip. Eighty-two percent of the people in 
one part of my district want to throw him out of office. If I 
followed the polls, I could sit up here and rant and rave and 
become Governor on it. I don't want to be Governor that way. I 
want to be a good Congressman, who 30 years from now, not just 
30 days from now, people thought did the right thing.
    The right thing is to take this seriously. Why are we here? 
We are here because some time ago in Arkansas, some young lady 
was summoned up to a room where the Governor of Arkansas 
allegedly dropped his pants and asked her to do some very 
disgusting things. I have no idea if that is true, but thank 
God I live in a country where that young lady can go to court.
    If it had been a member of my family that had that happen 
to her, a lawsuit would have been the last thing that person 
would have had to worry about. This lady made a serious 
allegation. Her case was dismissed, and that shows you maybe 
the rule of law works even for the powerful.
    But why are we here today? Somewhere between that room in 
Arkansas and October 5th, something happened. They called the 
President in to a deposition, because a lot of times in sexual 
harassment lawsuits, the conduct is behind closed doors with 
just the man and the woman, and it is who do you believe. That 
happens more times than not in sexual harassment lawsuits. So 
in this country, the litigant is allowed to look at the person 
and their activity and their behavior.
    That is exactly what was going on in the Paula Jones 
lawsuit: Does the President have a pattern of conduct of 
approaching people that work for him and soliciting sex, mildly 
or forcefully? The judge allowed that conduct to be 
investigated, and the President was placed under oath in the 
Paula Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky comes up. That is why we are 
here today.
    How would you like it if in your lawsuit, if you find out 
later on that he lied through his teeth about a member of your 
family, that the gifts that you wanted to prove were an 
essential part of the case wound up under the secretary's bed 
of the guy you are suing, that as soon as he leaves the 
deposition he goes back and he coaches the witness about what 
to say; and your government, after knowing all of that, said we 
are tired of it, let's quit? That is one scenario that may play 
itself out.
    The other scenario is that this guy just has a problem, and 
he cannot control himself. It is about human failings, and 
censure is appropriate, and we do not need to turn the country 
upside down.
    Nobody can tell me yet whether this is part of a criminal 
enterprise or a bunch of lies that build upon themselves based 
on not wanting to embarrass your family. If that is what it is, 
about an extramarital affair with an intern and that is it, I 
will not vote to impeach this President, no matter if 82 
percent of the people at home want me to, because we will 
destroy this country.
    If it is about a criminal enterprise where the operatives 
of the President at every turn confront witnesses against him 
in illegal ways, threaten people, extort them, if there is a 
secret police unit in this White House that goes after women or 
anybody else for this President, that is Richard Nixon times 
ten and I will vote to impeach him.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the distinguished gentleman. The wedding 
feast at Caana, the good Lord saved the best wine until last; 
and in addition to following the Rodino format, we are 
following the wedding feast in Caana by having the best last: 
the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Bono.
    Mrs. Bono. This past year has been a very difficult time 
for our country, and it has been a very difficult time for me 
personally. For the past 9 months we have become increasingly 
consumed by this one issue, and it has wounded us as a people.
    Finally, today we have the opportunity to begin the healing 
process that will put this issue behind us, and the truth will 
not get lost in the process. This is not about Republicans and 
it is not about Democrats. This is also not about sex. It is 
bigger than that. It is about the public trust. If the loss of 
trust is what fuels the cynicism of politicians, then this 
process is about restoring the fundamental trust that is so 
important to the country's conscience.
    People hope to point to the White House with pride. We 
believe that the President will tell the truth and set an 
example for our actions. We parents want our children to 
respect and admire our President and our leaders.
    It is as simple as the old story of George Washington 
chopping down the cherry tree. These lessons have inspired my 
kids to dream about becoming the American President when they 
grow up--both my son and my daughter. I want my kids, I want 
all kids, to be able to have that dream.
    Unfornately the message that they are hearing today makes 
me lose faith that they will have that goal after all of this 
is done. That is how damaging this has been.
    Our forefathers decided more than 200 years ago that we 
would no longer be under the rule of the king. Many paid the 
ultimate sacrifice in the name of that freedom. They wanted to 
have a President who would be held accountable for his behavior 
under the law. That is why we have the process that brings us 
here today.
    I have avoided any prejudgment during this process, and I 
have focused on uncovering the truth. After all, that is what 
the American people hope for: the truth. We have grown all-too 
weary of the constant media frenzy that has surrounded this 
process. The people are tired of lawyers who try to cover up 
the truth with hyperlegal hair-splitting and clever rhetoric. 
We have grown weary of the political gamesmanship and perpetual 
spin because they obscure the facts.
    The time has come for the American people to get the facts. 
It is time to get beyond the emotional reactions and allow 
ourselves to know the difference between a truth and a lie, or 
even between a true and a misleading statement. And I am 
certain that the American people will know the truth when they 
hear it. I am also certain that we are capable of handling the 
truth.
    Over the past year, I learned a very valuable lesson from 
the most important people in the world to me, and they are my 
children. This year they taught me that from the deepest 
adversity there can be found a ray of hope. From that hope we 
can draw our strength.
    So what can we do now that will make us better as a people? 
As a Nation, it is time to find that needed strength to endure 
a process that I hope will be fair. Our goal is to learn the 
truth. Perhaps the truth will mean that this process ends 
sooner rather than later. If at the end of the day we find it 
warrants further action, then we must proceed.
    That is why I will listen closely with an open heart and an 
open mind to the upcoming presentations. Many important issues 
are raised by Judge Starr's report, and many new important 
questions may also surface. There are too many questions that 
need to be answered. I am at a loss to pick the right remedy to 
cure our national crisis, although several are suggested.
    I believe the committee is taking the right path with this 
inquiry. But honestly, I would just like to know whether the 
President committed perjury. I would like to know whether he 
obstructed justice. I would like to know whether he abused 
power. I would like to know whether we are good enough as the 
Committee on the Judiciary to come together on this issue. But 
I do know that we are good enough as a country to work to get 
past this.
    I also know that without this process, none of us will ever 
know the answers to these questions, and without these answers, 
our country cannot put this issue behind us. The time has come 
now for the healing process to begin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentlelady.
    The Chair would like to announce that we will adjourn, or 
recess, rather, for 45 minutes, until 1:15, when we will resume 
promptly, because we wish to finish this this afternoon.
    I want to commend the committee. Both sides have done 
extremely well. It has been informative. If we can continue, we 
can finish this this afternoon. So the committee stands in 
recess until 1:15.
    [Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 1:15 p.m., this same day.]
    Mr. Hyde. The committee will come to order. Will the 
members take their seats, please?
    The committee will now receive a presentation from Mr. 
David Schippers and Mr. Abbe Lowell for up to 1 hour each. The 
Chair does not intend to recognize members to direct questions 
to the staff during the briefing.
    The Chair now recognizes for up to an hour, Mr. Schippers.
    Mr. Schippers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. Before you start, Mr. Schippers, Mr. Schumer can 
make the unanimous consent request.
    Mr. Schumer. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
this letter which--I guess, of September 25th from Kenneth 
Starr to you and Mr. Conyers be able to be used in this 
hearing--be considered----
    Mr. Hyde. Be considered in open session, although it is 
appropriately executive session material. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    [The information follows:]
                         Office of the Independent Counsel,
                                Washington, DC, September 25, 1998.
HAND DELIVERED

Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on the Judiciary,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Hyde and Representative Conyers: In recent days 
various media and Members of congress have publicly commented on the 
propriety of this Office's actions in contacting Monica S. Lewinsky on 
January 16, 1998 at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. At the time we submitted 
our Referral we viewed these questions as incidental and tangential. 
Nonetheless, the issue has now been raised publicly and appears to be 
on the substantiality and credibility of the information we provided to 
the House in our Referral.
    The question of the propriety of our actions has already been 
litigated and resolved by Chief Judge Johnson. Because Congress may 
find this material germane to its inquiry, I am conveying to Congress 
the docketed filings in In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (D.D.C. Misc. No. 
98-068) and the appeal of that ruling in In Re Sealed Case (D.C. Cir. 
Nos. 98-3052, 98-3053, 98-3059). the filings on the dockets are 
specified in the attachment to this letter. I call your particular 
attention to the pleadings and orders filed in the district Court 
between March 31, 1998, and April 28, 1998, which bear directly on the 
factual issue of the OIC's contact with Ms. Lewinsky on January 16.
            Sincerely,
                                          Kenneth W. Starr,
                                               Independent Counsel.

    Mr. Schumer. Thank you.
    Mr. Hyde. You bet.
    Mr. Schippers.
    Mr. Schumer. I will not let you put any other words in my 
mouth, Mr. Chairman. Not today, anyway.

   STATEMENT OF DAVID SCHIPPERS, CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE COUNSEL

    Mr. Schippers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. Pull the microphone a little closer to you so we 
can hear you.
    Mr. Schippers. Mr. Chairman, members, as the chief 
investigative counsel for the majority, I have been called upon 
to advise the Judiciary Committee of the results of our 
analysis and review of the September 9, 1998, referral from the 
Office of the Independent Counsel in which there was a 
conclusion that there is substantial and credible information 
that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that 
may constitute grounds for an impeachment.
    Mr. Hyde. Mr. Schippers, would you pull the mike a little 
closer to you?
    Mr. Schippers. How is that? Is that better?
    Mr. Hyde. Much better.
    Mr. Schippers. In executing the task assigned to us, my 
staff and I have made a deliberate effort to discount the 
political aspects of our examination and to ignore any partisan 
tactics and strategy.
    The standard of review was set by me in our very first 
meeting after the delivery of the material. I reminded the 
staff that we are not advocates, that we are professionals 
asked to perform a professional, albeit distasteful, duty. 
Therefore, I asked them to review the referral and supporting 
data in the light most favorable to the President.
    Throughout this effort, we have been determined to avoid 
even the suggestion of preference because we view our 
responsibility as requiring an unbiased, full and expeditious 
review, untrammeled by any preconceived notions or opinions. 
Our approach has been solely in keeping with constitutional and 
legal standards of fairness and impartiality.
    Before moving on to the substantive areas of the report, I 
would like to address two elementary, but basic, concepts of 
our constitutional government. These will serve to put our 
conclusions in the proper perspective.
    First: The President of the United States enjoys a singular 
and appropriately lofty position in our system of government. 
But that position by its very nature involves equally unique 
and onerous responsibilities, among which are included 
affirmative obligations that apply to no other citizen.
    Specifically, the Constitution of the United States imposes 
upon the President the explicit and affirmative duty to take 
care that the laws be faithfully executed. Moreover, before 
entering upon the duties of his office, the President is 
constitutionally commanded to take the following oath:
    I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully 
execute the Office of President of the United States and will, 
to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the 
Constitution of the United States.
    The President, then, is the chief law enforcement officer 
of the United States. Although he is neither above nor below 
the law, he is, by virtue of his office, held to a higher 
standard than any other American. Furthermore, as Chief 
Executive Officer and Commander in Chief, he is the repository 
of a special trust.
    Second: Many defendants who face legal action, whether it 
be civil or criminal, can honestly believe that the case 
against them is unwarranted and factually deficient. It is not, 
however, in the discretion of the litigant to decide that any 
tactics are justified to defeat the lawsuit in that situation. 
Rather, it is incumbent upon that individual to testify fully 
and truthfully during the truth-seeking phase. It is then the 
function of our system of law to expose the frivolous cases. 
The litigant may not with impunity mislead, deceive or lie 
under oath in order to prevail in the lawsuit or for other 
personal gain. Any other result would be subversive of the 
American rule of law.
    The principle that every witness in every case must tell 
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is the 
foundation of the American system of justice which is the envy 
of every civilized nation. The sanctity of the oath taken by a 
witness is the most essential bulwark of the truth-seeking 
function of a trial, which is the American method of 
ascertaining the facts. If lying under oath is tolerated and, 
when exposed, is not visited with immediate and substantial 
adverse consequences, the integrity of this country's entire 
judicial process is fatally compromised, and that process will 
inevitably collapse. The subject matter of the underlying case, 
whether civil or criminal, and the circumstances under which 
the testimony is given, are of no significance whatever. It is 
the oath itself that is sacred and must be enforced.
    The Independent Counsel Act provides in relevant part that 
an independent counsel shall advise the House of 
Representatives of any substantial and credible information . . 
. that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.
    In compliance with the statutory mandate, the Office of the 
Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr, informed the House of 
Representatives on September 9, 1998, that it was prepared to 
submit a referral under that statute. On that day, the 
Independent Counsel's Office delivered to the House the 
following material:
    A. A referral consisting of an Introduction, a Narrative of 
Relevant Events and an Identification and Analysis of the 
Substantial and Credible Information that may support grounds 
for impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton;
    B. An appendix in six three-ring binders totaling in excess 
of 2,500 pages of the most relevant testimony and other 
material cited in the referral; and
    C. Seventeen transmittal boxes containing grand jury 
transcripts, deposition transcripts, FBI reports, reports of 
interviews, and thousands of pages of incidental back-up 
documents.
    Pursuant to House Resolution 525, all of this material was 
turned over to the Committee on the Judiciary to be held in 
executive session until September 28, 1998; and at that time 
the House ordered that all the materials be released to the 
public, except those which were withheld by action of the 
committee.
    My staff and the minority staff were then instructed by the 
committee to review the referral, together with all of the 
other evidence and testimony that had been submitted, for the 
purpose of determining whether there actually existed 
substantial and credible evidence that President William 
Jefferson Clinton may have committed acts that may constitute 
grounds to proceed to a resolution for an impeachment inquiry.
    Because of the narrow scope of our directive, the 
investigation and analysis was necessarily circumscribed by the 
information delivered with the referral. We also considered 
some information and analysis that was furnished by the counsel 
for the President. For that reason, we did not seek to procure 
any additional evidence or testimony from any other source. 
Particularly, we did not seek to obtain or review the material 
that remained in the possession of the Office of Independent 
Counsel. In two telephone conversations with Mr. Bittman, Mr. 
Lowell and I were assured that the retained material was deemed 
unnecessary to comply with the statutory requirement under 
Section 595(c). Though Mr. Bittman offered to make available to 
both counsel all of the material, my staff and I did not deem 
it necessary, for that matter, even proper, to go beyond the 
submission itself. At the suggestion of the minority counsel, 
the retained material was later reviewed by members of both 
staffs. The material was, as anticipated, irrelevant.
    To support the referral, the House has been furnished with 
grand jury transcripts, FBI interview memoranda, transcripts of 
depositions, other interview memoranda, statements, audio 
recordings and, where available, video recordings of all 
persons named in the referral. In addition, the House was 
provided with a copy of every document cited and a mass of 
documentary and other evidence produced by witnesses, the White 
House, the President, the Secret Service, and the Department of 
Defense.
    This report is confined solely to that referral and 
supporting evidence and the testimony supplied to the House and 
then to this committee, supplemented only by the information 
provided by the President's counsel. Although the original 
submission contained a transcript of the President's deposition 
testimony, no videotape was included. Pursuant to a request by 
Chairman Hyde, a videotape of the entire deposition was later 
provided to the committee by the District judge. Both that 
video and the video of the President's testimony before the 
grand jury have been thoroughly reviewed by all members of my 
staff and by me personally.
    Apart from the thorough review of President Clinton's 
deposition and grand jury testimony, the following functions 
were also performed in preparation for this report:
    1. All grand jury transcripts and memoranda of interview of 
Ms. Currie, Mr. Jordan, Ms. Lewinsky, the Secret Service agents 
and Ms. Tripp were independently reviewed, compared and 
analyzed by at least three members of my staff and those of Ms. 
Currie, Mr. Jordan, Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Tripp and both 
appearances of the President by me personally.
    2. All of the remaining grand jury transcripts, deposition 
transcripts and memoranda of the others interviewed were 
likewise reviewed, compared and analyzed. This involved more 
than 250 separate documents, some consisting of hundreds of 
pages. In this regard, my staff was instructed to seek any 
information that might cast doubt upon the legal or factual 
conclusions of the Independent Counsel.
    3. The entire appendix, consisting of in excess of 2,000 
pages, was systematically reviewed and analyzed against the 
statements contained in the referral.
    4. I personally read the entire evidence reference and 
legal reference that accompanied the referral. I analyzed the 
legal precepts and theories and read at least the relevant 
portions of every case cited.
    5. In addition to other members of the staff, I personally 
read and analyzed the 11 specific allegations made by the 
Independent Counsel, and I also reviewed the evidentiary basis 
for those allegations. Each footnote supporting the charges was 
checked to insure that it did, in fact, support the underlying 
evidentiary proposition. In cases where inferences were drawn 
in the body of the referral, the validity of those inferences 
was tested under acceptable principles of Federal trial 
practice.
    6. Each of the literally thousands of back-up documents was 
reviewed in order to insure that no relevant evidence had been 
overlooked.
    7. Meetings of the entire staff were held virtually on a 
daily basis for the purpose of coordinating our efforts and to 
synthesize the divergent material into a coherent report.
    Having completed all of those tasks assigned to us, we are 
now prepared to report our findings to you, the members of this 
committee. We are fully aware that the purpose of this hearing 
is solely for the committee to decide whether there is 
sufficient, credible and substantial evidence to proceed to an 
impeachment inquiry. This and nothing more. Of course, as 
members of this committee, you and only you are authorized and 
encouraged eventually to make your own independent judgment on 
what constitutes impeachable offenses and the standards of 
proof that might be applicable. My report, then, represents 
only a distillation and consensus of the staff's efforts and 
conclusions for your guidance and consideration.
    At the outset, one point needs to be made. The witness 
Monica Lewinsky's credibility may be subject to some 
skepticism. At an appropriate stage of the proceedings, that 
credibility will, of necessity, be assessed, together with the 
credibility of all other witnesses in the light of all the 
other evidence. Ms. Lewinsky admitted to having lied on 
occasion to Ms. Tripp, and she also admitted to having executed 
and caused to be filed a false affidavit in the Paula Jones 
case.
    On the other hand, Ms. Lewinsky obtained a grant of 
immunity for her testimony before the grand jury and, 
therefore, has no reason to lie thereafter. Furthermore, the 
witness' account of the relevant events could well have been 
much more damaging. For the most part, though, the record 
reflects that she was an embarrassed and reluctant witness, who 
actually downplayed her White House encounters. In testifying, 
Ms. Lewinsky demonstrated a remarkable memory, supported by her 
personal diary, concerning dates and events. Finally, the 
record includes ample corroboration of her testimony by 
independent and disinterested witnesses, by documentary 
evidence and, in part, by the grand jury testimony of the 
President himself. Consequently, for the limited purpose of 
this report, we suggest that Monica Lewinsky's testimony is 
both substantial and credible.
    It has been the considered judgment of my staff and myself 
that our main focus should be on those alleged acts and 
omissions by the President which affect the rule of law and the 
structure and integrity of our court system. Deplorable as the 
numerous sexual encounters related in the evidence may be, we 
chose to emphasize the consequences of those acts as they 
affect the administration of justice and the unique role the 
President occupies in carrying out his oath faithfully to 
execute the laws of the Nation.
    The prurient aspect of the referral is, at best, merely 
peripheral to the central issues. The assertions of 
presidential misconduct cited in the referral, though arising 
initially out of sexual indiscretions, are completely distinct 
and involve allegations of an ongoing series of deliberate and 
direct assaults by Mr. Clinton upon the justice system of the 
United States and upon the judicial branch of our government 
which holds a place in the constitutional framework of checks 
and balances equal to that of the executive and the legislative 
branches.
    As a result of our research and review of the referral and 
supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there 
exists substantial and credible evidence of 15 separate events 
directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that 
could--could--constitute felonies which, in turn, may 
constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.
    I will now present the catalogue of those charges, together 
with a brief statement of the evidence supporting each.
    Please understand that nothing contained in this report is 
intended to constitute an accusation against the President or 
anyone else, and it should not be construed as such by anyone. 
What follows is nothing more than a litany of the crimes that 
might have been committed based upon the substantial and 
credible evidence provided by the Independent Counsel and 
reviewed, tested and analyzed by my staff.
    With that caution in mind, I will proceed:
    First, there is substantial and credible evidence that the 
President may have been part of a conspiracy with Monica 
Lewinsky and others to obstruct justice and the due 
administration of justice by: (A) providing false and 
misleading testimony under oath in a civil deposition and 
before the grand jury; (B) withholding evidence and causing 
evidence to be withheld and concealed; and (C) tampering with 
prospective witnesses in a civil lawsuit and before a Federal 
grand jury.
    The President and Ms. Lewinsky had developed a cover story 
to conceal their activities. On December 6, 1997, the President 
learned that Ms. Lewinsky's name had appeared on the Jones v. 
Clinton witness list. He informed Ms. Lewinsky of that fact on 
December 17, 1997, and the two agreed that they would employ 
the same cover story in the Jones case. The President at that 
time suggested that an affidavit might be enough to prevent Ms. 
Lewinsky from testifying. On December 19, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky 
was subpoenaed to give a deposition in the Jones case.
    Thereafter, the record tends to establish that the 
following events took place:
    1. In the second week of December, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky told 
Ms. Tripp that she would lie if called to testify and tried to 
convince Ms. Tripp to do the same.
    2. Ms. Lewinsky attempted on several occasions to get Ms. 
Tripp to contact the White House before giving testimony in the 
Jones case.
    3. Ms. Lewinsky participated in preparing a false and 
intentionally misleading affidavit to be filed in the Jones 
case.
    4. Ms. Lewinsky provided a copy of the draft affidavit to a 
third party for approval and discussed changes calculated to 
mislead.
    5. Ms. Lewinsky and the President talked by phone on 
January 6, 1998, and agreed that she would give false and 
misleading answers to questions about her job at the Pentagon.
    6. On January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed the false and 
misleading affidavit. The conspirators intended to use the 
affidavit to avoid Ms. Lewinsky's giving testimony.
    7. After Ms. Lewinsky's name surfaced, the conspirators 
began to employ code names in their contacts.
    8. On December 28, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky and the President met 
at the White House and discussed the subpoena she had received. 
Ms. Lewinsky suggested that she conceal the gifts that she had 
received from the President.
    9. Shortly thereafter, the President's personal secretary, 
Betty Currie, picked up a box of the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky.
    10. Betty Currie hid that box of gifts under her bed at 
home.
    11. The President gave false and evasive answers to 
questions contained in interrogatories in the Jones case.
    12. On December 31, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky, at the suggestion 
of a third party, deleted 50 draft notes that she had made up 
to the President. She had already been subpoenaed to testify in 
the Jones case.
    13. On January 17, 1998, the President's attorney produced 
Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at the President's deposition, 
and the President adopted it as true.
    14. On January 17, 1998, in his deposition, the President 
gave false and misleading testimony under oath concerning his 
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, about the gifts she had given 
him, and several other matters.
    15. The President, on January 18, 1998, and thereafter, 
coached his personal secretary, Betty Currie, to give a false 
and misleading account of the Lewinsky relationship if called 
to testify.
    16. The President narrated elaborate detailed false 
accounts of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky to 
prospective witnesses with the intention that those false 
accounts would be repeated in testimony.
    17. On August 17, 1998, the President gave false and 
misleading testimony under oath to a Federal grand jury on the 
following points: his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; his 
testimony in the January 17, 1998, deposition; his 
conversations with various individuals; and his knowledge of 
Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit and its falsity.
    At this point, I would like to illustrate some of the 
details concerning the events immediately before and after the 
President's deposition on January 17, 1998.
    On January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed the false 
affidavit, and it was furnished to Mr. Clinton's civil lawyer. 
The President reviewed it so he knew that she had denied 
categorically their relationship when the deposition began.
    During the questioning, however, it became more and more 
apparent to the President that Ms. Jones' attorneys possessed a 
lot more specific details than the President had anticipated. 
When the President returned to the White House late on the 
afternoon of January 17th, the calls began.
    After completing his deposition testimony on January 17, 
1998, the President and Vernon Jordan exchanged three telephone 
calls. The President also called Betty Currie and asked her to 
meet with him in the Oval Office on the following day.
    On Sunday, January 18th, at a little after 6 o'clock in the 
morning, the President learned of the existence of the Linda 
Tripp tapes through an article in the Drudge Report.
    At 11:49 a.m., Vernon Jordan telephones the White House 
and, within 40 minutes, he meets White House counsel Bruce 
Lindsey for lunch.
    At approximately 1 p.m., the President calls both Vernon 
Jordan and Betty Currie at their homes.
    Between 2:15 and 2:55, the record shows that Vernon Jordan 
placed one call to the White House and one call to the 
President himself; and at five o'clock the President meets with 
Betty Currie. In that meeting, the President informs Ms. Currie 
that he had been questioned at his deposition about Monica 
Lewinsky.
    During the next 3 hours and 16 minutes, Betty Currie places 
four pages to Monica Lewinsky's pager requesting that Monica 
call Kay, a previously agreed upon code name that was being 
used by Ms. Currie and Ms. Lewinsky.
    At 10:09 p.m., Monica Lewinsky finally telephoned Betty 
Currie at home. She told Betty Currie that she was not in a 
position to be able to talk but that she would call back later.
    At 11:02 p.m., the President telephoned Betty Currie at 
home as well.
    That evening, Vernon Jordan called deputy White House 
counsel Cheryl Mills.
    Although the following day, January 19, 1998, was a 
national holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., the flurry 
of activity continued.
    Between 7:02 and 8:33 a.m. Betty Currie places three pages 
to Monica Lewinsky instructing her to ``please call Kay.''
    When Ms. Currie receives no response, she places another 
page 4 minutes later stating, ``Please call Kay at home. It's a 
social call, thank you.''
    Four minutes after that page, Ms. Currie pages Monica again 
with a message, ``Kay is at home. Please call.''
    Ms. Currie received no response to either of those pages or 
any of them.
    Two minutes later, Betty Currie telephones the President 
from her home. Immediately following her phone call to the 
President, Ms. Currie places another page to Ms. Lewinsky 
telling her to please call Kay, re: family emergency.
    At 8:50 a.m., 6 minutes later, the President calls Ms. 
Currie at home. Immediately after the phone call from the 
President, Ms. Currie once again pages Monica and states 
``Message from Kay. Please call. Have good news.''
    Six minutes after the President calls Ms. Currie at her 
home, he places a call to Vernon Jordan at his home.
    During a 24-minute span, from 10:29 to 10:53 a.m., Vernon 
Jordan places five calls. Three of those calls are placed to 
the White House, one of which is to Deputy Assistant to the 
President Nancy Hernreich, and one to White House Chief of 
Staff, Erskine Bowles. Mr. Jordan also pages Monica Lewinsky 
instructing her to call him at his office. Mr. Jordan's final 
call in this time period is to Ms. Lewinsky's attorney, Frank 
Carter.
    After Mr. Jordan concludes his call to Mr. Carter, he 
receives a phone call from the President.
    Between 11:04 and 11:17 a.m., Vernon Jordan places two 
calls to Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey. Mr. Jordan 
again pages Monica Lewinsky with the message, ``Please call Mr. 
Jordan.''
    At 12:31 p.m., Mr. Jordan uses his cellular phone to once 
again contact the White House.
    At 1:45 p.m., the President telephones Betty Currie at 
home.
    At 2:29 p.m., Vernon Jordan again telephones the White 
House from a cellular phone and then enters the White House 15 
minutes later. Once at the White House, Mr. Jordan meets with 
President Clinton, Erskine Bowles, Bruce Lindsey, Cheryl Mills, 
White House Counsel Charles Ruff, Rahm Emanuel and others.
    At 2:46 p.m., Frank Carter pages Monica Lewinsky and 
requests her to please call Frank Carter.
    Beginning at 4:51 p.m., the next one hour and four minutes 
show Vernon Jordan placing 14 calls. Six of those calls are to 
Bruce Lindsey, three are to Frank Carter, two are to Cheryl 
Mills, one is to Charles Ruff, and two are to Betty Currie.
    At 5:56 p.m., the President telephones Vernon Jordan at his 
office. Eight minutes later, Mr. Jordan telephones Betty Currie 
at her home. Finally, at 6:26 p.m., Vernon Jordan telephones 
presidential aid Steven Goodin.
    Second, there is substantial and credible evidence that the 
President may have aided and abetted, counseled and procured 
Monica Lewinsky to file and cause to be filed a false affidavit 
in the case of Jones v. Clinton.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    In a telephone conversation with Ms. Lewinsky on December 
17, 1997, the President told her that her name was on the 
witness list in the Jones case. The President then suggested 
that she might submit an affidavit to avoid testimony. Both the 
President and Ms. Lewinsky knew that that affidavit would need 
to be false in order to accomplish the result that they wanted.
    In that conversation, the President also suggested ``you 
know, you can always say you were coming to see Betty or that 
you were bringing me letters.'' Ms. Lewinsky knew exactly what 
he meant, because it was the same cover story that they had 
agreed upon earlier.
    Thereafter, Ms. Lewinsky discussed the affidavit with and 
furnished a copy to a confidante of the President for approval. 
Ms. Lewinsky signed the false affidavit and caused her attorney 
to provide it to the President's lawyer for use in the Jones 
case.
    Third, there is substantial and credible evidence that the 
President may have aided, abetted, counseled and procured 
Monica Lewinsky in obstruction of justice when she executed and 
caused to be filed a false affidavit in the case of Jones v. 
Clinton with knowledge of the pending proceedings and with the 
intent to influence, obstruct or impede that proceeding in the 
due administration of justice.
    The record tends to establish that the President not only 
aided and abetted Monica Lewinsky in preparing, signing and 
causing to be filed a false affidavit, he also aided and 
abetted her in using that false affidavit to obstruct justice.
    Both Ms. Lewinsky and the President knew that her false 
affidavit would be used to mislead the plaintiff's attorneys 
and the court. Specifically, they intended that the affidavit 
would be sufficient to avoid Ms. Lewinsky's being required to 
give a deposition in the Jones case. Moreover, it was the 
natural and probable effect of the false statement that it 
would interfere with the due administration of justice. If the 
court and the Jones attorneys were convinced by the affidavit, 
there would be no deposition, and Ms. Lewinsky and the 
plaintiff's attorneys--I am sorry, there would be no deposition 
of Ms. Lewinsky, and the plaintiff's attorneys would be denied 
the ability to learn about material facts and to decide whether 
to introduce those facts at any subsequent trial.
    Mr. Clinton caused his attorney to employ the knowingly 
false affidavit not only to avoid Ms. Lewinsky's deposition but 
to preclude the attorneys from interrogating the President 
about the same subject.
    Fourth, there is substantial and credible evidence that the 
President may have engaged in misprision of Monica Lewinsky's 
felonies of submitting a false affidavit and of obstructing the 
due administration of justice both by taking affirmative steps 
to conceal those felonies and by failing to disclose the 
felonies, though under a constitutional and statutory duty to 
do so.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    Monica Lewinsky admitted to the commission of two felonies: 
Signing a false affidavit under oath and endeavoring to 
obstruct justice by using the false affidavit to mislead the 
court and the lawyers in the Jones case so that she would not 
be deposed and required to give evidence concerning her 
activities with the President. In addition, the President was 
fully aware that those felonies had been committed when he gave 
his deposition on January 17, 1998.
    Nonetheless, Mr. Clinton took affirmative steps to conceal 
these felonies, including allowing his attorney in his presence 
to use the affidavit and to suggest that it was true. More 
importantly, the President himself, while being questioned by 
his own counsel late in the deposition, referring to one of the 
clearly false paragraphs in Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, stated, 
``that is absolutely true.''
    More importantly, again, the President is the chief law 
enforcement officer of the United States. He is under a 
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully 
executed. When confronted with direct knowledge of the 
commission of a felony, he is required by his office, as is 
every other law enforcement officer, agent or attorney in the 
country, to bring to the attention of the appropriate 
authorities the fact of the felony and the identity of the 
perpetrator. If he did not do so, the President could be guilty 
of misprison of felony.
    Fifth, there is substantial and credible evidence that the 
President may have testified falsely under oath in his 
deposition in Jones v. Clinton regarding his relationship with 
Monica Lewinsky.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    There are three instances where credible evidence exists 
that the President may have testified falsely about this 
relationship: One, when he denied a ``sexual relationship'' in 
sworn answers to interrogatories; two, when he denied having an 
``extramarital sexual affair'' in his deposition; and, three, 
when he denied having ``sexual relations'' or ``an affair'' 
with Monica Lewinsky in his deposition.
    When the President denied a sexual relationship, he was not 
bound by the definition that the court later provided. There is 
substantial evidence obtained from Ms. Lewinsky, the 
President's grand jury testimony, and DNA test results that Ms. 
Lewinsky performed sexual acts with the President on numerous 
occasions. Those terms, given their common meaning, could 
reasonably be construed to include oral sex. The President also 
denied having sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky as the court 
had defined that term. In the context of the lawsuit and the 
wording of that definition, there is substantial evidence that 
the President's later explanation given to the grand jury is an 
afterthought and is unreasonably narrow under the 
circumstances. Consequently, there is substantial evidence that 
the President's denial under oath in his deposition of a sexual 
relationship, a sexual affair or sexual relations with Ms. 
Lewinsky was not true.
    Six, there is substantial and credible evidence that the 
President may have given false testimony under oath before the 
Federal grand jury on August 17, 1998, concerning his 
relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    During his grand jury testimony, the President admitted 
only to inappropriate intimate contact with Monica Lewinsky. He 
did not admit to any specific acts. He categorically denied 
ever touching Ms. Lewinsky on the breasts or genitalia for the 
purpose of giving her sexual gratification. There is, however, 
substantial contradictory evidence from Ms. Lewinsky. She 
testified at length and with specificity that the President 
kissed and fondled her breasts on numerous occasions during 
their encounters, and at times there was also direct genital 
contact. Moreover, her testimony is corroborated by several 
other friends.
    The President described himself as a non-reciprocating 
recipient of Ms. Lewinsky's services. Therefore, he suggested 
that he did not engage in sexual relations within the 
definition given him at the Jones case deposition. He also 
testified that his interpretation of the word ``cause'' in the 
definition meant either the use of force or contact with the 
intent to arouse or gratify. The inference drawn by the 
Independent Counsel that the President's explanation was merely 
an afterthought calculated to explain away testimony that had 
been proven false by Ms. Lewinsky's evidence appears credible 
under the circumstances.
    Seven, there is substantial and credible evidence that the 
President may have given false testimony under oath in his 
deposition given in Jones v. Clinton regarding his statement 
that he could not recall being alone with Monica Lewinsky and 
regarding his minimizing the number of gifts that they had 
exchanged.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    President Clinton testified at his deposition that he had 
no specific recollection of being alone with Ms. Lewinsky in 
any room at the White House. There is ample evidence from other 
sources to the contrary. They include Betty Currie, Monica 
Lewinsky, several Secret Service agents and White House logs. 
Moreover, the President testified in the grand jury that he was 
alone with Ms. Lewinsky in 1996 and 1997 and that he had a 
specific recollection of certain instances when he was alone 
with her. He admitted to the grand jury that he was alone with 
her on December 28, 1997, 3 weeks prior to the date of his 
deposition.
    The President was also asked at this deposition whether he 
had ever given any gifts to Ms. Lewinsky. He responded, ``I 
don't recall.'' He then asked the Jones attorneys if they knew 
what they were. After the attorneys named specific gifts, the 
President remembered giving Ms. Lewinsky something from the 
Black Dog. That testimony, again, was given less than 3 weeks 
after Ms. Currie had picked up a box of the gifts that the 
President had given and hidden them under her bed.
    In his grand jury testimony nearly 7 months later, he 
admitted giving Ms. Lewinsky Christmas gifts on December 28, 
1997, and on other occasions. When confronted with his lack of 
memory at the deposition, the President responded that his 
statement ``I don't recall'' referred to the identity of 
specific gifts and not whether or not he actually recalled 
giving gifts.
    The President also testified at his deposition that Ms. 
Lewinsky gave him gifts ``once or twice.'' Ms. Lewinsky says 
that she gave a substantial number of gifts to the President. 
That is corroborated by gifts turned over by Ms. Lewinsky to 
the Independent Counsel and by a letter to the Independent 
Counsel from the President's attorney acknowledging that 
certain gifts given by Monica Lewinsky to the President could 
not be located. Thus, there is substantial and credible 
evidence that the President may have testified falsely about 
being alone with Monica Lewinsky and the gifts he gave to her.
    Eight, there is substantial and credible evidence that the 
President may have testified falsely under oath in his 
deposition concerning conversations with Monica Lewinsky about 
her involvement in the Jones case.
    The record tends to reflect the following:
    The President was asked at his deposition if he ever talked 
to Ms. Lewinsky about the possibility that she would testify in 
the Jones case. He answered, ``I'm not sure.'' He then related 
a conversation with Ms. Lewinsky or he joked about how the 
Jones attorneys would probably subpoena every female witness 
with whom he had ever spoken. He was also asked whether Ms. 
Lewinsky told him that she had been subpoenaed. The answer was, 
no, I don't know if she had been.
    There is substantial evidence, much from the President's 
own grand jury testimony, that those statements were false. The 
President testified before the grand jury that he spoke with 
Ms. Lewinsky at the White House on December 28, 1997, and that 
they spoke about the prospect that she might have to give 
testimony. He also later testified that Vernon Jordan told him 
on December 19, 1997, that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. 
That is the date on which she received the subpoena.
    Nine, there is substantial and credible evidence that the 
President may have endeavored to obstruct justice by engaging 
in a pattern of activity calculated to conceal evidence from 
the judicial proceedings regarding his relationship with Monica 
Lewinsky.
    The record tends to establish that on Sunday, December 28, 
1997, the President gave Ms. Lewinsky Christmas gifts in the 
Oval Office during a visit arranged by Ms. Currie. According to 
Ms. Lewinsky, when she suggested that the gifts he had given 
her be concealed because they were the subject of a subpoena, 
the President stated, ``I don't know,'' or ``Let me think about 
that.''
    Ms. Lewinsky testified that Ms. Currie contacted her at 
home several hours later and stated either I understand you 
have something to give me, or the President says you have 
something to give me. Later that same day, Ms. Currie picked up 
a box of gifts from Ms. Lewinsky's home.
    The evidence indicates that the President may have 
instructed Ms. Currie to conceal evidence. The President has 
denied giving that instruction, and he contended under oath 
that he advised Ms. Lewinsky to provide all of the gifts to the 
Jones attorneys pursuant to the subpoena. In contrast, Ms. 
Lewinsky testified that the President never challenged her 
suggestion that the gifts should be concealed.
    Ten, there is substantial and credible evidence that the 
President himself may have endeavored to obstruct justice in 
the case of Jones v. Clinton by agreeing with Monica Lewinsky 
on a cover story about their relationship by causing a false 
affidavit to be filed and by giving false and misleading 
testimony in his deposition. The record tends to establish that 
the President and Ms. Lewinsky agreed on false explanations for 
her private visit to the Oval Office. Ms. Lewinsky testified 
that when the President contacted her and told her she was on 
the witness list, he advised her that she could always repeat 
those cover stories and that she could file an affidavit.
    Subsequently, during his deposition, the President stated 
that he never had a sexual relationship or affair with Ms. 
Lewinsky. He further stated that the paragraph in Ms. 
Lewinsky's affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the 
President was absolutely true, even though his attorney had 
argued that the affidavit covered ``sex of any kind, in any 
manner, shape or form.''
    Eleven, there is substantial and credible evidence that the 
President may have endeavored to obstruct justice by helping 
Monica Lewinsky to obtain a job in New York City at a time when 
she would have given evidence adverse to Mr. Clinton if she 
told the truth.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    In October, 1997, the President and Ms. Lewinsky discussed 
the possibility of Vernon Jordan assisting her in finding a job 
in New York. On November 5, 1997, Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky 
discussed employment possibilities, and Mr. Jordan told her 
that she came highly recommended.
    However, no significant action was taken on Ms. Lewinsky's 
behalf until December when the Jones attorneys identified Ms. 
Lewinsky as a witness. Within days, after Mr. Jordan again met 
with Ms. Lewinsky, he contacted a number of people in the 
private sector who could help her find work in New York.
    Additional evidence indicates that on the day Ms. Lewinsky 
signed a false affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the 
President, Mr. Jordan contacted the President and discussed the 
affidavit. The next day, Ms. Lewinsky interviewed with 
MacAndrews & Forbes, an interview arranged with Mr. Jordan's 
assistance. And when Ms. Lewinsky told Mr. Jordan that the 
interview went poorly, Mr. Jordan contacted the chief executive 
officer of MacAndrews & Forbes. The following day, Ms. Lewinsky 
was offered the job, and Mr. Jordan contacted the White House 
with the message, mission accomplished.
    In sum, Mr. Jordan secured a job for Ms. Lewinsky with a 
phone call placed on the day after Ms. Lewinsky signed a false 
affidavit protecting the President.
    Twelve, there is substantial and credible evidence that the 
President may have testified falsely under oath in his 
deposition concerning his conversations with Vernon Jordan 
about Ms. Lewinsky.
    The record tends to establish that Mr. Jordan and the 
President discussed Ms. Lewinsky on various occasions from the 
time she was served until she fired Mr. Carter and hired Mr. 
Ginsburg. This is contrary to the President's deposition 
testimony. The President was asked in his deposition whether 
anyone besides his attorney told him that Ms. Lewinsky had been 
served. ``I don't think so,'' he responded. He then said that 
Bruce Lindsey was the first person who told him. In the grand 
jury, the President was specifically asked if Mr. Jordan 
informed him that Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena. ``No sir,'' 
he answered. Later in that testimony, when confronted with a 
specific date, the President admitted that he spoke with Mr. 
Jordan about the subpoena. Both the President and Mr. Jordan 
testified in the grand jury that Mr. Jordan informed the 
President on January 7 that Ms. Lewinsky had signed the 
affidavit. Ms. Lewinsky said she, too, informed the President 
of the subpoena.
    The President was also asked during his deposition if 
anyone reported to him within the past 2 weeks--that would have 
been 2 weeks prior to January 17th--that they had a 
conversation with Monica Lewinsky concerning the lawsuit. The 
President said ``I don't think so.'' As noted, Mr. Jordan told 
the President on January 7th that Ms. Lewinsky signed the 
affidavit. In addition, the President was asked if he had a 
conversation with Mr. Jordan where Ms. Lewinsky's name was 
mentioned. He said yes, Mr. Jordan mentioned she had asked for 
advice about moving to New York. Actually, the President had 
conversations with Mr. Jordan concerning three general 
subjects: Choosing an attorney to represent Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. 
Lewinsky's subpoena and the contents of her executed affidavit, 
and Vernon Jordan's success in procuring a New York job for Ms. 
Lewinsky.
    Thirteen, there is substantial and credible evidence that 
the President may have endeavored to obstruct justice and 
engage in witness tampering in attempting to coach and 
influence the testimony of Betty Currie before the grand jury.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    According to Ms. Currie, the President contacted her on the 
day he was deposed in the Jones case and asked her to meet him 
the following day. The next day, Ms. Currie met with the 
President, and he asked her whether she agreed with a series of 
possibly false statements, including we were never really 
alone. You could always see and hear everything, and Monica 
came on to me and I never touched her, right? Ms. Currie stated 
that the President's tone and demeanor indicated he wanted her 
to agree with those statements. According to Ms. Currie, the 
President called her into the Oval Office several days later 
and reiterated his previous statement using the same tone and 
demeanor. Ms. Currie later stated that she felt she was free to 
disagree with the President.
    The President testified concerning those statements before 
the grand jury, and he did not deny that he made them. Rather, 
the President testified that in some of the statements he was 
referring only to meetings with Ms. Lewinsky in 1997 and that 
he intended the word ``alone'' to mean the entire Oval Office.
    Fourteen, there is substantial and credible evidence that 
the President may have engaged in witness tampering by coaching 
prospective witnesses and by narrating elaborate detailed false 
accounts of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky as if those 
stories were true, intending that those witnesses believe the 
story and testify to it before a grand jury.
    John Podesta, the President's deputy chief of staff, 
testified that the President told him that he did not have sex 
with Ms. Lewinsky in any way whatsoever and that they had not 
had oral sex. Mr. Podesta repeated those statements to the 
grand jury.
    Sidney Blumenthal, an assistant to the President, said that 
the President told him more detailed stories. He testified that 
the President told him that Ms. Lewinsky, who the President 
claimed had a reputation as a stalker, came at him, made sexual 
demands at him and threatened him, but he rebuffed her.
    Mr. Blumenthal further testified that the President told 
him that he could recall placing only one call to Ms. Lewinsky. 
Mr. Blumenthal mentioned to the President that there were press 
reports that he, the President, had made telephone calls to Ms. 
Lewinsky and had left voice mail messages. The President then 
told Mr. Blumenthal that he remembered calling Ms. Lewinsky 
after Betty Currie's brother died.
    Fifteen, there is substantial and credible evidence that 
the President may have given false testimony under oath before 
the Federal grand jury concerning his knowledge of the contents 
of Monica Lewinsky's affidavit and his knowledge of remarks 
made in his presence by his counsel.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    During the deposition, the President's attorney attempted 
to thwart questions pertaining to Ms. Lewinsky by citing her 
affidavit and asserting to the court that the affidavit 
represented that ``there is absolutely no sex of any kind, 
manner, shape or form with President Clinton.'' At several 
points in his grand jury testimony, the President maintained 
that he could not be held responsible for this representation 
made by his lawyer because he was not paying attention to the 
interchange between his lawyer and the court. The videotape of 
the deposition shows the President apparently listening 
intently to the interchange; and, in addition, Mr. Clinton's 
counsel represented to the court that the President was fully 
aware of the affidavit and its contents.
    The President's own attorney asked him during the 
deposition whether Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit denying a sexual 
relationship was ``true and accurate.'' The President was 
unequivocal. He said, this is absolutely true. Ms. Lewinsky 
later said the affidavit contained false and misleading 
statements. The President explained to the grand jury that Ms. 
Lewinsky may have believed that her affidavit was true if she 
believed that ``sexual relationship'' meant intercourse. 
However, counsel did not ask the President if Ms. Lewinsky 
thought it was true; he asked the President if it was, in fact, 
a true statement. The President at that point was bound by the 
court's definition, and under his own interpretation of that 
definition, Ms. Lewinsky engaged in sexual relations. An 
affidavit denying this under the President's own interpretation 
of the definition is false.
    That, Mr. Chairman, is my report to this committee. The 
guiding object of our efforts over the past 3 weeks has been a 
search for the truth. We felt it our obligation to follow the 
facts and laws wherever they might lead, fairly and 
impartially. If this committee sees fit to proceed to the next 
level of inquiry, we will continue to do so under your 
guidance.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The statement of Mr. Schipper follows:]
 Prepared Statement of David P. Schippers, Chief Investigative Counsel
    Mr. Chairman, Mr. Conyers, members of the committee, as chief 
investigative counsel for the majority I have been called upon to 
advise the Judiciary Committee of the results of our analysis and 
review of the September 9, 1998 Referral from the Office of Independent 
Counsel, in which it concluded that there is substantial and credible 
information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts 
that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.
    In executing the task assigned to us, my staff and I have made a 
deliberate effort to discount the political aspects of our examination 
and to ignore any partisan tactics and strategy. The standard of review 
was set by me in our very first meeting following the delivery of the 
material. I reminded the staff that we are not advocates, but 
professionals asked to perform a professional, albeit distasteful duty. 
Therefore, I asked them to review the referral and supporting data in 
the light most favorable to the President.
    Throughout this effort we have been determined to avoid even the 
suggestion of preference. We view our responsibility as requiring an 
unbiased, full and expeditious review, untrammeled by any preconceived 
notions or opinions. Our approach has been solely in keeping with 
constitutional and legal standards of fairness and impartiality.
    Before moving on to the substantive areas of the report, I would 
like to address two elementary, but basic, concepts of our 
constitutional government. They will serve to put our conclusions in 
the proper perspective.
    FIRST: The President of the United States enjoys a singular and 
appropriately lofty position in our system of government. But that 
position by its very nature involves equally unique and onerous 
responsibilities, among which are included affirmative obligations that 
apply to no other citizen.
    Specifically, the Constitution of the United States imposes upon 
the President the explicit and affirmative duty to ``take Care that the 
Laws be faithfully executed . . .'' Article II, Section 3. Moreover, 
before entering upon the duties of his office, the President is 
constitutionally commanded to take the following oath:
    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the 
Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my 
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United 
States.
    The President, then, is the chief law enforcement officer of the 
United States. Although he is neither above nor below the laws, he is, 
by virtue of his office, held to a higher standard than any other 
American. Furthermore, as Chief Executive Officer and Commander in 
Chief, he is the repository of a special trust.
    SECOND: Many defendants who face legal action, whether it be civil 
or criminal, may honestly believe that the case against them is 
unwarranted and factually deficient. It is not, however, in the 
discretion of the litigant to decide that any tactics are justified to 
defeat the lawsuit in that situation. Rather, it is incumbent upon that 
individual to testify fully and truthfully during the truth seeking 
phase. It is then the function of the system of law to expose the 
frivolous cases. The litigant may not with impunity mislead, deceive or 
lie under oath in order to prevail in the lawsuit or for other personal 
gain. Any other result would be subversive of the American rule of law.
    The principle that every witness in every case must tell the truth, 
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is the foundation of the 
American system of justice which is the envy of every civilized nation. 
The sanctity of the oath taken by a witness is the most essential 
bulwark of the truth seeking function of a trial, the American method 
of ascertaining the facts. If lying under oath is tolerated and, when 
exposed, is not visited with immediate and substantial adverse 
consequences, the integrity of this country's entire judicial process 
is fatally compromised and that process will inevitably collapse. The 
subject matter of the underlying case, whether civil or criminal, and 
the circumstances under which the testimony is given are of no 
significance whatever. It is the oath itself that is sacred and must be 
enforced.
          The Independent Counsel Act (Title 18, United States Code, 
        Section 591, et seq.) provides in relevant part: An independent 
        counsel shall advise the House of Representatives of any 
        substantial and credible information . . . that may constitute 
        grounds for an impeachment.
    In compliance with the statutory mandate, the Office of Independent 
Counsel Kenneth Starr, informed the House of Representatives on 
September 9, 1998, that it was prepared to submit a referral under the 
statute. On that day, the Independent Counsel's Office delivered to the 
House the following material:
    A. A referral consisting of an Introduction, a Narrative of 
Relevant Events and an Identification and Analysis of the Substantial 
and Credible Information that may support grounds for impeachment of 
William Jefferson Clinton;
    B. An appendix in six three-ring binders totaling in excess of 2500 
pages of the most relevant testimony and other material cited in the 
Referral; and
    C. Seventeen transmittal boxes containing grand jury transcripts, 
deposition transcripts, FBI reports, reports of interviews, and 
thousand of pages of incidental back-up documents.
    Pursuant to House Resolution 525, all of this material was turned 
over to the Committee on the Judiciary to be held in Executive Session 
until September 28, 1998. At that time the House ordered that all 
materials be released to the public, except those which were withheld 
by action of the committee.
    My staff and the minority staff were instructed by the committee to 
review the referral, together with all of the other evidence and 
testimony that was submitted, for the purpose of determining whether 
there actually existed ``substantial and credible'' evidence that 
President William Jefferson Clinton may have committed acts that may 
constitute grounds to proceed to a resolution for an impeachment 
inquiry.
    Because of the narrow scope of our directive, the investigation and 
analysis was necessarily circumscribed by information delivered with 
the referral together with some information and analysis furnished by 
the counsel for the President. For that reason, we did not seek to 
procure any additional evidence or testimony from any other source. 
Particularly, we did not seek to obtain or review the material that 
remained in the possession of the OIC. In two telephone conversations 
with Mr. Bittman, Mr. Lowell and I were assured that the retained 
material was deemed unnecessary to comply with the statutory 
requirement under Section 595(c). Though Mr. Bittman offered to make 
available to both counsel all of that material, my staff and I did not 
deem it necessary or even proper to go beyond the submission itself. At 
the suggestion of the minority counsel, the retained material was 
reviewed by members of both staffs. The material was, as anticipated, 
irrelevant.
    To support the referral, the House has been furnished with grand 
jury transcripts, FBI interview memoranda, transcripts of depositions, 
other interview memoranda, statements, audio recordings, and, where 
available, video recordings of all persons named in the referral. In 
addition, the House was provided with a copy of every document cited 
and a mass of documentary and other evidence produced by witnesses, the 
White House, the President, the Secret Service and the Department of 
Defense.
    This report is confined solely to that referral and supporting 
evidence and testimony supplied to the House and then to this 
Committee, supplemented only by the information provided by the 
President's counsel. Although the original submission contained a 
transcript of the President's deposition testimony, no video tape was 
included. Pursuant to a request by Chairman Hyde, a video tape of the 
entire deposition was later provided to the Committee by the District 
Judge. Both that video and the video of the President's testimony 
before the grand jury have been thoroughly reviewed by all members of 
my staff and by me personally.
    Apart from the thorough review of President Clinton's deposition 
and grand jury testimony, the following functions were performed in 
preparation for this report:
          1. All grand jury transcripts and memoranda of interview of 
        Ms. Currie, Mr. Jordan, Ms. Lewinsky, the Secret Service 
        Agents, and Ms. Tripp were independently reviewed, compared and 
        analyzed by at least three members of the staff; and those of 
        Ms. Currie, Mr. Jordan, Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Tripp and both 
        appearances of the President by me personally.
          2. All of the remaining grand jury transcripts, deposition 
        transcripts and memoranda of the others interviewed were 
        likewise reviewed, compared and analyzed. This involved more 
        than 250 separate documents, some consisting of hundreds of 
        pages. In this regard, my staff was instructed to seek any 
        information that might cast doubt upon the legal or factual 
        conclusions of the Independent Counsel.
          3. The entire appendix, consisting of in excess of two 
        thousand pages, was systematically reviewed and analyzed 
        against the statements contained in the referral.
          4. I personally read the entire evidence reference and legal 
        reference that accompanied the referral. I analyzed the legal 
        precepts and theories, and read at least the relevant portions 
        of each case cited.
          5. In addition to other members of the staff, I personally 
        read and analyzed the eleven specific allegations made by the 
        Independent Counsel, and reviewed the evidentiary basis for 
        those allegations. Each footnote supporting the charges was 
        checked to insure that it did, in fact, support the underlying 
        evidentiary proposition. In cases where inferences were drawn 
        in the body of the referral, the validity of those inferences 
        was tested under acceptable principles of federal trial 
        practice.
          6. Each of the literally thousands of back-up documents was 
        reviewed in order to insure that no relevant evidence had been 
        overlooked.
          7. Meetings of the entire staff were conducted on virtually a 
        daily basis for the purpose of coordinating efforts and to 
        synthesize the divergent material into a coherent report.
    Having completed all of the tasks assigned to us, we are now 
prepared to report our findings to you, the members of this committee. 
We are fully aware that the purpose of this hearing is solely for the 
committee to decide whether there is sufficient credible and 
substantial evidence to proceed to an impeachment inquiry. This and 
nothing more. Of course, as Members of this Committee, you and only you 
are authorized and encouraged eventually to make your own independent 
judgment on what constitutes impeachable offenses and the standards of 
proof that might be applicable. My report, then, represents a 
distillation and consensus of the staff's efforts and conclusions for 
your guidance and consideration.
    At the outset, one point needs to be made. The witness, Monica 
Lewinsky's credibility may be subject to some skepticism. At an 
appropriate stage of the proceedings, that credibility will, of 
necessity, be assessed together with the credibility of all witnesses 
in the light of all the other evidence. Ms. Lewinsky admitted to having 
lied on occasion to Linda Tripp and to having executed and caused to be 
filed a false affidavit in the Paula Jones case.
    On the other hand, Ms. Lewinsky obtained a grant of immunity for 
her testimony before the grand jury and, therefore, had no reason to 
lie thereafter. Furthermore, the witness' account of the relevant 
events could well have been much more damaging. For the most part, 
though, the record reflects that she was an embarrassed and reluctant 
witness who actually downplayed her White House encounters. In 
testifying, Ms. Lewinsky demonstrated a remarkable memory, supported by 
her personal diary, concerning dates and events. Finally, the record 
includes ample corroboration of her testimony by independent and 
disinterested witnesses, by documentary evidence, and, in part, by the 
grand jury testimony of the President himself. Consequently, for the 
limited purpose of this report, we suggest that Monica Lewinsky's 
testimony is both substantial and credible.
    It has been the considered judgment of my staff and myself that our 
main focus should be on those alleged acts and omissions by the 
President which affect the rule of law, and the structure and integrity 
of our court system. Deplorable as the numerous sexual encounters 
related in the evidence may be, we chose to emphasize the consequences 
of those acts as they affect the administration of justice and the 
unique role the President occupies in carrying out his oath faithfully 
to execute the laws of the Nation.
    The prurient aspect of the referral is, at best, merely peripheral 
to the central issues. The assertions of presidential misconduct cited 
in the referral, though arising initially out of sexual indiscretions, 
are completely distinct and involve allegations of an ongoing series of 
deliberate and direct assaults by Mr. Clinton upon the justice system 
of the United States, and upon the judicial branch of our government, 
which holds a place in the constitutional framework of checks and 
balances equal to that of the executive and the legislative branches.
    As a result of our research and review of the referral and 
supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists 
substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly 
involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute 
felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an 
impeachment inquiry.
    I will now present the catalog of those charges, together with a 
brief statement of the evidence supporting each.
    Please understand that nothing contained in this report is intended 
to constitute an accusation against the President or anyone else; nor 
should it be construed as such. What follows is nothing more than a 
litany of the crimes that might have been committed based upon the 
substantial and credible evidence provided by the Independent Counsel, 
and reviewed, tested and analyzed by the staff.
    With that caution in mind, I will proceed:
                                   i.
    There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may 
have been part of a conspiracy with Monica Lewinsky and others to 
obstruct justice and the due administration of justice by: (A) 
providing false and misleading testimony under oath in a civil 
deposition and before the grand jury; (B) withholding evidence and 
causing evidence to be withheld and concealed; and (C) tampering with 
prospective witnesses in a civil lawsuit and before a federal grand 
jury.
    The President and Ms. Lewinsky had developed a ``cover story'' to 
conceal their activities. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, at pp. 555, 234). On 
December 6, 1997, the President learned that Ms. Lewinsky's name had 
appeared on the Jones v. Clinton witness list. (Clinton GJ, p. 84). He 
informed Ms. Lewinsky of that fact on December 17, 1997, and the two 
agreed that they would employ the same cover story in the Jones case. 
(M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123;
    M.L. 2/1/98 Proffer). The President at that time suggested that an 
affidavit might be enough to prevent Ms. Lewinsky from testifying. 
(M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123). On December 19, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky was 
subpoenaed to give a deposition in the Jones case. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 
128).
    Thereafter, the record tends to establish that the following events 
took place:
          (1) In the second week of December, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky told 
        Ms. Tripp that she would lie if called to testify and tried to 
        convince Ms. Tripp to do the same. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 127).
          (2) Ms. Lewinsky attempted on several occasions to get Ms. 
        Tripp to contact the White House before giving testimony in the 
        Jones case. (Tripp 7/16/98 GJ, p. 75; M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 71).
          (3) Ms. Lewinsky participated in preparing a false and 
        intentionally misleading affidavit to be filed in the Jones 
        case. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 200-203).
          (4) Ms. Lewinsky provided a copy of the draft affidavit to a 
        third party for approval and discussed changes calculated to 
        mislead. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 200-202).
          (5) Ms. Lewinsky and the President talked by phone on January 
        6, 1998, and agreed that she would give false and misleading 
        answers to questions about her job at the Pentagon. (M.L. 8/6/
        98 GJ, p. 197).
          (6) On January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed the false and 
        misleading affidavit. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 203). Conspirators 
        intended to use the affidavit to avoid Ms. Lewinsky's giving a 
        deposition. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123; M.L. 2/1/98 Proffer).
          (7) After Ms. Lewinsky's name surfaced, conspirators began to 
        employ code names in their contacts. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 215-
        217).
          (8) On December 28, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky and the President met 
        at the White House and discussed the subpoena she had received. 
        Ms. Lewinsky suggested that she conceal the gifts received from 
        the President. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 152).
          (9) Shortly thereafter, the President's personal secretary, 
        Betty Currie, picked up a box of the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky. 
        (Currie 5/6/98 GJ, pp. 107-108; M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 154-156).
          (10) Betty Currie hid the box of gifts under her bed at home. 
        (Currie 5/6/98 GJ, pp. 107-108; Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 57-58).
          (11) The President gave false answers to questions contained 
        in Interrogatories in the Jones case. (V2-DC-53; V2-DC-104).
          (12) On December 31, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky, at the suggestion of 
        a third party, deleted 50 draft notes to the President. (M.L. 
        8/1/98 OIC Interview, p. 13). She had already been subpoenaed 
        in the Jones case.
          (13) On January 17, 1998, the President's attorney produced 
        Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at the President's deposition 
        and the President adopted it as true.
          (14) On January 17, 1998, in his deposition, the President 
        gave false and misleading testimony under oath concerning his 
        relationship with Ms. Lewinsky about the gifts she had given 
        him and several other matters. (Clinton Dep., pp. 49-84; M.L. 
        7/27/98 OIC Interview, pp. 12-15).
          (15) The President, on January 18, 1998, and thereafter, 
        coached his personal secretary, Betty Currie, to give a false 
        and misleading account of the Lewinsky relationship if called 
        to testify. (Carrie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 71-74, 81).
          (16) The President narrated elaborate detailed false accounts 
        of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky to prospective 
        witnesses with the intention that those false accounts would be 
        repeated in testimony. (Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 71-74, 81; 
        Podesta 6/16/98 GJ, pp. 88-92; Blumenthal 6/4/98 GJ, pp. 49-51; 
        Blumenthal 6/25/98 GJ, p. 8; Bowles 4/2/98 GJ, pp. 83-84; Ickes 
        6/10/98 GJ, p. 73; Ickes 8/5/98 GJ, p. 88).
          (17) On August 17, 1998, the President gave false and 
        misleading testimony under oath to a federal grand jury on the 
        following points: his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, his 
        testimony in the January 17, 1998, deposition, his 
        conversations with various individuals and his knowledge of Ms. 
        Lewinsky's affidavit and its falsity.
    At this point, I would like to illustrate some of the details 
concerning the events immediately before and after the President's 
deposition on January 17, 1998.
    These facts appear in the record:
    On January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed the false affidavit, and it 
was furnished to Mr. Clinton's civil lawyer. The President reviewed it, 
so he knew that she had denied their relationship when the deposition 
began.
    During the questioning, however, it became more and more apparent 
to the President that Ms. Jones' attorneys possessed a lot more 
specific detail than the President anticipated.
    When the President returned to the White House, the calls began:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TIWC000.000
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TIWC001.001
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TIWC002.002
    
                                  ii.
    There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may 
have aided, abetted, counseled, and procured Monica Lewinsky to file 
and caused to be filed a false affidavit in the case of Jones v. 
Clinton, et al., in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1623 and 2.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    In a telephone conversation with Ms. Lewinsky on December 17, 1997, 
the President told her that her name was on the witness list in the 
Jones case. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p.l23). The President then suggested that 
she might submit an affidavit to avoid testimony. (Id.). Both the 
President and Ms. Lewinsky knew that the affidavit would need to be 
false in order to accomplish that result. In that conversation, the 
President also suggested ``You know, you can always say you were coming 
to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters.'' (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, 
p.l23). Ms. Lewinsky knew exactly what he meant because it was the same 
``cover story'' that they had agreed upon earlier. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, 
p.l24).
    Thereafter, Ms. Lewinsky discussed the affidavit with and furnished 
a copy to a confidant of the President for approval. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, 
pp. 200-202). Ms. Lewinsky signed the false affidavit and caused her 
attorney to provide it to the President's lawyer for use in the Jones 
case.
                                  iii.
    There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may 
have aided, abetted, counseled, and procured Monica Lewinsky in 
obstruction of justice when she executed and caused to be filed a false 
affidavit in the case of Jones v. Clinton, et al., with knowledge of 
the pending proceedings and with the intent to influence, obstruct or 
impede that proceeding in the due administration of justice, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503 and 2.
    The record tends to establish that the President not only aided and 
abetted Monica Lewinsky in preparing, signing and causing to be filed a 
false affidavit, he also aided and abetted her in using that false 
affidavit to obstruct justice.
    Both Ms. Lewinsky and the President knew that her false affidavit 
would be used to mislead the Plaintiff's attorneys and the court. 
Specifically, they intended that the affidavit would be sufficient to 
avoid Ms. Lewinsky being required to give a deposition in the Jones 
case. Moreover, the natural and probable effect of the false statement 
was interference with the due administration of justice. If the court 
and the Jones attorneys were convinced by the affidavit, there would be 
no deposition of Ms. Lewinsky, and the Plaintiff's attorneys would be 
denied the ability to learn about material facts and to decide whether 
to introduce evidence of those facts.
    Mr. Clinton caused his attorney to employ the knowingly false 
affidavit not only to avoid Ms. Lewinsky's deposition, but to preclude 
the attorneys from interrogating the President about the same subject. 
(Clinton Dep., p. 54).
                                  iv.
    There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may 
have engaged in misprision of Monica Lewinsky's felonies of submitting 
a false affidavit and of obstructing the due administration of justice 
both by taking affirmative steps to conceal those felonies, and by 
failing to disclose the felonies though under a constitutional and 
statutory duty to do so, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 4.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    Monica Lewinsky admitted to the commission of two felonies: Signing 
a false affidavit under oath (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 204-205) and 
endeavoring to obstruct justice by using the false affidavit to mislead 
the court and the lawyers in the Jones case so that she would not be 
deposed and be required to give evidence concerning her activities with 
the President. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123; M.L. 2/1/98 Proffer). In 
addition, the President was fully aware that those felonies had been 
committed when he gave his deposition testimony on January 17, 1998. 
(Clinton Dep., p.54).
    Nonetheless, Mr. Clinton took affirmative steps to conceal these 
felonies, including allowing his attorney, in his presence, to use the 
affidavit and to suggest that it was true. (Clinton Dep., p. 54). More 
importantly, the President himself, while being questioned by his own 
counsel referring to one of the clearly false paragraphs in Ms. 
Lewinsky's affidavit, stated, ``That is absolutely true.'' (Clinton 
Dep., p. 203).
    More importantly, the President is the chief law enforcement 
officer of the United States. He is under a constitutional duty to take 
care that the laws be faithfully executed. When confronted with direct 
knowledge of the commission of a felony, he is required by his office, 
as is every other law enforcement officer, agent or attorney, to bring 
to the attention of the appropriate authorities the fact of the felony 
and the identity of the perpetrator. If he did not do so, the President 
could be guilty of misprision of felony.
                                   v.
    There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may 
have testified falsely under oath in his deposition in Jones v. 
Clinton, et al. on January 17, 1998 regarding his relationship with 
Monica Lewinsky, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    There are three instances where credible evidence exists that the 
President may have testified falsely about this relationship:
    (1) When he denied a ``sexual relationship'' in sworn Answers to 
Interrogatories (V2-DC-53 and V2-DC-104);
    (2) When he denied having an ``extramarital sexual affair'' in his 
deposition (Clinton Dep., p. 78); and
    (3) When he denied having ``sexual relations'' or ``an affair'' 
with Monica Lewinsky in his deposition. (Clinton Dep., p. 78).
    When the President denied a sexual relationship he was not bound by 
the definition the court had provided. There is substantial evidence 
obtained from Ms. Lewinsky, the President's grand jury testimony, and 
DNA test results that Ms. Lewinsky performed sexual acts with the 
President on numerous occasions. Those terms, given their common 
meaning, could reasonably be construed to include oral sex. The 
President also denied having sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky 
(Clinton Dep., p. 78), as the court defined the term. (Clinton Dep., 
Ex. 1). In the context of the lawsuit and the wording of that 
definition, there is substantial evidence that the President's 
explanation given to the grand jury is an afterthought and is 
unreasonably narrow under the circumstances. Consequently, there is 
substantial evidence that the President's denial under oath in his 
deposition of a ``sexual relationship'', a ``sexual affair'' or 
``sexual relations'' with Ms. Lewinsky was not true.
                                  vi.
    There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may 
have given false testimony under oath before the federal grand jury on 
August 17, 1998, concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    During his grand jury testimony, the President admitted only to 
``inappropriate intimate contact'' with Monica Lewinsky. (Clinton GJ, 
p. 10). He did not admit to any specific acts. He categorically denied 
ever touching Ms. Lewinsky on the breasts or genitalia for the purpose 
of giving her sexual gratification. There is, however, substantial 
contradictory evidence from Ms. Lewinsky. She testified at length and 
with specificity that the President kissed and fondled her breasts on 
numerous occasions during their encounters, and at times there was also 
direct genital contact. (M.L. 8/26/98 Dep., pp. 30-38, 50-53). 
Moreover, her testimony is corroborated by several of her friends. 
(Davis 3/17/98 GJ, p. 20; Erbland 2/12/98 GJ, p. 29, 45; Ungvari 3/19/
98 GJ, pp. 23-24; Bleiler 1/28/98 OIC Interview, p. 3).
    The President described himself as a non-reciprocating recipient of 
Ms. Lewinsky's services. (Clinton GJ, p. 151). Therefore, he suggested 
that he did not engage in ``sexual relations'' within the definition 
given him at the Jones case deposition. (Id). He also testified that 
his interpretation of the word ``cause'' in the definition meant the 
use of force or contact with the intent to arouse or gratify. (Clinton 
GJ., pp. 17-18). The inference drawn by the Independent Counsel that 
the President's explanation was merely an afterthought, calculated to 
explain away testimony that had been proved false by Ms. Lewinsky's 
evidence, appears credible under the circumstances.
                                  vii.
    There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may 
have given false testimony under oath in his deposition given in Jones 
v. Clinton, et al. on January 17, 1998 regarding his statement that he 
could not recall being alone with Monica Lewinsky and regarding his 
minimizing the number of gifts that they had exchanged in violation of 
18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    President Clinton testified at his deposition that he had ``no 
specific recollection'' of being alone with Ms. Lewinsky in any room at 
the White House. (Clinton Dep., p. 59). There is ample evidence from 
other sources to the contrary. They include: Betty Currie (1/27/98 GJ, 
pp. 32-33; 5/6/98 GJ, p. 98; 7/22/98 GJ, pp. 25-26); Monica Lewinsky 
(M.L. 2/1/98 Proffer; M.L. 8/26/98 GJ); several Secret Service Agents 
and White House logs. Moreover, the President testified in the grand 
jury that he was ``alone'' with Ms. Lewinsky in 1996 and 1997 and that 
he had a ``specific recollection'' of certain instances when he was 
alone with her. (Clinton GJ, pp. 30-32). He admitted to the grand jury 
that he was alone with her on December 28, 1997, only three weeks prior 
to his deposition testimony. (Clinton GJ, p. 34).
    The President was also asked at this deposition whether he had ever 
given gifts to Ms. Lewinsky. He responded, ``I don't recall.'' He then 
asked the Jones attorney if he knew what they were. After the attorney 
named specific gifts, the President finally remembered giving Ms. 
Lewinsky something from the Black Dog. (Clinton Dep., p. 75). That 
testimony was given less than three weeks after Ms. Currie had picked 
up a box of the President's gifts and hid them under her bed. (Currie 
1/27/98 GJ, pp. 57-58; Currie 5/6/98 GJ, pp. 107-108).
    In his grand jury testimony nearly seven months later, he admitted 
giving Ms. Lewinsky Christmas gifts on December 28, 1997, (Clinton GJ, 
p. 33) and ``on other occasions.'' (Clinton GJ, p. 36). When confronted 
with his lack of memory at his deposition, the President responded that 
his statement ``I don't recall'' referred to the identity of specific 
gifts, not whether or not he actually gave her gifts. (Clinton GJ, p. 
52).
    The President also testified at his deposition that Ms. Lewinsky 
gave him gifts ``once or twice.'' (Clinton Dep., pp. 76-77). Ms. 
Lewinsky says that she gave a substantial number of gifts to the 
President. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 27-28, Ex. M.L.-7). This is 
corroborated by gifts turned over by Ms. Lewinsky to the Independent 
Counsel and by a letter to the Independent Counsel from the President's 
attorney. Thus, there is substantial and credible evidence that the 
President may have testified falsely about being alone with Monica 
Lewinsky and the gifts he gave to her.
                                 viii.
    There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may 
have testified falsely under oath in his deposition given in Jones v. 
Clinton on January 17, 1998, concerning conversations with Monica 
Lewinsky about her involvement in the Jones case, in violation of 18 
U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.
    The record tends to reflect the following:
    The President was asked at his deposition if he ever talked to Ms. 
Lewinsky about the possibility that she would testify in the Jones 
case. He answered, ``I'm not sure.'' He then related a conversation 
with Ms. Lewinsky where he joked about how the Jones attorneys would 
probably subpoena every female witness with whom he has ever spoken. 
(Clinton Dep., p. 70). He was also asked whether Ms. Lewinsky told him 
that she had been subpoenaed. The answer was, ``No, I don't know if she 
had been.'' (Clinton Dep., p. 68).
    There is substantial evidence--much from the President's own grand 
jury testimony--that those statements are false. The President 
testified before the grand jury that he spoke with Ms. Lewinsky at the 
White House on December 28, 1997, about the ``prospect that she might 
have to give testimony.'' (Clinton GJ, p. 33). He also later testified 
that Vernon Jordan told him on December 19, 1997, that Ms. Lewinsky had 
been subpoenaed. (Clinton GJ, p. 42). Mr. Jordan also recalled telling 
the same thing to the President twice on December 19, 1997, once over 
the telephone and once in person. (Jordan 5/5/98 GJ, p. 145; Jordan 3/
3/98 GJ, pp. 167-170). Despite his deposition testimony, the President 
admitted that he knew Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed when he met her 
on December 28, 1997. (Clinton GJ, p. 36). There is substantial and 
credible evidence that his statement that he was ``not sure'' if he 
spoke with Ms. Lewinsky about her testimony is false.
                                  ix.
    There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may 
have endeavored to obstruct justice by engaging in a pattern of 
activity calculated to conceal evidence from the judicial proceedings 
in Jones v. Clinton, et al., regarding his relationship with Monica 
Lewinsky, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503.
    The record tends to establish that on Sunday, December 28, 1997, 
the President gave Ms. Lewinsky Christmas gifts in the Oval Office 
during a visit arranged by Ms. Currie. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 149-150). 
According to Ms. Lewinsky, when she suggested that the gifts he had 
given her should be concealed because they were the subject of a 
subpoena, the President stated, ``I don't know'' or ``Let me think 
about that.'' (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 152).
    Ms. Lewinsky testified that Ms. Currie contacted her at home 
several hours later and stated, ``I understand you have something to 
give me'' or ``the President said you have something to give me.'' 
(M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 154-155). Later that same day, Ms. Currie picked 
up a box of gifts from Ms. Lewinsky's home. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 156-
158; Currie 5/6/98 GJ, pp. 107-108).
    The evidence indicates that the President may have instructed Ms. 
Currie to conceal evidence. The President has denied giving that 
instruction, and he contended under oath that he advised Ms. Lewinsky 
to provide all of the gifts to the Jones attorneys pursuant to the 
subpoena. (Clinton GJ, pp. 44-45). In contrast, Ms. Lewinsky testified 
that the President never challenged her suggestion that the gifts 
should be concealed. (M.L. 8/26/98 Dep., pp. 58-59).
                                   x.
    There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may 
have endeavored to obstruct justice in the case of Jones v. Clinton, et 
al., by agreeing with Monica Lewinsky on a cover story about their 
relationship, by causing a false affidavit to be filed by Ms. Lewinsky 
and by giving false and misleading testimony in the deposition given on 
January 17, 1998, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503.
    The record tends to establish that the President and Ms. Lewinsky 
agreed on false explanations for her private visits to the Oval Office. 
Ms. Lewinsky testified that when the President contacted her and told 
her that she was on the Jones witness list, he advised her that she 
could always repeat these cover stories, and he suggested that she file 
an affidavit. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 123). After this conversation, Ms. 
Lewinsky filed a false affidavit. The President learned of Ms. 
Lewinsky's affidavit prior to his deposition in the Jones case. (Jordan 
5/5/98 GJ, p. 24-25).
    Subsequently, during his deposition, the President stated that he 
never had a sexual relationship or affair with Ms. Lewinsky. He further 
stated that the paragraph in Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit denying a sexual 
relationship with the President was ``absolutely true,'' even though 
his attorney had argued that the affidavit covered ``sex of any kind in 
any manner, shape or form.'' (Clinton Dep., pp. 54, 104).
                                  xi.
    There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may 
have endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Monica Lewinsky to 
obtain a job in New York City at a time when she would have given 
evidence adverse to Mr. Clinton if she told the truth in the case of 
Jones v. Clinton, et al., in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503 and 1512.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    In October, 1997, the President and Ms. Lewinsky discussed the 
possibility of Vernon Jordan assisting Ms. Lewinsky in finding a job in 
New York. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 103-104). On November 5, 1997, Mr. 
Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky discussed employment possibilities, and Mr. 
Jordan told her that she came ``highly recommended.'' (M.L. 7/31/98 
Int., p. 15; e-mail from Lewinsky to Catherine Davis, 11/6/97).
    However, no significant action was taken on Ms. Lewinsky's behalf 
until December, when the Jones attorneys identified Ms. Lewinsky as a 
witness. Within days, after Mr. Jordan again met with Ms. Lewinsky, he 
contacted a number of people in the private sector who could help Ms. 
Lewinsky find work in New York. (Jordan 3/3/98 GJ, pp. 48-49).
    Additional evidence indicates that on the day Ms. Lewinsky signed a 
false affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the President, Mr. 
Jordan contacted the President and discussed the affidavit. (Jordan 5/
5/98 GJ, pp. 223-225). The next day, Ms. Lewinsky interviewed with 
MacAndrews & Forbes, an interview arranged with Mr. Jordan's 
assistance. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 205-206). When Ms. Lewinsky told Mr. 
Jordan that the interview went poorly, Mr. Jordan contacted the CEO of 
MacAndrews & Forbes. (Perelman 4/23/98 Dep., p. 10; Telephone Calls, 
Table 37, Call 6). The following day, Ms. Lewinsky was offered the job, 
and Mr. Jordan contacted the White House with the message ``mission 
accomplished.'' (Jordan 5/28/98 GJ, p. 39).
    In sum, Mr. Jordan secured a job for Ms. Lewinsky with a phone call 
placed on the day after Ms. Lewinsky signed a false affidavit 
protecting the President. Evidence indicates that this timing was not 
coincidental.
                                  xii.
    There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may 
have testified falsely under oath in his deposition given in Jones v. 
Clinton, et al. on January 17, 1998, concerning his conversations with 
Vernon Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 
1623.
    The record tends to establish that Mr. Jordan and the President 
discussed Ms. Lewinsky on various occasions from the time she was 
served until she fired Mr. Carter and hired Mr. Ginsburg. This is 
contrary to the President's deposition testimony. The President was 
asked in his deposition whether anyone besides his attorney told him 
that Ms. Lewinsky had been served. ``I don't think so,'' he responded. 
He then said that Bruce Lindsey was the first person who told him. 
(Clinton Dep., pp. 68-69). In the grand jury, the President was 
specifically asked if Mr. Jordan informed him that Ms. Lewinsky was 
under subpoena. ``No sir,'' he answered. (Clinton GJ, p. 40). Later in 
that testimony, when confronted with a specific date (the evening of 
December 19, 1997), the President admitted that he spoke with Mr. 
Jordan about the subpoena. (Clinton GJ, p. 42; Jordan 5/5/98 GJ, p. 
145; Jordan 3/3/98 GJ, pp. 167-170). Both the President and Mr. Jordan 
testified in the grand jury that Mr. Jordan informed the President on 
January 7 that Ms. Lewinsky had signed the affidavit. (Clinton GJ, p. 
74; Jordan 5/5/98 GJ, 222-228). Ms. Lewinsky said she too informed the 
President of the subpoena. (M.L. 8/20/98 GJ, p. 66).
    The President was also asked during his deposition if anyone 
reported to him within the past two weeks (from January 17, 1998) that 
they had a conversation with Monica Lewinsky concerning the lawsuit. 
The President said, ``I don't think so.'' (Clinton Dep., p. 72). As 
noted, Mr. Jordan told the President on January 7, 1998, that Ms. 
Lewinsky signed the affidavit. (Jordan 5/5/98 GJ, pp. 222-228). In 
addition, the President was asked if he had a conversation with Mr. 
Jordan where Ms. Lewinsky's name was mentioned. He said yes, that Mr. 
Jordan mentioned that she asked for advice about moving to New York. 
Actually, the President had conversations with Mr. Jordan concerning 
three general subjects: Choosing an attorney to represent Ms. Lewinsky 
after she had been subpoenaed (Jordan 5/28/98 GJ, p. 4); Ms. Lewinsky's 
subpoena and the contents of her executed affidavit (Jordan 5/5/98 GJ, 
pp. 142-145; Jordan 3/3/98 GJ, pp. 167-172; Jordan 3/5/98 GJ, pp. 24-
25, 223, 225); and Vernon Jordan's success in procuring a New York job 
for Ms. Lewinsky. (Jordan 5/28/98 GJ, p. 39).
                                 xiii.
    There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may 
have endeavored to obstruct justice and engage in witness tampering in 
attempting to coach and influence the testimony of Betty Currie before 
the grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    According to Ms. Currie, the President contacted her on the day he 
was deposed in the Jones case and asked her to meet him the following 
day. (Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 65-66). The next day, Ms. Currie met with 
the President, and he asked her whether she agreed with a series of 
possibly false statements, including, ``We were never really alone,'' 
``You could always see and hear everything,'' and ``Monica came on to 
me and I never touched her, right?'' (Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 71-74). 
Ms. Currie stated that the President's tone and demeanor indicated that 
he wanted her to agree with these statements. (Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 
73-74). According to Ms. Currie, the President called her into the Oval 
Office several days later and reiterated his previous statements using 
the same tone and demeanor. (Currie 1/27/98 GJ, p. 81). Ms. Currie 
later stated that she felt she was free to disagree with the President. 
(Currie 7/22/98 GJ, p.23).
    The President testified concerning those statements before the 
grand jury, and he did not deny that he made them. (Clinton 8/17/98 GJ, 
pp. 133-139). Rather, the President testified that in some of the 
statements he was referring only to meetings with Ms. Lewinsky in 1997, 
and that he intended the word ``alone'' to mean the entire Oval Office 
complex. (Clinton 8/17/98 GJ, pp. 133-139).
                                  xiv.
    There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may 
have engaged in witness tampering by coaching prospective witnesses and 
by narrating elaborate detailed false accounts of his relationship with 
Ms. Lewinsky as if those stories were true, intending that the 
witnesses believe the story and testify to it before a grand jury, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    John Podesta, the President's deputy chief of staff, testified that 
the President told him that he did not have sex with Ms. Lewinsky ``in 
any way whatsoever'' and ``that they had not had oral sex.'' (Podesta 
6/16/98 GJ, p. 92). Mr. Podesta repeated these statements to the grand 
jury. (Podesta 6/23/98 GJ, p. 80).
    Sidney Blumenthal, an assistant to the President, said that the 
President told him more detailed stories. He testified that the 
President told him that Ms. Lewinsky, who the President claimed had a 
reputation as a stalker, came at him, made sexual demands of him, and 
threatened him, but he rebuffed her. (Blumenthal 6/4/98 GJ, pp. 46-51). 
Mr. Blumenthal further testified that the President told him that he 
could recall placing only one call to Ms. Lewinsky. (Blumenthal 6/25/98 
GJ, p. 27). Mr. Blumenthal mentioned to the President that there were 
press reports that he, the President, had made telephone calls to Ms. 
Lewinsky, and also left voice mail messages. The President then told 
Mr. Blumenthal that he remembered calling Ms. Lewinsky after Betty 
Currie's brother died. (Blumenthal 6/4/98 GJ, p. 50).
                                  xv.
    There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may 
have given false testimony under oath before the Federal grand jury on 
August 17, 1998, concerning his knowledge of the contents of Monica 
Lewinsky's affidavit and his knowledge of remarks made in his presence 
by his counsel in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.
    The record tends to establish the following:
    During the deposition, the President's attorney attempted to thwart 
questions pertaining to Ms. Lewinsky by citing her affidavit and 
asserting to the court that the affidavit represents that there ``is 
absolutely no sex of any kind, manner, shape or form, with President 
Clinton.'' (Clinton Dep., p. 54). At several points in his grand jury 
testimony, the President maintained that he cannot be held responsible 
for this representation made by his lawyer because he was not paying 
attention to the interchange between his lawyer and the court. (Clinton 
GJ, pp. 25-26, 30, 59). The videotape of the deposition shows the 
President apparently listening intently to the interchange. In 
addition, Mr. Clinton's counsel represented to the court that the 
President was fully aware of the affidavit and its contents. (Clinton 
Dep., p. 54).
    The President's own attorney asked him during the deposition 
whether Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit denying a sexual relationship was 
``true and accurate.'' The President was unequivocal; he said, ``This 
is absolutely true.'' (Clinton Dep., p. 204). Ms. Lewinsky later said 
the affidavit contained false and misleading statements. (M.L. 8/6/98 
GJ, pp. 204-205). The President explained to the grand jury that Ms. 
Lewinsky may have believed that her affidavit was true if she believed 
``sexual relationship'' meant intercourse. (Clinton GJ, pp. 22-23). 
However, counsel did not ask the President if Ms. Lewinsky thought it 
was true; he asked the President if it was, in fact, a true statement. 
The President was bound by the court's definition at that point, and 
under his own interpretation of that definition, Ms. Lewinsky engaged 
in sexual relations. An affidavit denying this, by the President's own 
interpretation of the definition, is false.
    That is my report to this Committee. The guiding object of our 
efforts over the past three weeks has been to search for the truth. We 
felt it our obligation to follow the facts and the law wherever they 
might lead, fairly and impartially. If this committee sees fit to 
proceed to the next level of inquiry, we will continue to do so under 
your guidance.

    Mr. Hyde. Thank you, Mr. Schippers. You finished on time. 
That is especially commendable.
    Mr. Lowell, you have an hour.
    The Chair, in response to some questions and complaints by 
the Democrats, and I must say I find them with some substance 
to them, object to Mr. Schippers' remarks as a citizen. He was 
here testifying as special counsel to the majority and not as a 
citizen. So those remarks he made at the end which do not refer 
to the record, to refer to the Starr referral, will be stricken 
from the record. That will be the order of the Chair.
    Mr. Lowell, any time you are ready.

     STATEMENT OF ABBE LOWELL, CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE COUNSEL

    Mr. Lowell. I am ready.
    Chairman Hyde, Ranking Member Conyers, members of the 
committee, on behalf of the full minority staff, I appreciate 
the opportunity to address this committee and to present what 
are the very different approaches and different analyses 
between us and the majority staff.
    In the time that I have, I will set out the enormous 
differences in approach between the majority staff's and the 
minority staff's analysis. I will point to some of the problems 
caused by the committee's not having begun this process with a 
discussion of the constitutional standard of impeachment. I 
will bring the committee's attention to why the huge gaps 
between the charges in the referral and now as proposed by 
majority counsel and the actual evidence support the type of 
fair, focused and expeditious review being proposed by the 
Democratic members, and we will recommend that part of the 
committee's work should include evaluating the weight and the 
credibility of the evidence because of the conduct of the 
Independent Counsel.
    To begin with, we differ from our staff colleagues as we do 
not believe that this committee or the House of Representatives 
is supposed to be an extension of the Office of the Independent 
Counsel. In the majority counsel's presentation, I am sure the 
committee has heard that in just the two weeks there has been 
to actually review the evidence, majority counsel has now 
walked away from two of the grounds submitted by the 
Independent Counsel and has rewritten or added four others by 
simply subdividing the charges.
    As the committee considers my and my counterpart's 
summaries of the evidence and what type of inquiry is needed, 
we offer this observation: The evidence that Congress has 
received from the Independent Counsel on the Lewinsky matter 
alone comes after he spent 9 months with a large staff of 
trained investigators and prosecutors and $4 million. It is a 
one-sided presentation by a prosecutor. The Independent 
Counsel's evidence includes 22 interviews or grand jury 
appearances by Monica Lewinsky, 9 by Betty Currie, 5 by Vernon 
Jordan and 20 by Linda Tripp.
    If, after this much time by this many experienced attorneys 
spending this much money and conducting these many interviews, 
the evidence he sent does not support the charges he makes, how 
does renaming or relisting or further subdividing the grounds 
using that same evidence, as majority counsel has just done, 
make the case any stronger or the issues any clearer?
    We also seem to differ because we see the committee's 
constitutional and historic task quite differently from the 
type of listing of laws and statutes that the Independent 
Counsel's referral contains and as majority counsel has just 
done. The determinations of whether to begin an impeachment 
inquiry and what type of inquiry to conduct are vastly 
different than the determination of whether there is evidence 
of a violation of law or statute; in other words, the 
Independent Counsel's referral and the majority counsel's 
presentation suggest that there is some kind of equal sign 
between a violation by a President of any number of laws in the 
statute books on the one side and the impeachment provisions of 
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution on the other. We read 
the precedents differently and see that initiating an 
impeachment process for only the third time in American history 
takes a far higher threshold than simply making a laundry list 
of laws a President may have violated. As Mr. Berman said this 
morning, not all offenses are high crimes and misdemeanors and 
not all high crimes and misdemeanors come from criminal 
conduct.
    In our review of the evidence contained in the 18 boxes, 
which includes every piece of evidence that our majority 
counsel has just detailed, we have been particularly guided by 
the gravity impressed on us by our own staff predecessors 24 
years ago when they wrote:
    ``Because impeachment of the President is a grave step for 
the Nation, it is to be predicated upon conduct seriously 
incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles 
of government or the proper performance of constitutional 
duties of the presidential office.''
    Unlike some, we have also kept one central point in mind: 
We have reviewed the referral as it was sent, not as a set of 
theoretical questions about what is or is not an impeachable 
offense in a vacuum, but a specific set of eleven grounds tied 
closely with the facts as the Independent Counsel has presented 
them.
    And even though majority counsel has just attempted to add 
additional grounds or to rename others, they too will fit into 
the few categories for the committee that I will propose in a 
few minutes.
    As to the referral itself, we have seen or heard the media 
ask members the largely rhetorical question: ``Are you saying 
that lying under oath or obstruction of justice is not an 
impeachable offense?''
    This may be the basis for excellent classroom debate, but 
it begs the issue in the actual Starr referral. The question 
the committee will be called upon to answer is whether the 
allegations of lying under oath, obstruction and tampering or 
even as majority counsel renames them as misprision of a crime, 
false statements, or even conspiracy, tied to the specific 
facts alleged in the referral and the evidence constitute 
grounds for proceeding, because wrenching the individual words 
``perjury,'' ``false statements,'' ``obstruction,'' or 
``tampering'' from their factual context is not consistent with 
the historical precedents concerning the constitutional 
framework for an impeachment proceeding.
    And, another defining difference between us and the 
majority staff is that we agree with our Democratic members who 
have stated so articulately that the process thus far is 
backwards. The committee is considering whether to open what 
type of actual impeachment inquiry without having spent a 
single minute discussing what conduct by a President rises to 
an impeachable offense.
    This, members of the committee, is the equivalent of a 
ship's captain leaving on a difficult and uncharted voyage, 
hoping to find his or her compass somewhere along the way.
    Moreover, the entire process has now been started by a 
referral from an Independent Counsel who states his role ``is 
not to determine whether the President's actions warrant 
impeachment,'' but then proceeds to usurp the constitutional 
role of the House by including eleven reasons why it should do 
just that.
    In this regard, the committee should compare the 
proceedings today and those 24 years ago; then Special 
Prosecutor Leon Jaworski wrote what has been called a ``road 
map'' of evidence that was neither accusatory nor conclusory; 
today, the Independent Counsel has written 445 pages of 
conclusions that read like an indictment. One more important 
difference to consider is that ``road map'' written by Mr. 
Jaworski remains secret to this very day. Mr. Starr's referral 
and nearly 7,000 pages of evidence can be dialed up on the 
Internet.
    Were the committee to proceed as the Democratic members 
have been urging, to develop a shared understanding of what 
constitutes an impeachable offense, the committee might save 
time and resources because at the end of that consideration, 
the committee might find that none of the alleged violations, 
no matter how they were originally named by the Independent 
Counsel or renamed by majority counsel, and all of which are 
based on the President's private relationship with Monica 
Lewinsky, would rise to the constitutional threshold.
    Without having what will be the committee's deliberations 
on this important issue, the staff simply kept in mind the 
broadest and the least forgiving definition of the 
constitutional requirement of ``high crimes and misdemeanors,'' 
and when we did that, this is what we saw.
    From the beginning, the framers said that they had to 
involve ``great and dangerous offenses to subvert the 
Constitution,'' the quote from George Mason.
    Or that, as Alexander Hamilton stated, they require there 
to be ``injuries done immediately to the society itself.''
    Or, as Republican Ranking Member Edward Hutchinson said, 
when reviewing the conduct of President Nixon, the offenses had 
to be ``high in the sense that they were crimes directed 
against or having great impact upon the system of government 
itself.''
    And even as the majority staff chooses to rewrite the Starr 
referral, they, as we, had a ready reference point which they 
have apparently rejected.
    One of the lesser known offenses alleged against President 
Nixon outside of the Watergate cover-up was that he had 
purposely and knowingly engaged in tax evasion, including 
allegations that there was backdating of documents and a false 
filing under oath to the IRS.
    With the Democrats in the majority and the Republicans in 
the minority judging a Republican President, the Committee 
voted 26 to 12 that these acts by the President, while perhaps 
constituting offenses, even criminal offenses, even felonies, 
were not grounds for impeachment. The Democratic alternative, 
which tries to put the cart of establishing standards back 
behind the horse of evaluating evidence understands this basic 
question: If President Nixon's alleged lies to the IRS about 
his taxes were not grounds for impeachment in 1974, how then 
are alleged lies about President Clinton's private sexual 
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky grounds in 1998?
    The Independent Counsel's referral is composed of 11 
separate charges. majority counsel has already seen fit to 
reject 1 or 2 of these and he has renamed 5 or 6 others. But it 
is not the number of counts or grounds that matter, it is the 
underlying conduct. In our law, there is a prosecutor's 
strategy, which courts routinely disapprove, by which they 
divide what they believe to be a single offense into many 
different charges. They do this to make a case look more 
serious or foreboding.
    This is very much what the Independent Counsel has done and 
now what majority counsel has adopted as his approach. The 
Independent Counsel can take the same conduct by the President 
and, with all the laws that exist on the books, call them 1 
offense, 10 offenses or 100 offenses. That is what prosecutors 
do.
    But no matter how many different grounds were sent by the 
Independent Counsel and no matter how majority Counsel may 
further divide them up or rename them in order to pile on 
additional charges, they fit into three distinct claims: first, 
that the President lied under oath about the nature of a sexual 
relationship with Monica Lewinsky; second, that he committed 
obstruction when he sought others to help him conceal that 
inappropriate relationship; and third, that he abused the 
Office of the Presidency by taking steps to hide that 
relationship.
    So no matter how majority staff may hope to strengthen 
their recommendation by finding new offenses to tag on, one 
basic allegation, that is, that the President was engaged in an 
improper relationship which he did not want disclosed, it is 
the core charge that Mr. Starr and the majority staff suggest 
triggers this constitutional crisis.
    Some reasons that are offered to support an open-ended 
inquiry are that the evidence is dense, the evidence supports 
the charges, and that those charges are serious. The minority 
staff's review suggests that the committee's inquiry can be as 
expeditious as the Democrats propose because most of the 
evidence has already been obtained, and that evidence usually 
does not support the allegations that have been made.
    Time does not permit me to point out how each and every 
allegation of an offense stated by the Independent Counsel or 
now relabeled by majority Counsel is not as they contend it to 
be. And, in the interest of time, I have but will not read out 
loud the citations to pages in the actual evidence. But I can 
take the most serious of the charges to demonstrate the serious 
gap between allegations and proof.
    First, as to the allegations that the President lied under 
oath, whether you call them ``lying'' or ``perjury'' or ``false 
statements'' or whatever, half the alleged grounds in the 
Independent Counsel's referral and now seven of the grounds 
renamed by the majority staff are that the President lied about 
his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. It is not the actual lie 
about the relationship that rises to an impeachable offense; I 
suppose the Independent Counsel agrees that people lie about 
their improper relationships, but it is the fact that the lies 
occurred during a civil lawsuit or before the Independent 
Counsel's own grand jury that, according to the charges, 
constitutes the offense.
    Majority staff's approach, taking up where Ken Starr left 
off, would have the committee continue to delve into even more 
details concerning the physical relationship between the 
President and Ms. Lewinsky so that, I suppose, the committee 
could determine who is telling the truth about who touched who, 
where and when; however, this unseemly process does not have to 
occur.
    The better approach would be to take the Independent 
Counsel at its charge. If it was the fact that the President 
lied at his Paula Jones deposition that creates the possibly 
impeachable offense, then the inquiry required would be to 
determine the importance or impact of that statement in that 
specific case.
    And this is what the evidence shows: These were 
misstatements about a consensual relationship made during a 
case alleging nonconsensual harassment. When Judge Webber 
Wright of Arkansas ruled on January 29, 1998 that the evidence 
about Ms. Lewinsky was ``not essential to the core issues of 
the case'' and when she then ruled on April 1 that no matter 
what the President did with any other woman, Ms. Jones herself 
had not proven that she had been harmed by what she alleged, 
the judge was giving this committee the ability to determine 
that the President's statements, whether truthful or not, were 
not of the legal importance suggested by Mr. Starr, let alone 
the grave constitutional significance to support impeachment. 
And a prolonged inquiry is not required to see that proper 
context.
    Furthermore, the referral is quick to conclude that the 
President committed a serious offense by his interpretation of 
what did and did not constitute ``sexual relations,'' in a 
definition invented for a deposition that is the type of 
gobbledygook that gives lawyers our bad name. But the committee 
will never read in the 445-page referral what the full evidence 
shows, that this definition just happened to be shared by Ms. 
Lewinsky herself. In the transcript of her taped October 3, 
1997 conversation with Linda Tripp, Ms. Lewinsky says that she 
was not having sex with the President because they were not 
engaged in intercourse. And even a Paula Jones former 
attorney--after all, it was Paula Jones' attorneys who created 
that strained definition--agreed in a television interview that 
the definition would not necessarily include oral sex.
    Members of the committee, no one has suggested that the 
President's answers, even given his explanation that he was 
``trying to be truthful but not particularly helpful'' in what 
he thought was a lawsuit being run by his political enemies, 
was not misleading, was not evasive, was not technical. But 
seen in their entire context of the evidence, they do not have 
the constitutional impact that the Independent Counsel and 
majority counsel have just suggested.
    Some have raised the impeachment of judges, including Judge 
Nixon, when they have been convicted for perjury, as a 
precedent for this committee; but members of this committee 
especially know that the lies in those cases had to do with the 
discharge of those judges' duties and that the standards for 
impeaching judges appointed for life are not the same as for 
reversing presidential elections.
    And in this case, these were statements, the evidence shows 
the intent of which was to prevent the disclosure of an 
improper consensual relationship, not to interfere with 
allegations made by Paula Jones that she had been the subject 
of unwanted harassment. To put the evidence another way: Is 
there anyone involved in such an improper relationship who ever 
wanted it disclosed, and does anyone believe that the President 
would have revealed his improper relationship with Ms. Lewinsky 
had the Paula Jones case not been pending at the time?
    Since the answers to these questions are obvious, the 
inquiry is not on whether his statements were or were not 
truthful, but what were their context, what were their impact 
and what were their subject matter? This, too, the committee 
can resolve expeditiously.
    As the committee considers the charges that the President 
lied under oath, or however they may now be renamed by the 
majority staff, remember that one example of why the 
Independent Counsel would have Congress trigger this inquiry is 
that the President stated his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky 
started in 1996, when the Independent Counsel contends it 
started in late 1995. For the difference of these few months, a 
constitutional crisis is not warranted.
    Turning to the obstruction allegations, because of its 
reminiscence to the Watergate proceeding, the phrase 
``obstruction of justice'' is one which many have stated is the 
most egregious ground alleged in the Starr referral and why it 
was so emphasized by majority counsel who now splits the four 
contained in the Starr referral, counts 5, 6, 7 and 9 there, 
into his counts 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14. But they are 
the same.
    Just as the committee cannot divorce the phrase ``lying 
under oath'' from the facts about which the President is 
alleged to have lied, so too it should not divorce the 
allegations of obstruction, or whatever the majority staff 
chooses to call them, from the actual evidence.
    Perhaps the three widest quoted obstruction charges made by 
the Independent Counsel are that: First, the President 
initiated a return of the gifts he had sent Ms. Lewinsky so 
that they would not be discovered in the Paula Jones case; 
second, he tried to have Ms. Lewinsky submit a false affidavit; 
and, third, he sought to tamper with the testimony of Ms. 
Currie. But all of these are undercut by the evidence. As to 
the gifts, Mr. Starr's referral states ``Lewinsky and the 
President discussed the possibility of removing some gifts from 
her possession.''
    Majority counsel contends this to be a potential ground for 
impeachment and so too calls it obstruction. Certainly this 
would be a serious charge if true. The actual evidence, 
however, shows it is not true, no matter how cast as the 
Independent Counsel first did or as majority staff will label 
it now. Read the actual testimony and the committee will see 
that Ms. Lewinsky admits that she was the one who raised the 
gift issue with the President, not vice versa, and his response 
was not encouraging. He said, ``Let me think about it.''
    This and his having already told her she would have to turn 
over whatever she had hardly can support a charge of 
obstruction or misprision or conspiracy as a criminal offense, 
let alone to justify the majority counsel's conclusion of an 
impeachable one. Read further and the committee will see that 
contrary to the conclusion that the President was worried about 
gifts, he actually gave Ms. Lewinsky additional gifts after she 
had expressed concern about them and after he knew they were 
subpoenaed--hardly the acts of a man set on obstruction.
    Finally, where the actual referral would indicate that it 
was the President or Ms. Currie who initiated the gift idea, 
Ms. Currie indicated that the idea came from Ms. Lewinsky. Not 
satisfied with this answer that did not match the charge that 
they were preparing, the Independent Counsel then proposed to 
Ms. Currie that her memory differed from Ms. Lewinsky. When Ms. 
Currie said that that ``might'' be the case, that one word 
``might'' was all the Independent Counsel needed to make his 
charge. But read in its entirety, Ms. Currie's testimony is 
clear and no leading question or quotation out of context can 
change the one important thing about her testimony: The 
President did not ask her to call for or retrieve the gifts.
    As to the affidavit, the Independent Counsel charges and 
majority counsel would argue that more inquiry is needed 
because the evidence is that the President sought Ms. Lewinsky 
to submit a false affidavit in the Jones case; a serious 
charge, which again is not contained in the evidence. There is 
no doubt that the President and Ms. Lewinsky discussed the 
affidavit and no doubt that neither wanted her to have to 
testify in a case concerning sexual harassment about what was 
their improper but entirely consensual relationship. The way 
Ms. Lewinsky puts it was, ``It was a personal one and none of 
Paula Jones' business.''
    Wanting an affidavit to avoid this consensual relationship 
from being exposed, and seeking a false affidavit are not the 
same, even though the Starr referral jumps right over this 
difference. And as to the only facts that would matter, both 
the President and Ms. Lewinsky agreed that he never asked her 
to file a false affidavit, and that the President did not even 
want to see the affidavit once it was finished.
    And even though the Independent Counsel tries to enhance 
his charge that the President sought Ms. Lewinsky to lie by 
``assisting her job search to 'keep her on the team''', hasn't 
everyone now seen that the job search began by others than the 
President long before the Jones case issue arose, that it was 
started to remove Ms. Lewinsky from the White House before the 
election, that Linda Tripp, not the President, suggested 
getting Vernon Jordan involved, that Ms. Currie pushed getting 
her then friend a job because she felt badly about Ms. Lewinsky 
having been transferred, and finally that Ms. Lewinsky, even 
though she was never asked by the Independent Counsel, made 
sure she did not finish her testimony before stating ``No one 
asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my 
silence.''
    And committee members, please note this: Despite the 
Independent Counsel having room in his report for pages and 
pages of unnecessary specifics, quoting directly from Ms. 
Lewinsky about where, when, and how she touched the President, 
he could not find the space in his 450 pages to quote her exact 
uncompromising, clear and completely dispositive words on this 
key issue: ``No one asked me to lie and I was never promised a 
job for my silence.''
    And as to Betty Currie, while the charge--the Independent 
Counsel may call it obstruction, majority counsel calls it 
something different--has been made that the President was 
trying to tamper with the testimony of Betty Currie, you can 
look through the 445 page referral and never see the 
Independent Counsel advise you that Ms. Currie was not listed 
to be deposed and was not on a witness list in the Jones case 
or even that the President obviously did not know that Linda 
Tripp had come to the Office of the Independent Counsel to 
start this investigation. Ms. Currie then was not a ``witness'' 
who could have been tampered with.
    What the full transcripts of Ms. Currie, the President and 
the White House staff and reference to the time frame of 
January 18th do show is that the President's worry was not Ms. 
Currie being a witness but was the fact that the questions and 
answers at his deposition were going to be leaked to the press 
and create a media eruption. The evidence shows that is exactly 
what his motives were. Because just a few hours after his 
testimony, the Lewinsky questions and answers were on the 
Internet and the subject of the next day's, Sunday's, news 
shows.
    And while the Independent Counsel and now the majority 
staff contend that the President sought to direct Ms. Currie 
about what to say, Ms. Currie says just the opposite. Her being 
called back and back and back to the Independent Counsel's 
grand jury and her now being called before this committee and 
asked the questions again and again and again did not then and 
will not now change the facts.
    Members of the committee, counts 10 and 11 in the 
Independent Counsel's referral are in many ways the most 
illustrative of that referral and should be seen by you to 
undermine his entire presentation. They have now, as I hear my 
colleague, been dropped by majority counsel and staff.
    Not content--and those are the allegations of abuse of 
office--not content with charging lying under oath, witness 
tampering and obstruction of justice about the President's 
attempt to hide his private relationship, the Independent 
Counsel has asked the committee to recast these same 
allegations as an abuse of office, just as majority counsel 
wants to rename his charges. The term ``abuse of office'' does 
indeed invoke the memory of President Nixon's wrongdoing. But 
the clothes of Watergate do not fit the body of the conduct 
detailed in this referral.
    In effect, grounds 10 and 11 charge that the President lied 
to his staff or to the people around him about the same 
inappropriate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky knowing that they 
might repeat those misstatements and then that the President 
violated his oath of office because he and his attorneys tried 
to protect his constitutional rights by asserting privileges of 
law, including executive privilege and the attorney-client 
privilege given to presidents and all Americans alike.
    Even majority counsel did not take long to dismiss these 
ideas, as his 15 charges do not include this odd notion of an 
abuse of office for those reasons, and I now assume that the 
majority will not pursue those counts.
    But as to the misstatements to the staff that might be 
repeated in the grand jury or even to the public, Independent 
Counsel's referral continues to divide the charge from what the 
statement was about. This was not an attempt by a President to 
organize his staff to spread misinformation about the progress 
of the war in Vietnam. It was not about a break-in of the 
Democratic headquarters at the Watergate or even about how 
funds from arms sales in Iran were diverted to aid the Contras 
in Nicaragua. This was a President repeating to his staff the 
same denial of an inappropriate and extremely embarrassing 
relationship that he had already denied to the public. However 
wrong the relationship or misleading the denial, it is not 
nearly the same as those other examples and cannot stand on the 
same constitutional footing.
    As to the ground for impeachment that the President had the 
audacity to assert privileges in litigation, it is literally 
shocking that the Independent Counsel, himself a former 
appellate judge and chief lawyer for the United States before 
the Supreme Court, would even suggest that the assertion of an 
evidentiary privilege by the President, on the advice of his 
lawyers and White House counsel, that was found to exist by a 
judge in question could ever, under any circumstances, be 
grounds for an impeachment.
    I have heard the Independent Counsel say, as majority 
counsel just did some minutes ago, that the President should 
not be above the law. And yet the referral would place him 
below the law that gives every American the right to assert 
legally accepted privileges without fearing being thrown out of 
his job. So if these were so easily dismissed by the majority 
staff, why would the Independent Counsel suggest these almost 
frivolous bases?
    As the committee decides on the scope of its work, one 
other issue should be included that may answer that question. 
We have pointed to just some of the times when the Independent 
Counsel makes a statement not supported by the evidence he sent 
or then jumps to a guilty inference when a more innocent 
explanation was far more obvious. A full and fair inquiry 
should therefore consider whether numerous actions by the 
Independent Counsel undermine his claim to impartiality and 
fairness. Considering this would not be an attempt to divert 
attention from the President's conduct or for delay. Excesses 
by the Independent Counsel or any gatherer of the evidence on 
which you are going to rely, as some have contended is not 
incidental or tangential. How does the committee know that that 
is not the case? The Independent Counsel said so himself.
    When Monica Lewinsky's testimony was released by the 
committee, it was Mr. Starr himself who wrote the committee on 
September 25, 1998, and this is what he said: ``At the time we 
submitted our referral, we reviewed these questions [about his 
conduct] as incidental and tangential. Nonetheless, the issue 
has now been raised publicly and appears to bear on the 
substantiality and credibility of the information we have 
provided to the House in our referral.''
    We agree with the Independent Counsel that his conduct 
bears on the substantiality and credibility of the information 
he gathered and transmitted. Consequently, on the Independent 
Counsel's own invitation to the committee, this, too, should be 
the subject of its review, and there are at least three 
important issues.
    First, after 4 years of investigation, the part of the case 
which has caused this impeachment referral was the Lewinsky 
matter. However, it is not clear whether the Independent 
Counsel jumped the gun on getting into this area based on the 
exaggerated and perhaps even manipulated statements of Linda 
Tripp. It may have begun its dealings with Ms. Tripp earlier 
than it has said before. It accepted Linda Tripp's apparently 
unlawfully-obtained tapes and then wired her to trap Ms. 
Lewinsky before it was given authority by the court to get into 
these matters.
    Second, once it did get involved, its dealings with Ms. 
Lewinsky, when the Independent Counsel staff detained her for 
10 hours, despite her asking for a lawyer; with her mother, who 
was brought to tears by their conduct; with Ms. Currie, who 
they returned to the grand jury again and again, with leading 
and suggestive questions; and with other witnesses, all raise 
the issue of the quality of the evidence that they obtained and 
have now used as the foundation for their referral. Because as 
the weight of evidence diminishes, so must the conclusions the 
Independent Counsel has done, so, too, the committee must 
evaluate the quality and substantiality of the evidence.
    Finally, if the committee compares the charges and the main 
points of evidence from the 445-page referral with the news 
stories that appeared between January and August, it will 
confirm that not one charge, not one allegation and not one 
piece of evidence, from the Tripp tapes to the stained blue 
dress, was not leaked to the press. The Independent Counsel has 
been asked to show cause why it should not be held in contempt 
for leaking, and the outcome of that determination, when it is 
made, as Mr. Starr's invitation would seem to agree, bears on 
the substantiality and on the credibility of the evidence.
    In that same vein, members of the committee, consider this: 
When the referral was finally delivered to the House of 
Representatives on September 9, 1998, and it was locked in a 
secure room, in a matter of minutes the media reported on how 
many pages and how many counts it contained. Certainly the 
committee knows that that information could not have come from 
Capitol Hill where the boxes remained under seal.
    Chairman Hyde, Ranking Member Conyers and members, for only 
the third time in the 200-year history of our country has an 
impeachment process been invoked. As members on both sides of 
the aisle have said, this is not a step that should be 
undertaken lightly; and it is one, as the Democratic members 
have argued, that should not lead to a fishing expedition to 
find something better than that which has been sent in the 
original referral.
    The staff has been asked to make a preliminary evaluation 
of the charges and of the evidence. This preliminary review 
indicates that the charges are often overstated, based on 
strained definitions of what is an offense under the law, are 
often not supported by the actual evidence in the boxes and are 
sometimes, as with the case of counts 10 and 11 in the 
referral, the product of zeal to make a case rather than to 
state the law.
    As the minority staff, we have fewer resources than our 
counterparts, just as the majority has more votes than the 
minority to pass whatever inquiry it believes is right. But it 
should be the weight of the evidence and not the number of 
votes that matter.
    Congresswoman Lofgren provided the staff with some history 
for us to read. In one piece, Alexander Hamilton was called 
upon to explain the impeachment process to the people being 
asked to adopt the Constitution, and this is what he said: 
``Prosecutions of impeachment will seldom fail to agitate the 
passions of the whole community and to divide it into parties 
more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many 
cases, it will connect itself with the preexisting factions. 
And in such cases there will always be the danger that the 
decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of 
the parties than by real demonstrations of innocence or 
guilt.''
    As the committee considers the version of events the 
Independent Counsel suggests might rise to impeachable offenses 
and then decides between the two alternative resolutions being 
presented, Hamilton's words seem particularly germane.
    Mr. Chairman, Mr. Conyers and members of the committee, on 
behalf of the minority staff, we appreciate your indulging us 
the time and will stand ready today and in the future to answer 
your questions.
    Mr. Hyde. Thank you very much.
    [The statement of Mr. Lowell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Abbe Lowell, Minority Chief Investigative Counsel
                           oral presentation

I. INTRODUCTION--Majority and Minority Staff Approaches Differ Markedly

    --Chairman Hyde, Ranking Member Conyers, and members of the 
committee, on behalf of the full minority staff, I appreciate the 
opportunity to address the committee to present what are the very 
different approaches and analyses between us and the majority staff
    --in the time I have, I will set out the enormous differences in 
approach between the majority staff's and minority staff's analysis, 
point to some of the problems caused by the committee's not having 
begun this process with a discussion of a constitutional standard for 
impeachment, bring the committee's attention to why the huge gaps 
between the charges in the referral and now as proposed by majority 
counsel and the actual evidence support the type of fair, focused, and 
expeditious review being proposed by the Democratic members, and 
recommend that part of the committee's work should include evaluating 
the weight and credibility of the evidence because of the conduct of 
the Independent Counsel
    --to begin with, we differ from our staff colleagues as we not 
believe that this committee or the House of Representatives is supposed 
to be an extension of the Office of the Independent Counsel; in 
majority counsel's presentation, I am sure the committee has heard that 
in the two weeks there has been to actually review the evidence, 
majority counsel has now walked away from 2 grounds by the OIC and has 
re-written or added 4 others simply by sub-dividing the charges
    --as the committee considers my and my counterpart's summaries of 
the evidence and what type of inquiry is needed, we offer this 
observation: the evidence that Congress has received from the 
Independent Counsel on the Lewinsky matter alone comes after he spent 9 
months, with a large staff of trained investigators and prosecutors, 
and $4 million; it is a one-sided presentation by a prosecutor; the OIC 
review included 22 interviews or grand jury appearances by Monica 
Lewinsky; 9 by Betty Currie; 5 by Vernon Jordan and 20 by Linda Tripp;
    --if, after this much time by this many experienced attorneys 
spending this much money, and conducting these many interviews, the 
evidence he sent does not sup- 
port the charges he makes, how does renaming or relisting or further 
sub-dividing the grounds using the same evidence, as majority counsel 
has just done, make the case any stronger or the issues any clearer
    --we also seem to differ because we see the committee's 
constitutional and historic task quite differently from the type of 
listing of laws and statutes that the OIC's referral contains and the 
majority counsel has just done--the determinations of whether to begin 
an impeachment inquiry and what kind of inquiry to conduct are vastly 
different than the determination of whether there is evidence of a 
violation of a law or statute; it other words, the OIC's referral and 
majority counsel's presentation suggest that there is some kind of 
equal sign between a violation by a President of any of a number of 
laws in statute books on one side and the impeachment provisions of 
article 11, section 4 of the Constitution on the other; we read the 
precedents differently and see that initiating an impeachment process 
for only the third time in American history takes a far higher 
threshold than simply making a laundry list of laws a President might 
have violated; as Mr. Berman stated, ``not all offenses are high crimes 
and misdemeanors, and not all high crimes and misdemeanors come from 
criminal conduct''
    --in our review of the evidence contained in the 18 boxes sent, we 
have been particularly guided by the gravity impressed on us by our own 
staff predecessors 24 years ago--who wrote
        BECAUSE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT IS A GRAVE STEP FOR THE 
        NATION, IT IS TO BE PREDICATED UPON CONDUCT SERIOUSLY 
        INCOMPATIBLE WITH EITHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL FORM AND PRINCIPLES 
        OF GOVERNMENT OR THE PROPER PERFORMANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL 
        DUTIES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE. Impeachment Inquiry Staff 
        Grounds Memo at 26-27
    --unlike some, we have also kept one central point in mind--we 
reviewed the referral as it was sent--not a set of theoretical 
questions about what is or is not an impeachable offense in a vacuum, 
but a specific set of eleven grounds tied closely with the facts as the 
Independent Counsel has presented them
    --and, even though majority counsel has just attempted to add 
additional grounds, or rename others, they too will fit into the few 
categories for committee consideration that I will propose in a few 
minutes
    --as to the referral itself, we have seen or heard the media ask 
members the largely rhetorical question: ``Are you saying that lying 
under oath or obstruction of justice is not an impeachable offense?''
    --this may be the basis for excellent classroom debate, but it begs 
the issue in the actual Starr referral; the question the committee will 
be called upon to answer is whether the allegations of lying under 
oath, obstruction, and tampering, or even if majority counsel renames 
them as misprision of a crime, false statements, or even conspiracy, 
TIED TO THE SPECIFIC FACTS ALLEGED IN THE STARR REFERRAL, constitute 
grounds for proceeding
    --wrenching the individual words ``perjury,'' ``false statements,'' 
``obstruction,'' ``misprision,'' or ``tampering'' from their factual 
context is not consistent with the historical precedents concerning the 
constitutional framework for impeachment proceedings

                II. STANDARD--The cart before the horse.

    --and another defining difference between us and majority staff is 
that we agree with our Democratic members who have stated so 
articulately that the process thus far is backwards--the committee is 
considering whether to open what type of actual impeachment inquiry 
without having spent a single minute discussing what conduct by a 
President rises to an impeachable offense
    --this is the equivalent of a ship's captain leaving on a 
difficult, uncharted voyage hoping to find his or her compass somewhere 
along the way
    --moreover, the entire process has now been started by a referral 
from an OIC who states that his role ``is not to determine whether the 
President's actions warrant impeachment'' but then proceeds to usurp 
the constitutional role of the House by concluding eleven reasons why 
it should do just that
    --in this regard, the committee should compare the proceedings 
today and those 24 years ago; then Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski 
wrote what has been called a ``road map'' of evidence that was neither 
accusatory nor conclusory; today, the Independent Counsel has written 
445 pages of conclusions that read like an indictment; one more 
important difference to consider is that the ``road map'' written by 
Mr. Jaworski remains secret to this very day; Mr. Starr's referral and 
nearly 7000 pages of his evidence can be dialed up on the Internet
    --were the committee to proceed as the Democratic members have been 
urging, to develop a shared understanding of what constitutes an 
impeachment offense, the committee might save time and resources 
because at the end of that consideration, the committee might find that 
none of these alleged offenses--no matter how they were originally 
named by the Independent Counsel or renamed by majority counsel--and 
all of which are based on the President's private relationship with 
Monica Lewinsky--would rise to the constitutional threshold
    --without having what will be the committee's deliberations on the 
issue, the staff simply kept in mind the broadest and least forgiving 
possible definition of the constitution's requirement of ``high Crimes 
and Misdemeanors''; when we did we saw that:
          --from the beginning, the framers said they had to involve 
        ``great and dangerous offenses to subvert the Constitution''--
        CHART (GEORGE MASON)
          --or that, as Alexander Hamilton stated, they require there 
        to be ``injuries done immediately to society itself''--CHART 
        (ALEXANDER HAMILTON)
          --or as Republican Ranking Member Edward Hutchinson said when 
        reviewing the conduct of President Nixon that the offenses had 
        to be ``high in the sense that they were crimes directed 
        against or having great impact upon the system of government 
        itself''--CHART (REP. HUTCHINSON)
    --and even as the majority staff chose to rewrite the Starr 
referral, they, as we, had a ready reference point which they have 
apparently rejected; one of the lesser known offenses alleged against 
President Nixon, outside of the Watergate cover-up, was the that he had 
purposely and knowingly engaged in tax evasion, including allegations 
that there was back-dating of documents and a false filing under oath 
to the IRS
    --with the Democrats in the majority and the Republican in the 
minority judging a Republican President, the committee voted 26 to 12 
that these acts by the President, while perhaps constituting offenses, 
even criminal offenses, or even felonies, were not grounds for 
impeachment; the Democratic alternative, which tries to put the cart of 
establishing standards back behind the horse of evaluating evidence 
understands this basic question: if President Nixon's alleged lies to 
the IRS about his taxes were not grounds for impeachment in 1974, how 
then are alleged lies about President Clinton's private sexual 
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky grounds in 1998?

 III. EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: What you see is not always what you get.

    --the OIC's referral is composed of eleven separate charges; 
majority counsel already has seen fit to reject 1 or 2 of these and 
rename 5 or 6 others; but it is not the number of counts or grounds 
that matter, it is the underlying conduct; in the our law, there is a 
prosecutor's strategy which courts routinely disapprove by which they 
divide what they believe to be a single offense into many different 
charges; they do this to make a case look more serious or foreboding
    --this is very much what the OIC has done and now what majority 
counsel has adopted as his approach; the OIC and majority counsel can 
take the same conduct by the President and with all the laws that exist 
on the books call them one offense, ten offenses, or a hundred 
offenses; that is what prosecutors do
    --but no matter how many different grounds were sent by the 
Independent Counsel and no matter how majority counsel may further 
divide them up or rename them to pile on more charges, they all fit 
into just 3 distinct claims: (1) that the President lied under oath 
about the nature a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, (2) that 
he committed obstruction when he sought others to help him conceal that 
inappropriate relationship; and (3) that he abused the Office of 
President by taking steps to hide that relationship--CHART (VARIOUS 
COUNTS)
    --so no matter how majority staff may hope to strengthen their 
recommendation by finding new offenses to tag on, one basic 
allegation--the President was engaged in an improper relationship which 
he did not want disclosed--is the core charge that Mr. Starr suggest 
triggers this grave constitutional crisis
    --some reasons that are offered to support an open-ended inquiry is 
that the evidence is dense, the evidence supports the charges, and 
those charges are serious; the minority staff's review suggests that 
the committee inquiry can be as expeditious as the Democrats propose 
because most of the evidence has already been obtained and, that 
evidence usually does not support the allegations that have been made
    --time does not permit me to point out how each and every 
allegation of a offense stated by the OIC or now re-labeled by majority 
counsel is not as they contends it to be, and in interests of time I 
have but will not read out loud the citations to pages in the evidence, 
but I can take the most serious of the charges to demonstrate the 
serious gap between allegations and proof
    --first, as to the allegations that the President lied under oath--
whether you call in lying, false statements, perjury, or misprision

A. LYING UNDER OATH (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 8,)(Majority Counsel's 1, 5, 6, 
                           7, 8, 12, and 15)

    --half the alleged grounds in the OIC Referral and now [ ] grounds 
renamed or by sub-divided by majority counsel are that the President 
lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky
    --it is not the actual lie about the relationship that rises to an 
impeachment offense; I suppose the OIC agrees that people lie about 
their improper relationships, but it is the fact that the lie occurred 
during a civil lawsuit or before the OIC's own grand jury that 
constitutes the offense
    --Majority staff's approach, taking up where Ken Starr left off, 
would have the committee continue to delve into even more details 
concerning the physical relationship between the President and Ms. 
Lewinsky so that it could determine who was telling the truth about who 
touched who where; however, this unseemly process does not have to 
occur
    --the better approach would be to take the OIC at its charge--if it 
was the fact that President Clinton lied at his Paula Jones deposition 
that creates the possibly impeachable offense, then the inquiry 
required would be to determine the importance or impact of that 
statement in that specific case; and this is what the evidence shows:
    --these were misstatements about a consensual relationship made 
during a case alleging non-consensual harassment; when Judge Webber 
Wright of Arkansas ruled on January 29, 1998, that evidence about Ms. 
Lewinsky was ``not essential to the core issues of the case'', and when 
she then ruled on April 1 that no matter what the President did with 
any other woman, Ms. Jones herself had not proven that she had been 
harmed by what she alleged, the judge was giving the committee the 
ability to determine that the President's statements, whether truthful 
or not, were not of the legal importance suggested by Mr. Starr, let 
alone grave constitutional significance to support impeachment; and a 
prolonged inquiry is not required to see this context
    --furthermore, the referral is quick to conclude that the President 
committed a serious offense by his interpretation of what did and did 
not constitute ``sexual relations,'' in a definition invented for a 
deposition that is the type of gobbledygook that gives lawyers their 
bad name; but the committee will never read in his 445 Referral what 
the full evidence shows, that his definition just happened to be shared 
by Ms. Lewinsky herself
          --in the transcript of her taped October 3, 1997, 
        conversation with Linda Tripp, Ms. Lewinsky herself says that 
        she was not having sex with the President because they did not 
        have intercourse
          --and even a Paula Jones' former attorney--after all it was 
        her attorneys who created the strained definition--agreed in a 
        television interview that the definition would not necessarily 
        include oral sex
    --no one has suggested that the President's answers, even given his 
explanation that he was trying to be ``truthful, but not particularly 
helpful'' in what he thought was a lawsuit being run by his political 
enemies, were not misleading, evasive, or technical--but seen in the 
entire context of the evidence they do not have the constitutional 
impact that the IC and majority counsel suggest
    --some have raised the impeachment of judges, including Judge 
Nixon, for their having been convicted for perjury; but members here 
certainly know that the lies in those cases had to do with the 
discharge of those judge's duties and that the standards for impeaching 
judges, appointed for life, are not the same as for reversing 
presidential elections
    --and, in this case, these were statements, the evidence shows the 
intent of which was to prevent the disclosure of an improper consensual 
relationship, not to interfere with allegations made by Paula Jones 
that she had been subject of unwanted harassment; to put the evidence 
another way: is there anyone involved in such an improper relationship 
who ever wanted it disclosed, and does any one believe that the 
President would have revealed his improper relationship with Ms. 
Lewinsky had the Paula Jones case not been pending at the time?
    --since the answers are obvious, the inquiry is not on whether his 
statements were or were not truthful, but what were their context, 
impact, and subject matter; this too the committee can resolved 
expeditiously
    --and as the committee considers the charges that the President 
lied under oath, or however they may be renamed by majority staff, 
remember that one example of why the OIC would have Congress trigger 
this inquiry is that the President stated his relationship with Ms. 
Lewinsky started in 1996 when the OIC contends it started in late 1995; 
for the difference of these few months, a constitutional crisis is not 
warranted

 IV. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (Counts 5, 6, 7, 9) (Majority Counsel's 2, 
                         3, 4, 9,10,11, 13, 14)

    --turning to the obstruction allegations, because of its 
reminiscence to the Watergate proceeding, the phrase ``obstruction of 
justice'' is the one which many have stated is the most egregious 
ground alleged in the Starr referral and why it was so emphasized by 
majority counsel who now splits the 4 into a total of 8
    --but just as the committee cannot divorce the phrase ``lying under 
oath'' from the facts about which the President is alleged to have 
lied, so too it should not divorce the allegation of ``obstruction'', 
or whatever the majority staff now chooses to call it, from the actual 
evidence
    --perhaps, the three widest quoted obstruction charges made by the 
OIC are that (1) the President initiated a return of the gifts he had 
sent Ms. Lewinsky so they would not be discovered in the Paula Jones 
case, (2) he tried to have Ms. Lewinsky submit a false affidavit, and 
(3) he sought to tamper with the testimony of Ms. Currie; all of these 
are undercut by the evidence
            A. Gifts
    --Mr. Starr's referral states, ``Lewinsky and the President 
discussed the possibility of removing some gifts from her possession'' 
referral at 166; majority counsel contends this to be a potential 
ground for impeachment and calls it [ ]''; certainly this would be a 
serious charge if true; the actual evidence, however, shows it is not 
true, no matter cast as the IC first did or as majority counsel wants 
to label it now
    --read the actual testimony, and the committee will see that Ms. 
Lewinsky admits that she was the one who raised the gift issue with the 
President, not vice versa, and his response was not encouraging; he 
said ``let me think about it'' (Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 152); this and 
his having already told her she would have to turn over whatever she 
had (Clinton 8/17/98 GJ at 44-47) hardly can support the charge of 
obstruction (or ``misprison'' or ``conspiracy'') as a criminal offense, 
let alone to justify the majority counsel's conclusion
    --read further and the committee will see that, contrary to the 
OIC's conclusion that the President was worried about the gifts, he 
actually gave Ms. Lewinsky additional gifts after she expressed concern 
about them and after he knew they were subpoenaed; hardly the acts of a 
man set on obstruction
    --finally, where the actual Referral would indicate that it was the 
President or Ms. Currie who initiated the gift idea, Ms. Currie 
indicated that the idea came from Ms. Lewinsky (Currie 1/27/98 GJ at 
57; Currie 5/6/98 GJ at 124); not satisfied with this answer that did 
not match the charge he wanted to make, the Independent Counsel then 
proposed to Ms. Currie that her memory differed from Ms. Lewinsky; when 
Ms. Currie said that might be the case, that one word ``might'' was all 
the IC needed to make his charge (Referral at 167); but read in its 
entirety, Ms. Currie's testimony is clear, and no leading question or 
quotation out of context can change the one important thing about her 
testimony--the President did not ask her to call for or retrieve the 
gifts
            B. Affidavit
    --the OIC charges (Referral at 173) and the majority counsel would 
argue (as ``misprision'') that more inquiry is needed because the 
evidence is that the President sought Ms. Lewinsky to submit a false 
affidavit in the Jones case--a serious charge which, again, is not 
contained in the evidence
    --there is no doubt that the President and Ms. Lewinsky discussed 
an affidavit and no doubt that neither wanted her to have to testify in 
a case concerning sexual harassment about what was their improper, but 
entirely consensual relationship (the way Ms. Lewinsky put it was that 
it was ``a personal one and none of Paula Jones' business''--Lewinsky 
8/1/98302 at 10); wanting an affidavit to avoid this consensual 
relationship from being exposed and seeking a false affidavit are not 
the same, even though the Starr referral jumps right over the 
difference
    --as to the only facts that would matter, both the President and 
Ms. Lewinsky agree that he never asked her to file a false affidavit 
(Clinton GJ 8/17/98 at 70; Lewinsky 7/27/98302 at 12) and that the 
President did not even want to see the affidavit (Lewinsky 8/2/98302 at 
3)
    --and even though the OIC tries to enhance his charge that the 
President sought Ms. Lewinsky to lie by ``assisting her job search to 
`keep her on the team' '' (Referral at 185), hasn't everyone now seen 
that the job search began by others than the President long before the 
Jones case issue arose, that it was started to remove Ms. Lewinsky from 
the White House before the election, that Linda Tripp, not the 
President, suggested getting Vernon Jordan involved (Lewinsky 8/20/98 
GJ at 23; Currie 5/6/98 GJ at 176; Jordan 3/3/98 GJ at 65), that Ms. 
Currie pushed getting her friend a job because she felt badly about Ms. 
Lewinsky had been transferred (Currie 5/6/98 GJ at 45) and, finally, 
that Ms. Lewinsky, even though never asked by the IC, made sure she did 
not finish her testimony before stating that ``no one asked me to lie 
and I was never promised a job for my silence'' (Lewinsky 7/27/98 GJ at 
302)
    --and note this, despite the Independent Counsel having room in his 
report for pages and pages of unnecessary specifics quoting directly 
from Ms. Lewinsky about where, when, and how she touched the President, 
he could not find the space in his 445 page Referral to quote her 
exact, uncompromising, clear, and completely dispositive words on this 
key issue
            C. Betty Currie's Testimony
    --while the charge (OIC calls it ``obstruction''; so does majority 
counsel) has been made that the President was trying to tamper with the 
testimony of Betty Currie, you can look through the 445 page Referral 
and never see the Independent Counsel advise you that Ms. Currie was 
not listed to be deposed and was not on the witness list in the Jones 
case or that the President obviously did not know about Linda Tripp 
having come to the OIC to start the investigation; Ms. Currie, then, 
was not a ``witness'' who could have been tampered with
    --what the full transcripts of Ms. Currie, the President, and the 
White House staff and reference to the time frame of January 18 do show 
is that the President's worry was not Ms. Currie being a witness, but 
was the fact that the questions and answers at the deposition were 
going to be leaked to the press and create a media eruption; the 
evidence shows this was exactly his motive because within just a few 
hours of his testimony, the Lewinsky questions and answers were on the 
Internet and the subject of the Sunday news shows (Clinton 8/17/98 GJ 
at 81)
    --and while the IC [and Mr. majority counsel] contend that the 
President sought to direct her what to say (Referral at 191-92), Ms. 
Currie says just the opposite; her being called back and back and back 
to the IC grand jury; and her now being called before this committee 
and asked the question again and again and again did not then and would 
not now change the facts (Currie 7/22/98 GJ at 22-3)

                  V. ABUSE OF POWER (Counts 10 and 11)

    --Members of the committee, Counts 10 and 11 are in many ways the 
most illustrative of the OIC Referral and must be seen to undermine his 
entire referral
    --not content with charging lying under oath, witness tampering, 
and obstruction of justice about the President's attempt to hide his 
private relationship, the Independent Counsel has asked the committee 
to re-cast these same allegations as an abuse of office, just as 
majority counsel wants to rename charges as well
    --the term ``abuse of office'' does invoke the memory of President 
Nixon's wrongdoing; but the clothes of Watergate do fit the body of the 
conduct detailed in this referral
    --in effect, Grounds 10 and 11 charge that the President lied to 
his staff or to the people around him about the same inappropriate 
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, knowing that they might repeat those 
misstatements, and that the President violated his oath of office 
because he and his attorneys tried to protect his constitutional rights 
by asserting privileges of law--including executive privilege and the 
attorney client privilege--given to Presidents and all Americans--
during the course of the IC's four-year, $40 million inquiry
    --even majority counsel did not take long to dismiss these ideas, 
as his charges do not include this odd notion of ``abuse of office'' 
and I assume will not now be pursued by the majority
    --as to the misstatements to the staff that might be repeated in 
the grand jury or even to the public, the referral continues to divide 
the charge from what the statement was about; this was not an attempt 
by a President to organize his staff to spread misinformation about the 
progress of the war in Vietnam, or about a break-in of the Democratic 
Headquarters at the Watergate, or even about how funds from arms sales 
in Iran were diverted to aid the Contras in Nicaragua; this was a 
President repeating to his staff the same denial of an inappropriate 
and extremely embarrassing relationship that he had already denied to 
the public directly; however wrong the relationship or misleading the 
denial, it is not nearly the same as those other examples and cannot 
stand on the same constitutional footing
    --and as to the ground for impeachment that the President had the 
audacity to assert privileges in litigation, it is literally shocking 
that the Independent Counsel, himself a former appellate judge and 
chief lawyer for the United States before the Supreme Court, would even 
suggest that the assertion of an evidentiary privilege by the 
President, on the advice of his lawyers and the White House counsel, 
that was found to exist by the judge in question could ever, under any 
circumstances, be the grounds for an impeachment
    --I have heard the Independent Counsel say, as majority counsel did 
too, that a President should not be above the law, and yet the referral 
would place him below the law that gives every American the right to 
assert legally accepted privileges without fearing being thrown out of 
their job
    --so if these were so easily dismissed by majority staff, why would 
the Independent Counsel suggest these almost frivolous grounds?

  VI. PROSECUTORIAL EXCESS: Why Is The Evidence Often Not What It Is 
                            Purported To Be?

    --as committee decides the scope of its work, one other issue 
should be included that may answer this question; we have pointed to 
just some of the times when the Independent Counsel makes a statement 
not supported by the evidence he sent or jumps to a guilty inference 
when a more innocent explanation was more obvious
    --a full and fair inquiry should therefore consider whether 
numerous actions by the OIC undermine his claim to impartiality and 
fairness; considering this would not be an attempt to divert attention 
from the President's conduct or for delay
    --excesses by the Independent Counsel are not, as some have 
contended ``incidental'' or ``tangential''; how does the committee know 
this, the Independent Counsel said so himself
    --when Ms. Lewinsky's testimony was released by the committee it 
was Mr. Starr himself who wrote the committee on 9/25/98: ``At the time 
we submitted our referral we viewed . . . questions [about his conduct] 
as incidental and tangential. . . . the issue has now been raised 
publicly and appears to bear on the substantiality and credibility of 
the information we provided to the House''
    --we agree with the Independent Counsel that his conduct bears on 
the ``substantiality'' and ``credibility'' of the information he 
gathered and transmitted; consequently, on the Independent Counsel's 
own invitation, this too should be the subject of the committee's 
review: (CHART--PROSECUTOR EXCESS)
    --first, after 4 years of investigation, the part of the case which 
has caused this impeachment referral was the Lewinsky matter; however, 
it is not clear whether the Independent Counsel jumped the gun on 
getting into this area based on the exaggerated and perhaps even 
manipulated statements of Linda Tripp; it may have begun its dealings 
with Ms. Tripp earlier that it said, it accepted Tripp's apparently 
unlawfully-obtained tapes and then wired her to trap Ms. Lewinsky 
before it was given authority to even get involved in these matters
    --second, once it got involved, its dealings: with Ms Lewinsky when 
they detained her for 10 hours despite her asking for her lawyer, with 
her mother who was brought to tears by their conduct, with Ms. Currie 
who they returned to the grand jury again and again with leading and 
suggestive questions, and with other witnesses, all raise the issue of 
the quality of the evidence that they then obtained and have now used 
as the foundation for their referral; because as the weight of the 
evidence diminishes, so must the conclusions that the OIC and majority 
staff say flows from that evidence
    --finally, if the committee compares the charges and main points of 
evidence from the 445 page referral with the news stories that appeared 
between January and August, it will confirm that not one charge, not 
one allegation, and not one piece of evidence--from the Tripp tapes to 
the stained dress--was not leaked to the press; the OIC has been asked 
to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for leaking, and 
the outcome of that determination, as Mr. Starr's invitation would 
agree, bears on the substantiality and credibility of evidence; in that 
same vein consider this--when the referral was finally delivered to the 
House on September 9 and locked in a secure room, in a matter of 
minutes, the media reported on how many pages and how many counts it 
contained; certainly the committee knows that that information could 
not have come from Capitol Hill, where the boxes remained under seal

                             VI. CONCLUSION

    --Members of the committee for only the third time in the 200 year 
history of our country has an impeachment process been invoked; as 
members on both sides of the aisle have said, this is not a step that 
should be taken lightly and one, as Democratic members have argued, 
that should not lead to a fishing expedition to find something better 
than that which was sent by the referral itself
    --the staff has been asked to make a preliminary evaluation of the 
charges and evidence; this preliminary review indicates that the 
charges are often overstated, based on strained definitions of what is 
an offense under the law, are often not supported by the actual 
evidence in the boxes sent, and are sometimes (as with the last two 
suggested Grounds) the product of zeal to make a case rather than to 
state the law
    --as minority staff, we have fewer resources than our counter-
parts, just as the majority has more votes than the minority to pass 
whatever inquiry it believes is right; but it should be the weight of 
the evidence and not the number of votes that matter
    --Congresswoman Lofgren provided the staff with some history to 
read; in one piece Alexander Hamilton was called upon to explain the 
impeachment process to the people being asked to adopt the 
Constitution, he stated:
        Prosecutions of impeachment ``will seldom fail to agitate the 
        passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties 
        more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many 
        cases, it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, . 
        . . and, in such cases, there will always be the danger that 
        the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength 
        of the parties than by real demonstrations of innocence and 
        guilt. Federalist No. 65 at 424.
    --as the committee considers the version of events the Independent 
Counsel suggests might rise to impeachable offenses and then decides 
between the two alternative resolutions being presented, Hamilton's 
words seem particularly germane
    --thank you for indulging me the time and I would be happy to 
answer any questions

    Mr. Hyde. I have a resolution at the desk which all members 
have before them and which the Clerk will read.
    The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TIWC003.003
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TIWC004.004
    
    Mr. Hyde. The Chair recognizes Mr. Boucher of Virginia for 
purposes of an amendment.
    Mr. Boucher. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute at the desk.
    Mr. Hyde. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TIWC005.005
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TIWC006.006
    
    Mr. Boucher. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as read.
    Mr. Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
amendment.
    Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    On behalf of the Democratic members of the committee, I am 
pleased to offer this afternoon an alternative for the process 
by which the committee will pursue in considering the referral 
of the Independent Counsel.
    I particularly want to commend a number of members of this 
committee who we have worked with over the course of the last 2 
weeks in order to structure this alternative. Those members 
include the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler; the 
gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Lofgren; my Virginia 
colleague, Mr. Scott; and the gentlelady from California, Ms. 
Waters. I want to thank them for their many hours of dedicated 
efforts they have contributed substantially to the structuring 
of this alternative.
    Mr. Chairman, the public interest requires a fair, thorough 
and deliberate inquiry by the Judiciary Committee of the 
allegations arising from the referral of the Independent 
Counsel. But the public interest also requires an appropriate 
boundary on the scope of that inquiry. We should carefully and 
thoroughly review the matters forwarded by the Independent 
Counsel, but the inquiry should not become an excuse for a 
free-ranging fishing expedition. The potential for such a 
venture should be strictly limited by the terms of the inquiry 
resolution itself, and the resolution of inquiry that I am 
offering this afternoon contains those appropriate 
restrictions.
    The public interest also requires that the matter be 
brought to conclusion at the earliest possible time that is 
consistent with the committee conducting a thorough and a 
complete inquiry.
    The country has already undergone substantial trauma. If 
this committee carries its work beyond the time that is 
reasonably needed for a complete resolution of the matter now 
before us, the injury to the Nation will only deepen. We should 
be thorough, but we should be prompt.
    Given that the facts of this matter are generally well 
known--some would say too well known--and given that there are 
only a handful of witnesses whose testimony is relevant to the 
matters arising from the referral, and given the further fact 
that all of the witnesses whose testimony is relevant have 
undergone substantial scrutiny by the grand jury already, there 
is absolutely no reason to prolong this committee's work into 
next year. A careful and a thorough review can be accomplished 
between now and Thanksgiving of this fall.
    Our resolution requires that the committee hold hearings on 
the constitutional standard for impeachment which has evolved 
over 2 centuries and which was most recently recognized by this 
committee and by the full House of Representatives in 1974.
    Our substitute then directs the committee to compare the 
allegations arising from the referral to the constitutional 
standard and determine which of the allegations, if any, rise 
to that standard. If any are found to meet that test, the 
committee would then determine if there is substantial evidence 
stated in the referral to support those allegations. Any of the 
allegations arising from the referral that pass those initial 
tests would then become the subject of a formal inquiry and 
investigation, following which the committee could consider 
what action it desires to take.
    And the committee would have before it a range of actions, 
beginning with articles of impeachment, extending to 
alternative sanctions, including recommendations of censure and 
a no action option.
    Under this resolution, the committee would begin its work 
on October 12th and conclude all proceedings, including the 
consideration of recommendations by the committee, by November 
17th. The House could then complete the consideration of any 
recommendations the committee might make by November 23rd.
    This approach is fair. It is in the public interest, and it 
is what the American public expects. It gives deference to the 
constitutional standard for impeachment that was recognized in 
the 1974 report of the House of Representatives. It offers 
ample time to consider carefully any of the allegations which 
arise to the constitutional standard, and it assures that the 
entire matter can be resolved promptly and that the Nation is 
not further disadvantaged by a prolonged inquiry which is 
clearly not justified by the material forwarded to us by the 
Office of Independent Counsel.
    It presents a framework that will enable the committee and 
the House of Representatives to discharge their constitutional 
obligations in a manner that is both thorough and expeditious.
    Mr. Chairman, I hope it will be the committee's pleasure, 
after careful review, to adopt this resolution of inquiry which 
establishes an adequate balance to assure the protection of the 
rights of all, to assure a thorough review and to assure that 
this committee completes its work at the earliest possible 
time.
    Mr. Hyde. Without objection, the gentleman from Virginia is 
yielded an additional minute.
    Mr. Boucher. I yield to the ranking member.
    Mr. Conyers. On behalf of all of us who have seen this on 
this side of the aisle, I want to commend you and the gentlemen 
from New York and Virginia, the gentleladies from California, 
for bringing forth a reasonable and rational plan. And I think 
you have put it forward in a highly acceptable way, and I 
wanted to offer these thanks at this point to you.
    Mr. Boucher. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentleman.
    The gentleman from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an 
attempt to further stall out the process of determining who 
told the truth and who did not tell the truth in this very 
sorry mess.
    If you look at the text of the resolution, the 
investigation into whether or not the President committed an 
impeachable offense is stopped until October 26. Between now 
and then, the committee is supposed to delve into what the 
scope of our powers would be in investigating this matter. We 
are supposed to have constitutional experts in hearings on 
that, and a vote would be postponed from today until the end of 
that period on whether or not to launch a formal impeachment 
inquiry.
    So what is being proposed today is that the impeachment 
inquiry be stalled out until the conclusion of the scoping 
process. Then should the committee decide on or about October 
23rd to launch an inquiry, the inquiry would begin on October 
26 and conclude no later than November 17th when a report would 
have to be made to the House of Representatives. That gives us 
17 working days to do the entire impeachment inquiry, and it 
gives an invitation to those who would want to stall out the 
process to do so, either through the resistance of subpoenas, 
not agreeing to subpoenas, witnesses not cooperating and 
potentially being cited for contempt.
    And it certainly is a blank check for those people who do 
not want the Judiciary Committee to come to a conclusion to be 
able to obstruct the process.
    Now I have great faith in Chairman Hyde's statements that 
he does not want to stall the process out. But arbitrary time 
lines will do precisely that. That is what happened in the 
Thompson investigation over in the Senate. It is certainly a 
mistake that should not be made by the Judiciary Committee in 
discharging this very important responsibility.
    Looking back at the previous impeachments that have taken 
place, the Richard Nixon impeachment took 19 months from the 
time of the first introduction of a resolution authorizing the 
Judiciary Committee to conduct full and complete studies and an 
investigation into the approval of the articles of impeachment 
against Richard Nixon.
    The Alcee Hastings impeachment took 16 months between the 
referral by the judicial conference to the committee approval 
of the articles of impeachment.
    And the Judge Walter Nixon impeachment took 13 months 
between the referral by the judicial conference until the 
committee approved the articles of impeachment against the 
judge.
    Under the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, 
we have to develop and submit the evidence independently. That 
is a constitutional requirement, and it is one that was 
followed by the Judiciary Committee in all of the impeachments 
that I have discussed. We cannot do that in 17 days, 
particularly if we have uncooperative witnesses or people who 
want to stall out the proceedings.
    I think that the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia 
is extremely well-intentioned. He wants to speed the process 
up. But you don't do it by stopping the inquiry for 2 weeks 
while we talk about the constitutional grounds for impeachment 
and then setting up a time line which is an invitation for 
people to frustrate the process.
    I would hope that his amendment would be voted down.
    Mr. Hyde. Is there further discussion?
    The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, let me simply say that the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
Mr. Sensenbrenner, is simply wrong when he characterized the 
resolution as saying that no inquiry into the evidence would be 
permitted under this resolution, under the substitute 
resolution, until after October 26. I refer you to page 3, that 
in the first phase, which must end by October 23rd, the 
committee shall meet in public session for the purpose of 
determining which allegations arising from the referral, if 
any, which have been determined to meet the constitutional 
standard for impeachment are supported by sufficient evidence 
in the committee's possession to justify further proceedings.
    I would also point out that, although the resolution does 
aim to be fair and deliberative and focused and expeditious, as 
I believe the American people want us to, lest anyone fear, as 
the gentleman from Wisconsin does, that someone might try to 
filibuster or that there might not be enough time, although we 
set up a time frame and say that the committee shall first look 
at the definition of what is an impeachable standard, 
personally, as I said before, I would recommend just adopting 
what the House did in 1974, but we might want to change it, and 
then should compare the allegations to the standard to see 
which, if proven to be true, would be impeachable and then 
should take a preliminary look at the evidence of those 
allegations that would be impeachable, if proven true, and 
then, on October 23rd, should decide whether to recommend 
formal proceedings. That sets up a second phase and all that 
should be done by October 23rd.
    And so the vote that we are taking today would be on 
October 23rd and that would set up a second phase from October 
26th for about a month until just before Thanksgiving to hold 
those formal proceedings and vote on impeachment or not.
    Section 4 of the bill says, ``if the committee is unable to 
complete its assignment within the time frame set out in 
section 2 or 3, a report to the House of Representatives may be 
made by the committee requesting an extension of time.''
    In other words, it is not a rigid time frame. It is saying 
that these seem to us to be achievable, an achievable time 
frame, but the committee can ask the House for an extension if 
it seems necessary.
    So, if the majority is afraid the minority or anybody else 
would filibuster, the majority can vote itself additional time 
should that happen.
    Let me say that it has been almost a month--today is 
October 5. It is 4 days short of a month since the Special 
Prosecutor referred his allegations to us. In all that time 
until today, this committee has spent not an hour, not a day, 
not a minute discussing the substance of the allegations or 
discussing anything substantive at all.
    We have spent innumerable days and hours instead discussing 
what crud we should dump on the American people. We have spent 
lots of time discussing how foully we should foul up the 
Internet and what we should put out that might be illegal in 
the Communications Decency Act, if it had not been ruled 
unconstitutional.
    Now we are being asked by the majority to vote today 
without any discussion of these allegations, without any 
evidence, discussion of evidence, without any discussion of 
standards, we should vote today on the momentous question of 
instituting for the third time in American history formal 
impeachment proceedings. I submit that that is very wrong.
    I will repeat what I said this morning: We must have a 
proper process and a process that is seen by the people to be 
fair. And to me, frankly, the exact timetable is less important 
than process. The proper process is, first, spend a few days, 
not as the chairman said a month, a few days, which is what we 
are talking about, looking to see if we can come up with an 
agreement or at least narrow it down to two separate views on 
what are the standards for impeachment.
    Then we would compare the allegations with the standards, 
then look at the evidence. When we are looking at the evidence 
and when we are discussing it, to discuss the differences 
between what our distinguished counsels have said, are the 
allegations set forth impeachable; are the impeachable 
allegations supported by the evidence; at least do they make a 
prima facie case deserving of a detailed proceeding, et cetera.
    The President, if he is going to be impeached--if the 
President is going to be impeached at the end of the day, I 
submit that the procedure we are suggesting will not hinder it, 
will not make it less or more likely but will make it more 
fair.
    Finally, I would say, if I could have an additional 15 
seconds, or 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized 
for an additional 30 seconds.
    Mr. Nadler. I thank the Chairman.
    I also want to observe as a matter of form that this 
committee is limited, or bound, rather, by the resolution 
referred to, by the resolution of the House which says that 
``The Committee on the Judiciary shall review the communication 
received on September 9th from an Independent Counsel to 
determine whether sufficient grounds exist to recommend to the 
House an impeachment inquiry be commenced.''
    I submit that says that our review should be limited to the 
communication. We should get another resolution from the House 
if we want to expand it beyond that.
    I also submit that we have not reviewed it and cannot vote 
on a formal proceeding today. Staff has reviewed it, but this 
committee has not spent 1 minute reviewing it.
    Mr. Conyers. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes.
    Mr. Conyers. All the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, 
is saying, my fellow colleagues, is that this is the horse 
before the cart consideration; that there must be discussion, 
and that we have a very specific provision within section 4 to 
request an extension of time; that these are not hard and fast 
time lines.
    I thank the gentleman for his very clear explanation.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Hyde. If I yield the gentleman from New York 2 
additional minutes, will he yield to me?
    Mr. Nadler. Certainly.
    Mr. Hyde. Thank you.
    I am puzzled, and I really mean that, as to what Peter 
Rodino did on this critical issue of first establishing 
standards and then finding out what the facts are. Because, as 
I read the record, that is just the opposite of what Peter 
Rodino did. I have it here. Let me read it to you and tell me 
what this means. I honestly don't understand it.
    It says, ``Similarly, the House does not engage''--and this 
is Rodino's report from 1974. ``Similarly, the House does not 
engage in abstract advisory or hypothetical debates about the 
precise nature of conduct that calls for the exercise of its 
constitutional powers. Rather, it must await full development 
of the facts and understanding of the events to which those 
facts relate.''
    Continuing from Mr. Rodino, ``This memorandum offers no 
fixed standards for determining whether grounds for impeachment 
exist. The framers did not write a fixed standard. Instead, 
they adopted from English history a standard sufficiently 
general and flexible to meet future circumstances and events.''
    The record is that Mr. Rodino refused to first establish 
standards and then go see what the facts were and see if they 
fit the standards. It is the other way around. We have the 
formula: high crimes, misdemeanors, treason, bribery. Now we 
have to see what the acts are and do they fit under that 
rubric.
    Mr. Nadler. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hyde. Yes, I will yield back your time.
    Mr. Nadler. I would like to make a distinction here. I 
appreciate your question. I would like to venture an answer.
    There is a very fundamental difference from what happened 
in 1974 to what is happening now. In 1974, not a few months of 
investigation, but there were a couple of years of 
investigation, and a----
    Mr. Hyde. Right. We have the 30 volumes right over there 
from the Ervin Committee, right over there.
    Mr. Nadler. Good. There was 1 year of investigation, 
followed by a few months of hearings in the Judiciary 
Committee. The Judiciary Committee then having the facts that 
it had established, and having in mind whatever its own notion 
of standards might be, formulated articles of impeachment which 
it judged to rise to impeachable standards and then issued a 
report on every impeachability standard.
    We, however, have been charged by the House of reviewing a 
list of allegations referred to us by a special counsel who 
tells us that they are impeachable, and we are asked to 
determine whether we should launch a formal inquiry, a formal 
impeachment proceeding based on his determination that those 
are impeachable.
    I submit that, before we can start examining that, we have 
to have some notion of what impeachable would be.
    Mr. Hyde. How about high crimes and misdemeanors? How is 
that?
    Mr. Nadler. What does it mean? What does it mean?
    Mr. Hyde. The Chair is going to try to recapture some order 
here.
    Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the substitute offered by my 
colleague and neighbor in southwest Virginia. Let me do 
something that I don't often do. That is to ask that the 
October 2nd Washington Post editorial entitled ``The 
Impeachment Inquiry'' and the October 4 New York Times 
editorial entitled ``The Committee on the Judiciary Vote'' be 
made part of the record.
    Mr. Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TIWC007.007
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TIWC008.008
    
    Mr. Goodlatte. I think they make a very sound case for not 
restricting the work of this committee on such an important 
matter of great magnitude, no matter what you think of the 
evidence. No matter what you think of where this may be headed, 
the magnitude of an impeachment inquiry against the President 
of the United States is such that this committee's hands should 
not be tied in any way that could impair the ability of the 
committee to operate because of political considerations, of 
stalling, or raising issues of whether or not a particular 
witness we call or a particular avenue that we look into is 
beyond the scope of the inquiry.
    I agree wholeheartedly with the chairman that the committee 
should not engage in a fishing expedition, but I also believe 
that if there is credible evidence of additional impeachable 
offenses offered by a credible source, the committee should 
stand ready and able to look at those matters, because they 
affect the overall question of the fitness of the President of 
the United States to hold the office. We should not look into 
this matter with one hand tied behind our backs.
    Many have complained about the amount of time and money 
that has been expended by the Independent Counsel in looking 
into this matter. For heaven's sake, if the Independent Counsel 
comes forward with additional credible evidence, why would we 
waste that time and money by not looking into those matters, if 
indeed they constitute a credible matter for additional 
consideration by the committee?
    So, for those reasons, I must oppose an effort to constrain 
the work of the committee. We need to do this in an expeditious 
manner. We need to do this in a way that deals with every 
matter that is before the committee and any additional credible 
matter, but we should not tie the hands of the committee. I 
would oppose the amendment for that reason.
    Mr. Gekas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Goodlatte. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Gekas. Thank you.
    Do you read the Boucher resolution the same way I do? In 
the enlargement of time section, the wording is that, ``If the 
committee is unable to complete its assignments within the time 
frames,'' et cetera, ``a report to the House of Representatives 
may be made by the committee requesting an extension of time.''
    Do you get the same feeling as I do that this could take us 
until next April to complete, that it would go longer than the 
chairman himself has said is a tentative deadline for the end 
of the year?
    Because if the House, first of all, is not in session, we 
would not be able to get an extension of time. Number two, if 
the House of Representatives has to be recalled, that, too, 
would delay. Then we would begin a whole series of other 
debates having to do with the extension of time.
    Do you read that kind of possibility in the Boucher 
resolution?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentleman that he is quite right; that the risk is, I think, 
very great with such very short timetables that the slightest 
delay in the production of documents, in the response of 
subpoenaed witnesses or any other matter in this process could 
cause us to have to go back to the full House of 
Representatives in a very short period of time to ask for an 
extension. The full House not being in session would delay the 
matter further while we called them back in.
    It seems to me that it is far more appropriate for the 
committee to do its work under the watchful eye of everyone in 
this country. We know that if we go beyond the scope of this 
inquiry in a manner that appears to the public to be a fishing 
expedition, we are going to be held accountable. We know that 
if we drag this matter on unnecessarily, we will be held 
accountable.
    The Nation is watching, and we should proceed 
expeditiously, but not with one hand tied behind our back.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members.
    There is a lot of discussion about the time frames that are 
in the substitute. That is but one part of this plan that we 
are putting forward. I think that Mr. Boucher and others will 
agree, as Mr. Nadler has stated, that if we find that we need 
additional time that there is nothing to preclude our going 
back to the House and getting the time that we need.
    I think what is important about this plan is the fact that 
it gives us a time frame. It gives us some direction. It talks 
about moving forward in an orderly way. The time frames that 
are identified are not necessarily absolute if indeed we need 
to have extensions. Again, that is but one part of it.
    I would suggest that those who have difficulty with the 
dates as they are indicated propose some alternative dates, but 
let us move on with the rest of this resolution. This 
resolution, additionally, is extremely important because, as we 
have heard today, the reference to high crimes and misdemeanors 
is language in the Constitution that has many, many 
interpretations.
    It is interesting, as I have looked at definitions and 
discussions, I find that the definitions go all the way from 
Gerald Ford in 1974, who said that it means anything that 
Congress decides that it means, to others who have deemed it to 
mean acts that are criminal in nature.
    I think it would be very wise to have constitutional 
scholars and others come in and engage us in a discussion about 
high crimes and misdemeanors. I think it is important because, 
as we say in this resolution, we cannot put the cart before the 
horse. We cannot move into inquiry not knowing what the 
standards are. So I think it is very important for us to have a 
reasoned discussion about the meaning of the Constitution.
    Further, I think that our minority staff pointed out today 
that, despite the fact that the Independent Counsel has sent us 
over referrals with the 11 allegations, that the majority staff 
has gone further and stretched them out to some 15 allegations, 
and the minority staff pointed out that there are some 
duplications, no matter how much you stretch it out, and it can 
be condensed down to about three allegations.
    So in order to measure these allegations against a 
standard, we really do need to know and agree and have a 
consensus about the allegations. I have never taken what Ken 
Starr sent over to us to be absolute. I reject that, and as you 
look at them, I think most of you will, too, because indeed, in 
my estimation, references to perjury and lying or obstruction 
of justice all overlap.
    I agree with minority staff, that you can condense these 
down, the allegations, to something much less than 11 
allegations. In order to know what evidence to look at to 
support these allegations, it must be organized in a fashion 
where the evidence is matched with the allegations that we 
decide on.
    There are a lot of representations in all of the 
information that has been thrown at us; and, of course, there 
is a difference in opinion between the principals in this 
matter, where they disagree. We do not know who is lying and 
who is not lying, and if we are to get a handle on this, we 
must have the allegations that we agree on in order to know 
what evidence to look at.
    Let me just say, because my time is running out, the 
importance of this resolution is to give us a framework and to 
give us a guideline and to make sure that we are moving in an 
orderly fashion. Without that, it is all over the place, Mr. 
Chairman.
    I would respectfully submit that if we are serious about 
the work that we are about to do, we will adopt this 
resolution.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentlewoman.
    The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, earlier in the day I noted with some 
amusement that there was some not insignificant degree of 
applause on the other side when our colleague from Florida, Mr. 
Wexler, urged his colleagues to--actually, probably he urged 
all of us to--I think his words were ``stop this nonsense.''
    Now, however, it is somewhat amusing to see the other side 
urging that there are indeed very grave matters here that 
indeed require us to not only look into these matters with due 
dispatch but look into them with great dispatch.
    So either the applause earlier in the day signaled the true 
desires of the other side, and that is to just stop this whole 
process, otherwise they would not have applauded, or they now 
have changed their minds in light of the subsequent 
presentations perhaps by the counsels and agree that it would 
be premature to stop this nonsense and, indeed, we ought to 
move forward with an inquiry of impeachment. Perhaps at some 
point during the course of today's discussion they can clarify 
what seems to be somewhat of a contradiction.
    Mr. Chairman, all of us, particularly those of us who are 
familiar intimately with our justice system, know that justice 
arbitrarily forestalled is justice denied. But we also know 
just as well that justice arbitrarily foreshortened is justice 
denied. That really is the recipe that this amendment in the 
nature of a substitute by the gentleman from Virginia would 
have us do. That is to deny justice by arbitrarily 
foreshortening the proceedings according to the inquiry of 
impeachment.
    The Chairman read earlier from the 1974 report by the staff 
of the impeachment inquiry, which included no less a 
constitutional scholar than Hillary Rodham, and the chairman 
read very correctly the passages in there which were adopted 
expressly by Chairman Rodino that indicate that, indeed, there 
are very basic constitutional questions of law involved, and 
that the House, similar to the courts, did not engage in 
abstract advisory or hypothetical debates, but we must, as do 
the courts, await full development of the facts and 
understanding of the events to which those facts relate.
    The understanding of the events and the facts relate to 
such things as are noted on page 5 of this report, that ``The 
framers intended the impeachment power to reach failure of the 
President to discharge the responsibilities of his office.''
    On page 21, it refers to ``his constitutional duties to 
take care that the laws be faithfully executed.''
    For example, further, on page 26 and its conclusion, that 
process ``relates to undermining the integrity of the office.''
    The importance of Chairman Rodino's statement that the 
chairman cited and the importance of the research done by Ms. 
Rodham and Mr. Nussbaum and others back in 1973 and 1974 
relates to the fact that, because the impeachment proceedings 
relate to these duties of the President, the integrity of the 
office, he is fulfilling his duties and responsibilities, it 
necessarily in every single instance requires that those duties 
and the responsibilities and the specific actions of the 
President be inquired into. That is the nature of an inquiry of 
impeachment, and that is what we are doing here today.
    As the chairman knows, there has been no prior impeachment 
proceeding in the history of this Congress that has done what 
the Boucher amendment in the nature of a substitute would have 
us do. That is to, in advance, even before we convene the 
inquiry itself, to place arbitrary time limits on the extent of 
that inquiry.
    All of those also on this panel, Democrat and Republican 
alike, who are familiar with proceedings in the courts know 
full well that courts do not in advance place arbitrary limits 
on the search for the truth in the disposition of cases. Had 
they done that, if courts did that, then they would suffer the 
same fate as the Thompson committee did over in the Senate last 
year. That is, to give license to the opponents of the fair and 
sifting search for the truth, that is, this administration, as 
opposed to the Thompson committee's search for the truth, 
license to forestall and delay and use every dilatory trick in 
the book, and then invent some when they have exhausted all of 
those in the books, in order to see that justice is not done 
and the facts are not ascertained.
    I fear, Mr. Chairman, that that really, indeed, is the 
agenda behind the Boucher proposal. I would urge all of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, based on the work of 
Democrats reflected in the report by the staff of the 
impeachment inquiry in 1974, based on every single precedent of 
impeachment proceedings in this House by different parties at 
different times in our history, by every precedent established 
in the courts of our land, which do not arbitrarily limit the 
search for the truth, that the Boucher amendment be defeated.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman's time has not quite expired.
    Mr. Barr. In that case----
    Mr. Hyde. In that case, the gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think that it is worth reading the sentence that precedes 
the sentence that has been repeated by the majority found in 
Mr. Rodino's introduction to the 1974 report. It is as follows. 
Mr. Rodino is describing, in the 1974 report, the grounds for 
presidential impeachment, Mr. Rodino said that this report was 
intended to be a review of the precedents and available 
interpretive materials in seeking ``general principles to guide 
the committee.''
    That is something that I think the discussion this 
afternoon makes clear that we need to do, because we have a 
variety of suppositions about what we are trying to prove in 
the course of these proceedings.
    If you look at pages 26 and 27 of the report, the only part 
of the report that was actually officially approved by the 
House of Representatives, by a vote of 412-3, it says that: 
``The crucial factor is not the intrinsic quality of the 
behavior but the significance of its effect upon our 
constitutional system with the functioning of our government,'' 
and that that is the key issue that faces the Congress when 
looking at an impeachment matter.
    There has been much said about the time lines and whether 
it is appropriate to try and set some goals for accomplishing 
these tasks. But I certainly think this is not unprecedented.
    I note that in February of 1974 that Mr. Rodino pledged as 
his goal or target to conclude the impeachment inquiry by 
April, and that the minority leader at that time, Mr. Rhodes, 
accepted that target date as the gentleman's word. Mr. Rhodes 
said that was good enough for him, and they did agree to limit 
the inquiry or set a goal for the 30th of April.
    I would note that if we compare where we are today and 
where they were 24 years ago, from October of 1973 through 
February of 1974, there was substantial research done then on 
the Constitution. In the proposal made by us this afternoon, we 
propose that 11 days be committed to reviewing the 
Constitution, the precedents and the law and comparing the 
allegations in the report to the precedents and the 
Constitution.
    Although I have heard rumors that there may be hearings 
after the fact--after the vote--I haven't seen any firm 
proposal to look at the Constitution at all.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Lofgren. Not at this point, but when I finish I would 
be happy to do so if I have time.
    I also want to note just a couple of things that I think 
need to be outlined in terms of what we have received today as 
the standard for impeachment.
    Mr. Schippers has indicated--and I'm looking at page 3 of 
this written report--that the ``integrity of the country's 
entire judicial process is fatally compromised, and the process 
will inevitably collapse if there is a violation of oath.''
    It goes on to say that, ``The subject matter of the case, 
whether civil or criminal, and the circumstances under which 
the testimony is given, are of no significance whatever.'' I 
see no citation for this proposition, but it is one of the 
things that needs to be discussed as we proceed in this matter. 
It needs to be discussed straight away.
    On page 7 of the report from Mr. Starr, he says that acts 
that are serious, serious matters, as included in these 
allegations, may constitute grounds for impeachment, but it 
gives no citation whatsoever. He cites not one authority, not 
one case, not the Founding Fathers, nothing whatsoever.
    I think if we do not take the 11 days that we are proposing 
to compare the allegations to the Constitution, we will never 
get to a just answer. We will never be able to fulfill our 
constitutional duties.
    I realize that the majority has the votes. Members of the 
majority can do essentially whatever they decide to do. But I 
would beg you to consider when you use your voting authority, 
the need to review the Constitution and the need to reach a 
common understanding of what the precedents are, for otherwise 
we will fail to put our constitutional obligations as Americans 
ahead of our role as partisan members of political parties.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    The Chair yields himself 2 minutes.
    First of all, we are going to have hearings. We are going 
to invite every academician that wants to talk to us and update 
the current scholarship on standards of impeachment. We are 
going to do that. But, meanwhile, we do not want to be 
suspended in amber while time marches on, so we are going to 
continue our work. But we will have this seminar of intellects 
on impeachment, although I would suggest there is an awful lot 
written on it now.
    I commend to you the Duke University article, which we have 
sent around to everybody. But we are going to do that.
    Secondly, if we have time for this discussion of standards, 
I would like to have a standard for what is due process. What 
is equal protection of the law? What is arbitrary and 
capricious?
    I always thought that what you do is you have that general 
rubric, and then you look at the fact situation and see, now, 
as applied, is this regulation arbitrary and capricious? But I 
guess you have to list and litanize and catalog every possible 
circumstance to have standards for due process.
    It is like pornography, you know it when you see it, but 
you have trouble defining it.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, would you yield?
    Mr. Hyde. Surely. I may have to give myself another minute. 
I hope you realize the downside to yielding to you.
    Mr. Frank. That is okay. In that tradition, I was not sure 
I knew pornography when I saw it until I got a chance to read 
the report. Now I feel sure.
    Mr. Hyde. How intensely do you read it?
    Mr. Frank. I skim it.
    Mr. Hyde. I thought so. I thought I would give you an 
opportunity to straighten that out.
    Mr. Frank. It is not one of my primary interests.
    But I do have a question about the question of standards, 
because it does seem to me, I mean this very seriously, that we 
may have already begun to get into the process of defining what 
is impeachable. Because if I heard correctly from majority 
counsel, he dropped or at least I guess recommended that we 
drop one of Mr. Starr's charges, the last charge, the one about 
invoking executive privilege.
    Mr. Hyde. Right.
    Mr. Frank. My question is, is it the intention of the 
majority to drop that charge? Is that in the process of 
defining standards?
    Mr. Hyde. We haven't gotten that far, Mr. Frank. Once we 
get into the next phase we will consider that, sure.
    Mr. Frank. So that the recommendations of the counsel of 
the majority to drop the 11th count, that we have the 
recommendations from the majority count to drop it----
    Mr. Hyde. You may take some consolation in the fact that we 
may not run with that. It is possible.
    Mr. Frank. I don't mean to be negative. But beyond 
consolation, here, what I am noting is that, apparently, the 
majority is in the process of--somebody has an impeachable 
offense standard. Because, as I understand the process now, 
counsel is recommending, and you appeared, sub silentio until 
now, to be accepting it----
    Mr. Hyde. And ambitio, too.
    Mr. Frank. You are dropping this, but it does not meet your 
standard of impeachment. So we have already begun this process 
of deciding what is impeachable by dropping one of the counts 
by Mr. Starr.
    Mr. Hyde. I think this is one of the most useful 
interchanges we have had all day. I just want to make this 
point: The Nixon impeachment hearings took 7 months, by one 
calculation, and the other one was 19 months, by Mr. 
Sensenbrenner's calculation. Judge Hastings was a 16-month 
investigation. Judge Nixon was a 13-month investigation.
    The President here has admitted nothing. We don't agree 
even on the facts. Mr. Lowell and Mr. Schippers certainly were 
differing on many of the facts. But this resolution gives us 17 
days to investigate that. That is not, if you will pardon the 
expression, due process.
    Mr. Frank. If you will yield, but as I understood you to 
say yesterday, you are about 3 weeks beyond us. So if, in fact, 
you think all this has to happen, were you serious then about 
thinking you were going to get it done in 19 months, 17 months, 
and all you have is 3 more weeks between Christmas and 
Thanksgiving? There appears to be a disparity.
    If in fact you need 19 or 17 months, if we have to do 
independent fact-finding, what did you mean when you said we 
were going to end by the end of the year?
    Mr. Hyde. I can truthfully say I don't understand your 
question.
    Mr. Frank. Let me rephrase it.
    Mr. Hyde. No, no. I understand it.
    Mr. Frank. How can you say, by the end of the year----
    Mr. Hyde. I don't know. If you will cooperate and we will 
get some stipulations, we can end before then. If you will 
change the pattern of delay and stall ball and lost records, 
and not you, not you----
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, if you will yield one more time, I 
object very much to this charge of stalling. We got this report 
from Kenneth Starr nearly a month ago. This committee has done 
nothing but been the publicity transmission belt until then as 
a committee. Some of us tried earlier to get some of this 
process started. It is not our responsibility that a month has 
gone by and nothing has been done until today.
    Mr. Hyde. I will accept charges that have some merit to 
them, but we are almost out of breath, we have been running so 
fast to move this thing along. Nobody wants it to be delayed 10 
minutes, I can assure you that.
    Meanwhile, if I may yield to Mr. Canady.
    Mr. Canady. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. Many of the reasons for opposing this amendment have 
already been very well stated. I just want to make the point 
again that this amendment is totally unprecedented. The 
proponents of this amendment cannot point to a single 
impeachment proceeding in the history of our Republic over two 
centuries in which a procedure such as this was utilized. If I 
am wrong about that and you have an example, precedents for 
this type of process that is recommended here with time limits, 
and requiring there be a determination of what an impeachable 
offense is in advance of the consideration of the facts, tell 
me what the precedent is.
    Mr. Conyers. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Canady. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Conyers. The reason is no proceeding has ever had an 
Independent Counsel before now.
    Mr. Canady. Okay. Again, I still ask for a precedent. I 
think there will be silence on that question, because there is 
no such precedent. This proposal is totally without support in 
the history of the impeachment process of the country. I think 
it would be a serious mistake for this committee to adopt such 
a novel, untested approach to dealing with the great matters 
that are before us.
    On this issue of whether we should consider and define what 
an impeachable offense is, in advance of looking at what 
conduct was actually involved and what offenses the President 
may be guilty of, I would refer to what the New York Times has 
recently said.
    The New York Times has endorsed the approach that the 
chairman of the committee has suggested to us and says this: 
``The natural contours of an impeachment inquiry accommodate 
two converging avenues of work; one dealing with the evidence, 
the other with the constitutional question of what constitutes 
an impeachable offense. The Judiciary Committee has wisely 
chosen to consider these in tandem, with the expectation that 
each inquiry will inform the other.
    As Mr. Hyde has already indicated, at Mr. Hyde's request, 
the Subcommittee on the Constitution will soon conduct a 
hearing on the background and history of the impeachment 
process. The purpose of that hearing will be not to frame a 
fixed definition of impeachable offenses, but to provide 
further information that will help inform the judgment of each 
member as we consider any offenses the President may have 
committed and determine whether the President's conduct 
involved high crimes and misdemeanors.
    That is a process that we should go through. That is the 
way the process has worked in the past, although I will say 
that in fact we are going beyond and taking extra steps here by 
actually holding a hearing on the subject.
    In the Nixon case, there was no such hearing. There was not 
a hearing on what constitutes an impeachable offense and the 
background and history of impeachable offenses. Instead, the 
staff prepared a report.
    I want to clear up one error that has been repeated time 
and time again in our deliberations. This goes back to an 
earlier meeting and a motion that was made by the minority. It 
has been suggested that in the Nixon case, the House of 
Representatives, on August 22nd, adopted a definition of 
``impeachable offenses.'' That is simply untrue. There is no 
support for that conclusion.
    What the House did on August 20th, which was at the end, at 
the end of the whole process in the Nixon case, what the House 
did on that date was to simply accept the report of the 
committee for printing in the Congressional Record. There was 
no debate, not a word of debate.
    So the notion that somehow----
    Ms. Waters. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Canady. If I have time, I would be happy to yield. I 
would like to finish this.
    There was no debate. Let me read what was said after the 
vote on that. ``Mr. Speaker, in order to make it perfectly 
clear, the vote by which the House just accepted the report of 
the committee on the Judiciary was simply the formality of 
accepting it, and in no way suggesting their approval or 
disapproval of the contents. The procedural acceptance of the 
report was for the purpose of printing it in the record, and no 
explanation or debate was possible since at least 400 members 
of the House had no knowledge of its complete contents and 
recommendations, because the report had not been previously 
reported.''
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Canady. The record needs to be set straight on that.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman be given an additional minute.
    Mr. Hyde. With reluctance, the gentleman is recognized for 
another minute.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Canady. I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Scott. As your counterpart on the Constitution 
Subcommittee, can you tell me when our subcommittee will be 
meeting, and whether or not it would make more sense to have 
that hearing before we launch an inquiry into impeachment?
    Mr. Canady. I believe the House should move forward as an 
impeachment inquiry. As part of that process, we will consider 
the background and history of impeachment. That is the purpose 
of the hearing. We hope to have that at the earliest possible 
time, consistent with having the people there who can give us 
the most thoughtful analysis of the questions before us.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Delahunt. Yes, I yield.
    Mr. Conyers. We have had our Constitutional Committee 
chairman and the ranking member discuss subcommittee hearings, 
but ladies and gentlemen, the subject of what constitutes 
impeachable conduct is one of such magnitude that to let that 
reside in the small number of members within the committee 
would be something that I would be derelict if I didn't point 
out. That has to be handled at the full committee level, 
because it goes to the heart of the Boucher amendment, and it 
goes to the depth of our argument that there be constitutional 
analysis as we move along with all of these facts that have 
been piled on.
    I would ask both my ranking member and the chair of the 
subcommittee to please consider, along with myself and Chairman 
Hyde, that those hearings be elevated and be made a part of the 
full committee proceedings, please. I thank Bill for his 
indulgence.
    Mr. Delahunt. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I just want 
to----
    Mr. Hyde. Mr. Delahunt, will you yield to me for just a 
second? I just want to respond to the gentleman.
    Mr. Delahunt. Of course, I yield to the Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. I gently disassociate myself with the request 
that the whole committee conduct this symposium. I would just 
as soon let the Constitution Subcommittee do it, although you 
and I can attend if we want.
    Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just wanted to note an observation by, I think it was Mr. 
Sensenbrenner, when he suggested that the adoption of this 
resolution would stall the process. I don't think we really 
have a process right now to stall. But the intention of those 
of us who have cosponsored this resolution is an attempt to 
expedite, to be expeditious, and at the same time to be 
deliberative and thorough.
    What we are trying to do here is clarify and define what 
the issues are before this committee. I think we have to go 
back to the resolution that got us here in the first place, 
H.R. 525. I am going to read briefly:
    ``That the Committee on the Judiciary shall review the 
communication received on September 9th to determine whether 
sufficient grounds exist to recommend to the House that an 
impeachment inquiry begin.''
    We are limited to that communication. This is not 
Watergate, where there was a need for the expenditure of 
substantial investigative resources and time to bring it to 
closure.
    What the American people want is to bring this matter to 
closure. We know what the issues are before us. We have heard 
them today. They have been alluded to. I am certainly not 
content with the quality of the evidence as presented by Mr. 
Starr, but there is no need to make the comparison with 
Watergate. We can get it done in an expeditious fashion, and 
move on. Whatever our conclusions may be, we then benefit the 
American people by moving on with the business of the country.
    I think the best evidence of the chaos that we are now 
experiencing is the testimony of the majority counsel. As my 
friend from Massachusetts observed, counsel has already 
dismissed two counts and added four others. What we are doing, 
without defining and having a clear understanding, is making 
the process an interminable one.
    Nobody here wants this to go on for 18 months. If we look 
at what we are here for, if we examine the resolution, we can 
get the job done. I urge passage of the Boucher resolution.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have a great deal of respect for the principal proponent 
of this amendment, and join in on what he says very often, but 
I have to disagree with him on this occasion. I think it has 
been well expressed in other parts of this country about 
hamstringing the committee by placing artificial time periods 
on it and limiting the scope. I think it indeed is a very bad 
idea.
    I think if we all step back in the calm and look at this, 
we will realize that we all want to conclude this just as soon 
as possible. We hear the American people out there complaining 
about this, too. But on the other hand, there are a lot of 
people out there that want to see justice done in this case in 
a fair way. We do not want to rush to a judgment.
    In a funny kind of way, too, I think the Thompson 
subcommittee showed that sometimes when you set deadlines, you 
actually give incentives to people to slow things down. It is 
like they are going to run the clock out, almost. I know people 
up here would not do that, but it is possible that that could 
be a built-in situation where you have set these artificial 
deadlines.
    We have talked about the Rodino model. I have reviewed some 
of the legislative history about this and some of the reports. 
I would agree with our chairman, that it appears to me that we 
have to continue gathering the facts and getting everyone's 
story on this, and then put it in the context of this 
presidency, and determine if it is an impeachable offense. But 
we have been asked early on to try to follow that precedent. I 
think we are doing it in this manner.
    In terms of the deadline, I looked back to actual votes 
that occurred in that hearing in terms of setting artificial 
deadlines. There were actually, as I read this, three efforts 
to set a final report date of April 30, 1998. That failed 14 to 
23. There was an effort to require an interim report by April 
30, 1974. That failed 12 to 24. There was an amendment to set a 
deadline by which the subpoena authority expired. That failed 7 
to 29.
    So if we are going to use the Rodino model, let us look at 
things like this, and obviously they thought it was a bad idea 
back in 1974. That seems to be our precedent.
    With that in mind, I am going to join my colleagues in 
asking everyone to oppose this amendment.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman and members, I know that the 
gentlelady from Texas has a comment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. And Virginia.
    Mr. Conyers. How many people here have comments? Five.
    Mr. Hyde. Okay. Order pizzas.
    Mr. Conyers. In that case, I know I am not, obviously, the 
closing speaker on our side. I would point out to my colleagues 
that there is another alternative fallback amendment that the 
gentleman from California----
    Mr. Frank. No.
    Mr. Conyers. Okay. What we are going to do now is, first of 
all, let me ask unanimous consent to have a 3-page letter 
written by 13 law scholars to the Speaker of the House dated 
October 2, 1998, I ask unanimous consent that it be included in 
our record.
    Mr. Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
                                                    October 2, 1998
Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker,
United States House of Representatives.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: Did President Clinton commit ``high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors'' for which he may properly be impeached? We, the 
undersigned professors of law, believe that the misconduct alleged in 
the Independent Counsel's report does not cross the threshold.
    We write neither as Democrats nor as Republicans. Some of us 
believe that the President has acted disgracefully, some that the 
Independent Counsel has. This letter has nothing to do with any such 
judgments. Rather, it expresses the one judgment on which we all agree: 
that the Independent Counsel's report does not make a case for 
presidential impeachment.
    No existing judicial precedents bind Congress's determination of 
the meaning of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' But it is clear that 
Members of Congress would violate their constitutional responsibilities 
if they sought to impeach and remove the President merely for conduct 
of which they disapproved.
    The President's independence from Congress is fundamental to the 
American structure of government. It is essential to the separation of 
powers. It is essential to the President's ability to discharge such 
constitutional duties as vetoing legislation that he considers contrary 
to the nation's interests. And it is essential to governance whenever 
the White House belongs to a party different from that which controls 
the Capitol. The lower the threshold for impeachment, the weaker the 
President. If the President could be removed for any conduct of which 
Congress disapproved, this fundamental element of our democracy--the 
President's independence from Congress--would be destroyed.
    It is not enough, therefore, that Congress strongly disapprove of 
the President's conduct. Under the Constitution, the President cannot 
be impeached unless he has committed ``Treason, Bribery, or other high 
Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
    Some of the charges laid out in the Independent Counsel's report 
fall so far short of this high standard that they strain good sense: 
for example, the charge that the President repeatedly declined to 
testify voluntarily or pressed a debatable privilege claim that was 
later judicially rejected. These ``offenses'' are not remotely 
impeachable. With respect, however, to other allegations, the report 
requires careful consideration of the kind of misconduct that renders a 
President constitutionally unfit to remain in office.
    Neither history nor legal definitions provide a precise list of 
high crimes and misdemeanors. Reasonable people have differed in 
interpreting these words. We believe that the proper interpretation of 
the Impeachment Clause must begin by recognizing treason and bribery as 
core or paradigmatic instances, from which the meaning of ``other high 
Crimes and Misdemeanors'' is to be extrapolated. The constitutional 
standard for impeachment would be very different if, instead of treason 
and bribery, different offenses had been specified. The clause does not 
read, ``Arson, Larceny, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' 
implying that any significant crime might be an impeachable offense. 
Nor does it read, ``misleading the People, Breach of Campaign Promises, 
or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' implying that any serious 
violation of public confidence might be impeachable. Nor does it read, 
``Adultery, Fornication, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' 
implying that any conduct deemed to reveal serious moral lapses might 
be an impeachable offense.
    When a President commits treason, he exercises his executive 
powers; or uses information obtained by virtue of his executive powers, 
deliberately to aid an enemy. When a President is bribed, he exercises 
or offers to exercise his executive powers in exchange for corrupt 
gain. Both acts involve the criminal exercise of presidential powers, 
converting those awful powers into an instrument either of enemy 
interests or of purely personal gain. We believe that the critical, 
distinctive feature of treason and bribery is grossly derelict exercise 
of official power (or, in the case of bribery to obtain or retain 
office, gross criminality in the pursuit of official power). 
Nonindictable conduct might rise to this level. For example, a 
President might be properly impeached if, as a result of drunkenness, 
he recklessly and repeatedly misused executive authority.
    The misconduct of which the President is accused does not involve 
the derelict exercise of executive powers. Most of his misconduct does 
not involve the exercise of executive powers at all. If the President 
committed perjury regarding his sexual conduct, this perjury involved 
no exercise of presidential power as such. If he concealed evidence, 
this misdeed too involved no exercise of executive authority. By 
contrast, if he sought wrongfully to place someone in a job at the 
Pentagon, or lied to subordinates hoping they would repeat his false 
statements, these acts could have involved a wrongful use of 
presidential influence, but we cannot believe that the President's 
alleged conduct of this nature amounts to the grossly derelict exercise 
of executive power sufficient for impeachment.
    Perjury and obstructing justice can without doubt be impeachable 
offenses. A President who corruptly used the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation to obstruct an investigation would have criminally 
exercised his presidential powers. Moreover, covering up a crime 
furthers or aids the underlying crime. Thus a President who committed 
perjury to cover up his subordinates' criminal exercise of executive 
authority would also have committed an impeachable offense. But if the 
underlying offense were adultery, calling the President to testify 
could not create an offense justifying impeachment where there were 
none before.
    It goes without saying that lying under oath is a serious offense. 
But even if the House of Representatives had the constitutional 
authority to impeach for any instance of perjury or obstruction of 
justice, a responsible House would not exercise this awesome power on 
the facts alleged in this case. The House's power to impeach, like a 
prosecutor's power to indict, is discretionary. Thus power must be 
exercised not for partisan advantage, but only when circumstances 
genuinely justify the enormous price the nation will pay in governance 
and stature if its President is put through a long, public, voyeuristic 
trial. The American people understand this price. They demonstrate the 
political wisdom that has held the Constitution in place for two 
centuries when, even after the publication of Mr. Starr's report, with 
all its extraordinary revelations, they oppose impeachment for the 
offenses alleged therein.
    We do not say that a ``private'' crime could never be so heinous as 
to warrant impeachment. Thus Congress might responsibly determine that 
a President who had committed murder must be in prison, not in office. 
An individual who by the law of the land cannot be permitted to remain 
at large, need not be permitted to remain President. But if certain 
crimes demand immediate removal of a President from office because of 
their unspeakable heinousness, the offenses alleged against the 
President in the Independent Counsel's referral are not among them. 
Short of heinous criminality, impeachment demands convincing evidence 
of grossly derelict exercise of official authority. In our judgment, 
Mr. Starr's report contains no such evidence.

            Sincerely,

                                            Jed Rubenfield,
                                 Professor of Law, Yale University,
                                            Bruce Ackerman,
  Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University,
                                           Akhil Reed Amar,
                       Southmayd Professor of Law, Yale University,
                                               Susan Block,
                Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center,
                                        Paul D. Carrington,
 Harry R. Chadwick Sr. Professor of law, Duke University School of 
                                                               Law,
                                             John Hart Ely,
Richard A. Hausler Professor of Law, University of Miami School of 
                                                               Law,
                                             Susan Estrick,
Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science, University 
                                            of Southern California,
                                             John E. Nowak,
 David C. Baum Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of 
                                                               Law,
                                            Judith Resnick,
                        Arthur L. Liman Professor, Yale Law School,
                                     Christopher Schroeder,
                   Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law,
                                            Suzanne Sherry,
      Earl R. Larson Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law 
                                                            School,
                                         Geoffrey R. Stone,
  Harry Kalven, Jr. Dist. Serv. Professor & Provost, University of 
                                                Chicago Law School,
                                         Laurence H. Tribe,
Tyler Professor of Constitution Law, Harvard University Law School,
                                             Cass Sunstein,
      Karl Llewelyn Distinguished Service Professor--University of 
                                                Chicago Law School.

Note: Institutional affiliations for purposes of identification only.

    Mr. Conyers. Thank you. May I keep firmly fixed, and every 
member on both sides of the aisle, on the point that for us to 
let a subcommittee, as distinguished as it may be, handle the 
constitutional question of what is an impeachable offense, that 
is a matter that every single one of the 37 of us have to be in 
attendance. If we are going to expand this subcommittee to 
everybody, this isn't something that you leave to any of your 
colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. This goes to the very heart 
of the matter.
    Now, let me just make several points on the Boucher 
alternative. The first is that there are no arbitrary time 
limits that will either rush nor stall the search for the 
truth. I refer you to section 4 in this very carefully crafted 
amendment, which says that a report to the House of 
Representatives may be made by the committee requesting an 
extension of time, so that no one here can say they voted 
against this provision because it was fixing time. It says, 
``request an extension of time.''
    Mr. Gekas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Conyers. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Gekas. Mr. Chairman, I tried to make the point before, 
with respect to the gentleman from Virginia, when he had the 
time, that in a diabolical way, the request to the House of 
Representatives is in itself a stall, even unintentionally 
brought about; and more diabolically, you give the chance to 
the majority to determine even a bigger lapse of time and a 
bigger stall, if we were so inclined, to convene the House of 
Representatives or to bring this to the attention of the full 
House sometime in the next year.
    Mr. Conyers. Let me argue on behalf of the Speaker of the 
House that I don't think he would do that, okay?
    I think that this body would give this committee additional 
time if they so chose. I think the authors of this amendment 
believe that sincerely.
    Now, all we are asking, in the alternative, is that we 
limit the matter to what has been referred by Independent 
Counsel; namely, the Lewinsky matter. Nothing else is mentioned 
in the 37 boxes, the tens upon tens of thousands of papers. 
That is what we are here for, and that is what our job is. We 
are limited to Lewinsky at this time.
    Now, with regard to the facts and the law and which comes 
first, please, we have all the facts before us. The facts have 
been here. The handful of witnesses, factual witnesses, most 
have been before the grand jury, including the President of the 
United States, one, two, three, four, five, six times. This is 
not a search for facts, notwithstanding that there may be 
honest disagreements about the facts. We are not looking for 
new facts.
    So to begin this proceeding with an examination of existing 
constitutional scholars' interpretations of what are high 
crimes and misdemeanors is absolutely appropriate. All we are 
asking is that we do it in this fashion. Ninety-nine percent of 
the facts are known.
    Might I just remind you that the Congress, under the 
present Speaker, processed one-half of the Contract With 
America within 100 days, 100 days, which included several 
constitutional amendments, radical overhauls of the systems of 
criminal and civil justice and administrative procedure.
    So to suggest that this is either stalling or speeding is a 
misconception, and I urge my colleagues on the Republican side 
to please search your consciences and make certain that you 
understand the importance and the seriousness of the Boucher 
alternative amendment.
    Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. First let me express my 
profound admiration and respect for the author of this 
particular amendment. I join in the comments of my other 
colleagues in so doing.
    Mr. Boucher is one whose approach to our work on this 
committee is such that when I do find myself taking issue with 
a proposal of his, I do so with great caution, because I am so 
impressed and have such great respect for him.
    I must do so, however, Mr. Chairman, in this particular 
case. A few minutes ago, I took a break to fill my coffee cup 
in the back room. As I watched these proceedings on C-Span, I 
noticed that there has been a tendency in the television 
coverage to do a shot of the painting that we have above us of 
Chairman Rodino. One of the staff members told me that that has 
been a constant throughout the day.
    I understand this motivation, because the presence of 
Chairman Rodino and the spirit in which he brought fairness to 
these hearings 24 years ago is such that it is a perfect 
reminder for this committee as to how we should proceed.
    So there is a reason why, when these same type of 
limitations were suggested by the minority during Watergate, 
Chairman Rodino rightfully said that ``the Chairman recognizes, 
as the committee does, that to be locked into a time limit 
would be totally irresponsible and unwise.''
    Why is that significant, Mr. Chairman? It is significant 
because if we set an artificial deadline for this inquiry, then 
essentially this committee is at the mercy of those over whom 
we might wish to have evidence produced. They can use dilatory 
tactics, they can use obstructionist tactics, they can use 
delaying tactics to preclude us from being able to fulfill our 
charge.
    Chairman Rodino obviously understood that by allowing the 
committee to set the perimeters for a deadline, the committee 
kept control of the proceedings, and did not surrender them to 
external forces.
    I was struck by the comments of my dear colleague, Ms. 
Lofgren, when she related the example of Chairman Rodino giving 
his word 24 years ago that although he would not accept an 
artificial deadline, he would pledge to proceed in as 
expeditious a fashion as possible.
    Ms. Lofgren. Will the gentleman yield? Because he actually 
said April 30th.
    Mr. Rogan. If I may finish my commentary, then I would be 
happy to yield to my friend.
    I found that instructive, Mr. Chairman. We know from this 
weekend's news reports that our current chairman has also given 
his commitment, not just to the committee, but to the country, 
that he would proceed in as expeditious a manner as possible. 
That to me is perhaps the most sound guarantee that this 
committee could ever have, and I daresay that no member of this 
committee who has worked with our chairman and who knows our 
chairman would take issue with that pledge.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot from the other side about 
precedent that has been set: the precedent set under Watergate, 
the precedent set under Chairman Rodino. The reality here is 
that there hasn't been any precedent at all in this case. The 
document dump in this case, where we have an Independent 
Counsel, who by the way spent 41/2 years in investigation, 
submits a report to this Congress and this committee, and that 
report is put out in public before we even see it. 
Unprecedented.
    To take the 3,000 pages, included among them secret grand 
jury testimony, and dump that out to the public before we have 
had a chance to thoroughly go over that information, is totally 
unprecedented. The first document was released in Watergate 7 
weeks into the formal inquiry. So it has been unprecedented. 
You cannot retroactively say that we are going to follow 
precedent that we established with Watergate. It can't be done 
retroactively.
    The Democratic alternative simply says that the first thing 
we need to do is ascertain a constitutional standard for 
impeachment based on the fact that we know--now we have to 
admit we already know basically what the facts are here.
    We have the President, who has been under grand jury 
testimony for 5 hours' worth of testimony on every major 
network in America. We basically know this is a case that is 
about a sexual relationship the President had with Monica 
Lewinsky, and whether or not there was an effort to hide that 
or cover it up. That is what essentially this is going to come 
down to.
    So this notion that there has been a precedent set is 
ridiculous, in my view. We have already thrown all the 
precedents out the window. The question is, can we take the 
facts as we all understand them and apply them to a 
constitutional standard about what is an impeachable offense 
and determine whether the facts, as we know them, rise to the 
level of high crimes and misdemeanors?
    That is the first step we would undertake. It is a process 
that makes sense, it is a process that is constitutional, and 
under the circumstances, I believe that it is in the best 
interests of the country.
    And to think that whatever facts we don't know in this 
case--and I have heard members talk about and the majority 
counsel talk about how and whether or not the President touched 
Monica Lewinsky, and whether that is consistent with his civil 
and criminal deposition. I cannot believe that we need to make 
comparisons to 18- and 16-month impeachment inquiries, and we 
are going to conduct that type of an inquiry here, and put this 
country through that, to make determinations about how the 
President may or may not have touched a woman during a sexual 
relationship that he shouldn't have had.
    It seems to me we know the facts. The facts are on the 
table, and they are before the American people. Let's determine 
whether those facts constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. I 
think we could do that within a short period of time, as 
suggested by this amendment. I hope that the majority will look 
at this amendment and adopt this amendment. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Mr. Hyde. Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
substitute, but I also want to acknowledge the constructive 
manner in which it is offered. I appreciate the consultations 
with my Democrat colleagues. I think that they are expressing 
something in this substitute that many people are concerned 
about; but in this case, the chairman has indicated and it is 
certainly my desire, that we proceed through this inquiry 
expeditiously, fairly, and independently to come to a 
conclusion. I believe that we can do that. We all want this to 
end, but it must be done the right way.
    In looking back over the Watergate proceedings, the members 
of this committee had the same type of debate. My colleague, 
Mr. Pease, from Indiana, handed me a New York Times article 
entitled, ``House Impeachment Panel Faces Split on Procedure.'' 
So the debate we are having is very similar to the debate that 
was conducted back during the Watergate proceedings, and in 
fact, the senior Republican member, Representative Edward 
Hutchinson of Michigan--and he is no relative of mine--he 
raised the same argument that some Democrats are raising now. 
He said that the issue, the threshold question of setting a 
deadline for the committee, needs to be answered before we 
proceed with the investigation.
    That was the case made by the minority then, and Mr. 
Hutchinson was wrong then; but this Mr. Hutchinson is right 
now, that we should proceed on. It is interesting how this 
issue was resolved at that time. The chairman, Chairman Rodino, 
assured the committee that he would proceed expeditiously and 
set a goal as to when it would be done. And the minority said, 
``Well, put it in writing.'' He said, ``Take my word for it.''
    They went to the floor of the House and in that debate, a 
Republican, Mr. Rhodes, asked about this and received the 
assurance of the Democrat chairman. Mr. Rhodes responded, ``The 
gentleman's word is good with me, and I certainly intend to 
accord him the credibility which he has earned, and he has 
earned it.'' That is straight from the Congressional Record.
    What a marvelous fashion they worked together to develop 
bipartisan support on the floor. I certainly think Mr. Hyde and 
his commitment deserves the same credibility that the previous 
chairman, Mr. Rodino, did at that time.
    My colleague from Massachusetts is arguing that we know the 
facts in this case. If you just look at the one point of 
obstruction of justice, the obstruction of justice charge is 
very serious, in my judgment. I think it is an impeachable 
offense, whether it occurred during Mr. Nixon's tenure or any 
other president's.
    But the facts are in dispute on this. The big issue is 
whether Betty Currie, in going and getting the gifts, the 
evidence under subpoena, and hiding them under her bed, was 
acting on her own, was acting at the direction of Ms. Lewinsky, 
or was acting at the direction of the President of the United 
States.
    The factual determination on that issue is critical. It 
depends on who you believe and how the circumstantial evidence 
is evaluated. I believe it makes sense that as we go through 
this process, we have to get to the facts, and an inquiry is 
the way that we do this.
    I believe the substitute that has been offered in good 
faith is the wrong direction to go because it has the potential 
for extending all of this. If there was one court challenge to 
the evidence, if there was one obstruction, we would not be 
able to complete it in a timely fashion. It would require us to 
go back to the floor of the House to extend it all. I do not 
believe we could complete it in a timely fashion.
    Mr. Chairman, I believe that the course that you have 
undertaken is wise, it is appropriate, and it is consistent 
with the Watergate standard. I recommend to my colleagues that 
we reject this substitute.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. Thank you.
    Mr. Wexler.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. You want to be recognized ahead of Mr. Wexler? 
That is all right, if Mr. Wexler is amenable.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would just like to be recognized or that 
you realize that we are down at this end. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Hyde. I do realize it. I am ever mindful of it. I am 
happy to recognize you now and unrecognize Mr. Wexler.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would not be so unkind to my colleague. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Hyde. Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    If I may, in the most friendly and respectful way that I 
know how, I would just first note that I believe that my 
colleague from Georgia, Mr. Barr and I, are scheduled to be on 
the show ``Crossfire'' at 7:30 p.m. In an effort not to ruin 
the show tonight, I will wait to respond to Mr. Barr's comments 
earlier until we get on the show. It wouldn't be fair to the 
program. It is a teaser.
    Speaking to the issue before the committee, I think it is 
fairly clear the choice that we have. On one hand, we can 
choose the course of the Democratic proposal, which is for me 
the most prominent part, an inquiry by this committee limited 
to the allegations contained in the Starr report. It is that 
simple.
    For me the most important thing is that the Democratic 
proposal says we will inquire into what Mr. Starr sent us. On 
the other hand, the other alternative apparently supported by 
the majority, the Republican members of the committee, is to 
have an inquiry of impeachment by this committee which is not 
limited to the allegations of the Starr report, but which I 
think in fairness it would be appropriate to conclude is an 
inquiry that will include the Starr report, and may include 
investigation of Whitewater, an investigation of what we call 
Filegate, and an investigation of what we call Travelgate. It 
may include an investigation regarding campaign finance alleged 
abuses. It may include investigation of transfer of 
technologies to China. It may include many things.
    I say so without impugning the motives or suggesting 
anything other than there is a clear choice: the Democratic 
proposal which limits our inquiry to the Starr report, or the 
Republican proposal which, by its very terms, allows 
investigation into not only the Starr report but almost 
anything else; in fact, anything else that this committee would 
deem appropriate to investigate.
    When it comes down to that basic denominator, it seems to 
me that the interests of the American people are better served 
if this Congress does not go into a series of endless 
investigations, and we limit ourselves to the terms of the 
Starr report and the allegations therein in terms of the 
reference of our question.
    That is why I am supporting the Democratic alternative. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. I know all of us, I am sure my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle here listen to their constituents, talk 
to the people back home. We get a lot of letters and e-mails 
and phone calls and people stop us in the supermarket. This is 
something certainly on their minds much. And whether they are 
supporters of the President or whether they are critics of the 
President, I think there is one thing they have in common, and 
that is that they very much would like to get this done right 
and get it behind us as soon as possible. I agree with that 
completely.
    I listened intently to Chairman Hyde yesterday when he said 
that he would like to get this done by the end of this year, 
and I think that is a worthy goal. Perhaps we could get it done 
sooner than that. But we need to do it right. If we put a 
definite time, it has to be done by a certain date, the thing 
that concerns a lot of us is that it would depend on the good 
faith of this White House, this administration, to come 
forward, be forthcoming with the facts and with the evidence, 
and not to delay. A lot of us have some real concerns about 
that.
    Because this is critically important to our Nation, I would 
hope that we can work together on this as much as possible. We 
are going to have disagreements between the Republicans and 
Democrats on occasion, but I think this is something so 
important to our country that we should work together as much 
as possible. I hope we will be able to do that.
    At this time I would like to yield to my good friend from 
South Carolina, Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. I thank the gentleman for yielding. There have 
been two major newspapers' look at both proposals, and they are 
going to be entered into the record, but I would like to read a 
little excerpt from the Washington Post.
    ''The limits that House Judiciary Committee Democrats have 
suggested imposing on the panel's forthcoming impeachment 
inquiry are mostly bad ideas that the Republicans are right to 
resist.''
    I am not so sure they are all bad ideas. I am just 
suggesting to you that as we go down the road to finding out 
what we can do and when we do it, we need to have as much 
latitude as possible.
    But let me suggest instead of the cart before the horse 
analogy, that everybody right now in my opinion is not seeing 
the forest for the trees. What happens November 3rd? We are 
going to have a national election.
    Mr. Berman.  Mr. Chairman, I cannot hear the speaker.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The committee will be in order. The 
point of order that has been raised by the gentleman from New 
York is correct. If the staff would kindly stop conferring, the 
gentleman from South Carolina is so soft-spoken, we certainly 
want to hear what he has to say.
    Mr. Graham. I have never been accused of that before, but 
it is nice to hear.
    The ``forest for the trees'' argument goes like this: No 
matter what resolution we adopt, the best we can hope for, and 
I think should do, is try to start the fact-gathering process 
in some way that will withstand historical scrutiny. I want 
people 30 years from now to look at our work product and say it 
wasn't motivated by the November 3rd election. So whatever we 
begin to do, we have the election to look at.
    Once the election comes and goes, this will be a lame duck 
Congress. I think we should continue our work through the first 
of the year, but I really believe for the sake of history the 
best thing we could do would be have a process that goes to the 
truth as fair and hard as we can get to the truth, but let the 
next Congress look at our work product and determine if 
articles of impeachment should be--let the next Congress 
determine if this thing should be dropped, because right now 
there are going to be people involved in the process between 
now and the first of the year that will not be members of the 
106th Congress.
    So I really believe Chairman Hyde's idea about how to 
proceed is the best thing we could do right now. Have no time 
limits. We can talk to every constitutional scholar in the 
world, we can have a seance to try to find the Founding 
Fathers' real intent. I don't care what we do between now and 
the next Congress, let us do it well, make sure it makes sense 
for the sake of history, and not rush into judgment and have 
people make decisions that will affect this country for 
hundreds of years to come when they are in a lame duck status.
    So the ``forest for the trees'' argument simply goes, slow 
down, do your job right, and let the new group of people do it.
    Mr. Nadler. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Graham. Yes.
    Mr. Nadler. I commend the gentleman for his emphasis on a 
proper process. I will not ask him about the timetable, because 
I think that is one discussion.
    But given the concern for proper process, don't you find it 
strange that we have been asked by the House in the resolution 
under which we are operating that the Judiciary Committee shall 
review the communication received September 9th from the 
Independent Counsel to determine whether sufficient grounds 
exist to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be 
commenced? Here we are prepared to vote on a recommendation to 
the House that the inquiry be commenced today without having 
spent any time looking at any evidence at all.
    Mr. Hyde. Mr. Chabot would like to reclaim his time.
    Mr. Chabot. I yield to Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. I find it strange that I am agreeing with the 
Washington Post.
    Mr. Hyde. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me 
add my accolades to Mr. Boucher, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Scott, Ms. 
Lofgren and Ms. Waters, and join them in what I think is the 
first concrete effort in which Democrats have joined them in 
striking the chord for nonpartisanship.
    I might too, Mr. Chairman, thank you today for mentioning 
at least four times the concept of due process. I was 
attempting a meeting or two ago to secure your support as I 
offered an amendment which no Republicans voted for, which 
confirmed that we be guided by the principles of due process 
and the Fifth Amendment, but I count as your voicing that 
expression that we are certainly guided by those provisions. I 
thank you for that.
    Let me also associate myself with the remarks of my ranking 
member, for I believe that we should join him in asking that 
all of us attend the Constitution Subcommittee's hearings on 
such a high and important determination as the constitutional 
standards.
    But let me say as well, there are so many of these fine 
gentleman that I wish to associate myself with, and certainly 
Mr. Graham from South Carolina has said something today that I 
think should be really striking as we debate this issue, and 
that is the rush to a vote on October 9th. I think the American 
people really need to sort of understand the parameters in 
which we work. It is not the parameters set out by the 
substitute. It is not the parameters of which the chairman has 
so kindly said that would be followed or would follow, which is 
to say that he will not limit it or he will limit it if 
necessary.
    But this unnecessary attempt to cast a vote by the House of 
Representatives on an impeachment inquiry, the very debate we 
are having today indicates that we are not ready for an 
impeachment inquiry. Some have said they understand the facts. 
Others have said, and I associate myself with them, we don't 
really know the facts.
    Let me give you an example why we don't know the facts. 
One, we have heard over and over again about Ms. Currie's 
recollection of these gifts under the bed, whether she got 
called to get them or whether or not Ms. Lewinsky suggested it. 
There is a disputable fact. The last point that Ms. Currie 
makes, which was not noted by our esteemed counsel for the 
Republicans, is even though she said that she might be wrong, 
it was sort of a guessing answer and suggested that maybe a 
younger woman like Ms. Lewinsky might have a better memory than 
hers. But she did not concede the point as to who was the one 
who initiated calling about the gifts.
    The other point that seems to be so much a part of our 
Republican colleagues' case for lying and perjury is this whole 
question of whether or not Monica Lewinsky was told to lie or 
whether or not she was to get a job to keep silent. She 
indicated in a 302 that no one had forced Lewinsky to sign the 
Jones affidavit before getting a job or no one--she did not 
stop signing it before getting a job, and Lewinsky never 
demanded a job from Jordan in return for a favorable affidavit. 
Neither did the President or Jordan ever tell Lewinsky she had 
to lie.
    We have disputable facts, if anything else. And the very 
fact of what we are doing today, disputing the facts, arguing 
constitutional principles, is the very reason why the 
Republicans' resolution is premature and that the Democratic 
alternative is in fact the real compromise here, the real 
extension of Democrats to our Republican colleagues saying to 
you, join us in this very fair process that does not harness us 
with Watergate, because we have all been using Watergate for a 
variety of reasons. I have been using it procedurally on the 
basis of due process, on the basis of not dumping documents, 
salacious materials, horrific things on to the Internet. But we 
cannot be harnessed by Watergate, as you said, because we had 
the Senate Watergate proceedings, 3 months of constitutional 
discussions, and then we proceeded and had a special prosecutor 
that did not provide an indictment but only information.
    I ask my colleagues to look at this in the spirit that it 
has been offered. It is offered in a compromise because, as you 
well know, many Democrats have argued the case of why an 
impeachment inquiry at all? Here this document acknowledges a 
process by which we can move to that and in a fair manner, and 
yet gives you an out by suggesting that if we are not finished 
with our work, Mr. Chairman, we can in fact ask for more time.
    I would hope that we here in this room would characterize 
this alternative not as the Washington Post and New York Times 
has done, inasmuch as it was written before they saw this 
alternative, but as it has been presented. Give us, the 
Democrats, at least the understanding and the agreement, if you 
read it well, that it is a compromise and an extension of a 
hand of friendship.
    We have a job to do. The Nation is asking us to move on. 
This gives us, Mr. Chairman, the parameters in which to move on 
in fairness, in friendship, and collaboration, and 
understanding the Constitution. I would ask my colleagues to 
vote for this in a bipartisan and nonpartisan manner.
    Mr. Hyde. Taking you up on that, are we ready to vote? 
Please? The question is being called here.
    Mr. Frank. Question.
    Mr. Hyde. I don't want to shut off debate, but I just want 
to say there are more amendments, there is more time to be 
consumed. Nobody is saying anything new. They are saying it 
maybe differently, but I just appeal to your hard hearts.
    Who must be heard? I just wanted to see. I am going to, Mr. 
Buyer. I am just trying to find out who over here. We have Mr. 
Scott, Mr. Watt, Mr. Rothman and Mr. Barrett. All right. Mr. 
Buyer, you have 4 to 1 here.
    Mr. Buyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Everyone has been 
referring to this Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives in the 93rd Congress, prepared by the staff 
under then-Chairman Rodino, and Mr. Chairman, you even earlier 
had referred to it. But there is a line in here that you did 
not cite that I find interesting, that says as the factual 
investigation progresses, it will become important to state 
more specifically the constitutional, legal and conceptual 
framework within which the staff and the committee will work. I 
think that is extremely important.
    The other thing I want to note here, I suppose I will take 
exception with Mr. Conyers, who said all the facts are already 
known. I would disagree with that. I think there are still 
facts that are left for us to inquire about.
    There is also an area which no one is really touching, and 
the two presentations given to us by the majority counsel and 
minority counsel did not touch the area really on misdemeanors 
in office. I raised it during my opening statement because I am 
greatly concerned that an impeachment, though, can be based on 
noncriminal conduct. That is possible. It can occur when the 
impeachable offense can also be something that is not 
necessarily indictable but serious misbehavior which may be 
considered as coming within the category of a high crime and 
misdemeanor.
    So it appears that no one here today wants to talk about 
the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief. I suppose 
nobody wants to talk about that because it was purely an act 
that occurred in the Oval Office when he was speaking with 
Congressman Sonny Callahan.
    When you think of the phone conversation President Clinton 
had with Congressman Callahan, the President called Sonny in 
order to get him, as chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, to vote in favor of funding 
the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. This was literally a matter 
of life and death for American troops and the Bosnian 
civilians, and a supreme test of our ability to handle the 
international crisis. What is remarkable is that it is alleged 
that is exactly the same time the President was eating pizza as 
Monica Lewinsky performed oral sex on him.
    That is worthy of consideration of a misdemeanor in office, 
and no one wants to talk about the misdemeanors, as if all we 
want to talk about is the high crimes. I want to make that 
point because there is further development of this case. I am 
very uncomfortable about putting time limits on that, as has 
been requested by Mr. Boucher's substitute.
    At this moment I want to yield to Mr. Goodlatte of 
Virginia.
    Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman for yielding. On the 
issue of what constitutes an impeachable offense, I just want 
to say that those who are advocating that we need to establish 
a standard or a clear definition so that we can know whether to 
proceed with an inquiry are in my opinion very wrong, and there 
is no precedent for that. The term ``impeachment'' is already 
defined. The Constitution states that standard in black and 
white.
    Establishing a fixed standard for impeachable offenses was 
not done in 1974. The Watergate Committee wisely sought to 
fully understand all the relevant facts without first agreeing 
on a detailed definition. And here is why. The duty of the 
House of Representatives ultimately is to decide whether to 
pass articles of impeachment. Each member of the House at that 
appropriate time is charged with determining for him or herself 
whether the conduct of the President is bad enough to warrant 
impeachment. It a matter of each member's own determination and 
conscience. In fact, Chairman Rodino never held one hearing on 
the issue of what constitutes an impeachable offense. If this 
committee devised a fixed standard or definition, we would be 
usurping the prerogatives of the members of the House.
    Even if a majority of this committee agreed on such a 
definition, those committee members who disagreed with it would 
not be bound by the definition. They shouldn't be. Their 
allegiance isn't to the opinion of the colleagues sitting next 
to them, it is to the Constitution. Even if the Judiciary 
Committee could agree on one definition, the full House of 
Representatives would not and should not be bound by such a 
definition for the same reason.
    The allegiance of each member of this body is to the 
Constitution, and if in good conscience a member couldn't agree 
with a committee's definition, he or she would be obligated to 
reject it. We simply can't tell the House what is or is not an 
impeachable offense.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually don't 
think we are as far apart as everybody seems to indicate. 
Frankly, I don't even think that these two competing motions 
are mutually exclusive. I think if we had some cool heads sit 
down and talk back and forth about the differences, I honestly 
think we would be able to work out the differences.
    As I said, I am a new member of this committee but I have 
got some battle scars. I come from the Government Reform 
Committee chaired by Chairman Burton. That committee, frankly, 
has very little respect. I don't want to waste my time, I don't 
want to waste your time, the country's time, unless we have the 
respect of the country, and I think that that means that we 
have to have credibility. And I want to just run through 
several portions of this competing, if you will, motion, and 
explain to you why I think they are important.
    There has been a lot said on standards. I am not going to 
touch on the standards. I want to touch on the focus, why we 
feel it is important to have this focus. We have received the 
mandate from the House. The mandate from the House was based on 
the Starr report.
    It is true that the Rodino-Watergate resolution was more 
unlimited, but the key difference, of course, is that it didn't 
have a report from a special counsel. Now we have a report from 
a special counsel, so the majority of the work has been done, 
and it is important for us to say let's concentrate on those 
efforts. I voted to release that report. I think we should be 
using that as our document.
    Now, what is my concern? Again, coming from the Government 
Reform Committee, it seemed to me that every time there was an 
article in the newspaper critical of the Clinton 
administration, the next week we would have a new hearing on 
those allegations. There was no focus. It was ``What can we 
throw at the President of the United States and hope something 
sticks?'' Little if anything stuck, but that was the concern, 
and I think that that is a legitimate concern.
    And obviously if the special prosecutor comes back with 
more recommendations, I don't believe for a minute that we will 
ignore those, nor should we. So I think we can come up with 
language that says we are going to focus on the Starr report 
and if we get additional recommendations from Kenneth Starr, 
that we would look at those. That is something that I think 
most people here would agree with.
    Let's talk about the time. From my perspective, this is a 
target date. It is different from the Senate. I have heard 
several members talk about the Senate. We can't get hung up 
like the Senate, because they have the 60 vote problem. We 
don't have the 60 vote problem right here. If you want us to 
continue, we are going to continue. So that argument is out the 
window.
    What is my concern? I have heard the reference to the 
process taking 19 months for Watergate, 16 months for Judge 
Hastings, 13 months for Judge Nixon. I hear that, my head 
starts to spin, because my wife is pregnant and is due January 
11. I want this resolved by January 11, if for no other reason, 
I would like to be home to see my baby being born.
    Mr. Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But we can do this. 
We can do this by then. But the layout, there is this 
possibility of 19, 16, 13 months, my God, that would be the 
worst thing for the country.
    The country feels that Washington, D.C., right now is in 
suspended animation, and it is, and we have a duty to set a 
target. And, if we are wrong, and I understand the concerns 
that have been raised, if you feel it is going to slow us down 
by having to go back to the House, there is a way to work 
around that. We can do it within the committee. But the 
American people, I believe, expect finality in this proceeding, 
and, I think, it is our duty to try to provide it.
    The third thing I want to talk on real quickly is the 
options. I think that this motion has a good section on the 
options, and this is something that I think we have to look at. 
Again this morning I referred to Presidents Ford and Clinton. I 
think it is important that we set out some possible options for 
us to go forward to. If we do that, I think you are going to 
get a lot of votes, and, I think, that is what we should be 
doing.
    I think we can take the day off. The good chairman and Mr. 
Conyers can sit down, come back and have a bipartisan vote, 
take it to the House for a bipartisan vote in the House. That 
is good for the country. The worst thing for this country is to 
have this be a partisan, polarized mechanism. There might be 
some people who want to play Russian roulette in terms of the 
November 3rd election, but that is not what is right for this 
country.
    What is right for this country is to try to have us work 
together. I think I have confidence in all of the people on 
this committee, the 37 of us can show the leadership how to do 
that. We don't have to listen to somebody else. We should 
listen to our consciences and do this. I think we will get it 
done.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
think the gentleman has done an excellent job of making clear 
what is at stake here. First of all, this comes after a 4-year-
plus Independent Counsel investigation, and that invalidates 
the previous comparisons. We don't have to do a lot of the 
independent fact-finding. We have an Independent Counsel, and 
that is very different from previously.
    Secondly, he focuses quite sensibly on the question of 
scope. Timing is really a function of scope. If you are going 
to go into the Lewinsky situation and Whitewater and the FBI 
files and the Travel Office and whatever filters through the 
wall from the Government Reform Committee next door and 
campaign finance and China, all things which have been the 
subject of multiple hearings and investigations, then you need 
19 months. You might need 19 years.
    If you function by focusing on the Starr report, where 
there has already been an extensive degree of fact-finding, 
then the time problem becomes much less of a problem. That is 
indeed what we ought to be doing. So I think the gentleman has 
brought a great deal of clarity to the issue.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. I am going to put a different spin on this. I 
promise you that red light will not illuminate on my watch. I 
will finish before my 5 minutes.
    I just came from the anteroom a few minutes ago, folks, and 
at least one reporter gave us high marks today. He commended us 
for the thorough, deliberate manner in which we have conducted 
ourselves. I think some people may have come here this morning, 
Mr. Chairman, expecting all the trappings of the commencement 
of the Third World War, and it hasn't developed. I think it has 
been a very evenhanded day.
    Now, much has been said about Watergate and Chairman 
Rodino. I wasn't here, but I have read about it and been told 
about it. During the early days of Watergate, it was certainly 
not harmonious, but as time went on during the waning days, I 
think harmony and bipartisanship did come into play. So I am 
not uneasy at all, at the way this is going. But I want to say 
this: Chairman Rodino did a good job, I am sure, but he does 
not hold a corner on the fairness market.
    Now, at the risk of being accused by some of my colleagues, 
Mr. Chairman, of being obsequious, I will say this to the 
gentleman from Illinois, our able chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. Go ahead, be obsequious.
    Mr. Coble. I will say it is my belief that not only today, 
but throughout this entire exercise, Chairman Hyde has 
conducted himself, as we say in the rural South, not too 
shabbily. That may be a left-handed compliment.
    Mr. Frank. Did they say shabbily or shabby?
    Mr. Coble. You are finally learning how to interpret my 
language, Barney.
    Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, and I hate to pour water on 
this harmonious tone I am giving, I think the Boucher amendment 
is not the sound approach to take. I think it is unprecedented, 
it would hamstring us, and it would result in us being unfair, 
maybe to the President and maybe to others.
    I told the chairman my red light would not come on, but now 
I am told the gentleman from Utah would like for me to yield. 
On my time, the red light is not illuminating.
    Mr. Hyde. You are yielding to Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
associate myself with the comments of all of my colleagues who 
have spoken with respect to others of us here, especially 
Messrs. Rogan and Hutchinson.
    Let me say that in my opening statement today I spoke about 
what is healthy partisan debate. I think we have seen a lot of 
that today. That means we speak from our own perspective. We 
argue rather intensively from our own perspective. I don't 
think anyone following this debate today doesn't see how the 
party line differs, not the least of which effect of that is 
the length of the debate.
    Frankly, it hasn't been a debate without humor. We have 
seen the Democratic schizophrenia over the time frame here, and 
just in the sense of compromise and listening, I would be happy 
to yield at any time to the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Nadler, to have him give us his next position on what I will 
call the Rodino paradox: which is his refusal to act, Mr. 
Rodino's refusal to act, in a vacuum versus why we should act 
today with what Mr. Nadler I think calls no fact-finding.
    The question of all the facts being before us I think has 
been one of the prominent discussions. I think Mr. Barrett said 
earlier that we had all of the facts. One thing we haven't 
really discussed here is that this alternative calls for a 17-
day investigation. If you listened to the two presentations by 
counsel, you know that there are virtually no agreements on 
facts.
    Now, in the last minute or so, let me read a couple of 
things that I think go to the core of the partisan difference 
between us and why we need to resolve this I think in a 
bipartisan fashion.
    Some of you may have seen the article called ``Bill's 
Sexscape RX Might Kill Him'' by Dick Morris. Morris says it is 
not the sex that will hurt the President and it is not even the 
perjury that will hurt the President, but rather it is the 
systematic attempt or campaign to intimidate, frighten, 
threaten, discredit and punish innocent Americans whose only 
misdeeds are the desire to tell the truth in public.
    Then, granted, Dick Morris may not be the most credible 
witness, but this is a man who has been on the inside of White 
House, who knows how the President works.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired. Does the 
gentleman ask for additional time?
    Mr. Cannon. An additional 2 minutes.
    Mr. Hyde. Without objection.
    Mr. Cannon. Thank you. Beginning as early as 1990, Clinton 
surrounded himself, Morris says, with detectives and negative 
research specialists who collectively have become kind of a 
secret police force to protect his interests. This is where 
that term has come from, has emerged in the public debate. Then 
he lists several people.
    ``Kathleen Wiley reports her cat was stolen and her tires 
were slashed on her car. Shortly thereafter, while jogging in 
the park, a man ran up alongside her, asked about her cat, 
calling it by name. He said if she wasn't careful, her children 
would be next.
    Former Miss America Elizabeth Lord Grayson says she was 
offered acting jobs through the Hollywood connection, Clinton 
operative Mickey Kantor, in return for a sexual encounter with 
Clinton when she was Miss Arkansas.''
    Now, Mr. Morris goes on with many of these kinds of 
allegations. I don't know whether there is substance to those, 
but I think the American people have a right to understand 
through a considered debate, without a time limit, what is 
behind these kinds of allegations by a gentleman who is 
familiar with the White House and the way it operates.
    Mr. Hyde. Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to address only 
one part of the proposed Democratic resolution. I was kind of 
hoping that some momentum would develop around Mr. Barrett's 
motion, but apparently that is not going to happen.
    The part of the resolution that I really want to emphasize 
is the standards part, the first part of the Democratic 
resolution, which it sounds like maybe we will have some 
hearings about in a subcommittee, maybe we will not. But it 
does seem to me that an appropriate starting place is to come 
together on some acknowledgment about what the historical 
standard in the Constitution is and what the precedents are 
related to that.
    It is not surprising to me that perhaps my Republican 
colleagues would not like that to happen. Right now it seems to 
me that the public is making its own set of judgments, morally 
and politically, without having any standard, and I am sure 
that is a lot more palatable to a lot of my colleagues than 
having some standards that everybody in the country could start 
to think in terms of.
    So I guess the point I am making is the difference between 
having a constitutional inquiry and having a political inquiry. 
If we are going to have a constitutional inquiry, then there 
ought to be some basic understanding of what the standards are 
for that inquiry.
    Second, I would point out that the Starr report came over 
with 11 allegations but not a single word about what he 
understood the constitutional standard to be. It was almost 
like yes, here are some facts; you decide whether they are 
impeachable or not. I am not going to get into talking about 
what the standards--I don't know how you say they may be 
impeachable without having some conception of what impeachable 
standards are in the Constitution.
    The third point I would make is that we just saw here today 
in the presentations of the majority and the minority counsel a 
wide, wide divergence of opinion about what the impeachment 
standard is.
    Apparently the majority counsel, if I read his standards 
correctly, starting on page 2, believes that ``the President of 
the United States enjoys a singularly and appropriately lofty 
position in our system of government, and that he has 
affirmative obligations that apply to no other citizen.'' I 
didn't know that.
    Then he goes on to say that ``while the President is not 
above the law or below the law, he is held to a higher standard 
than any other American.'' I didn't know that. If that is the 
standard we are going to apply for impeachment, then we ought 
to be talking about that before we start marshalling evidence.
    Then he goes on to say, ``and the circumstances under which 
the testimony is given are of no significance whatsoever.'' 
That is ridiculous. Should we believe if somebody lies about 
jaywalking, that is an impeachable offense? That is a 
circumstance under which the testimony is given.
    There have to be some basic guidelines that we are 
operating under, and right now the majority counsel is 
operating under one set, the minority counsel is operating 
under one set, the public is operating under a set, and I think 
this committee has no conception, and I don't know how we bring 
to bear these facts for ourselves without having a standard.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair would like to recognize Mr. Rothman and then 
vote. Is that possible? Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Scott is a cosponsor of this.
    Mr. Hyde. Mr. Scott is going to be recognized after Mr. 
Rothman. Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to 
congratulate all the members for the, generally speaking, 
bipartisan nature of our discussions, and commend the good will 
of the discussion here.
    But I did, in the sense of bipartisanship, want to point 
out that when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
point to the New York Times and the Washington Post 
editorialists as people we should listen to, I will remember 
that when these editorialists, as they most often do, criticize 
the policies and judgments of the Republican Party. Unless you 
want to accept the notion right now that everything they say is 
true, perhaps we should let ourselves be the judge of what is a 
fair procedure.
    But I did want to ask a couple of questions. Namely, why 
did Mr. Starr present this report when he did? If there are 
other matters yet hanging out there that have not--albeit after 
4 years and $40 million of expenditures--not yet been resolved, 
why did he present this referral of 11 allegations and say 
there might be grounds for impeachment? Why didn't he wait 
until the rest of these loose ends were tied up?
    Well, there are a couple of explanations. One, maybe he 
thought all the loose ends were tied up and he had nothing else 
to show the American people after 4 years of work but 11 
allegations such as the one he has presented regarding the 
President's misconduct with Ms. Lewinsky.
    If there are other loose ends still out there, then why did 
he present this report just a few weeks before the election? Is 
he going to tie those loose ends up a week before the election 
with another bombshell, or the day before the election with 
another bombshell? Either way, if we are to accept the good 
faith of the Independent Counsel that he concluded his work and 
gave us the results and the end product of his work, then we 
should rule and resolve the allegations he raised, all 11 of 
them.
    But I agree with my Democratic colleagues and most of 
America that we should keep our focus on the 11 allegations. 
There have already been enough congressional committees looking 
into every single aspect of the President's life, before he was 
President, when he was Governor, when he was a little boy, 
after Governor, and now as President. It has been exhaustive, 
the research and investigation against this President. We ought 
to focus in on the 11 charges Mr. Starr brought, and if he has 
more charges, let him bring them forth now. Otherwise, we will 
have to wonder why he has waited.
    I agree with the chairman that the goal should be to 
resolve these 11 allegations before the end of the year.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. Thank you very much. I just want to 
recapitulate for a minute where we are as we go to vote in a 
couple of minutes on this amendment by Mr. Boucher et al.
    First of all, we have an underlying resolution before us to 
follow the Watergate rules that were provided for in 1974. 
Those Watergate rules would provide for really quite a bit of 
fairness for everybody concerned, at least I certainly think 
so, and I think most of us who have debated it think so. There 
has been no dispute of the fact that we would have shared 
investigative powers of equal nature, shared subpoena powers, 
the President's counsel could sit in on any of the proceedings, 
depositions, et cetera. He could come testify if he wanted to, 
and so on.
    At the time of Watergate there was no limit with regard to 
how much time was going to be involved, although there was, as 
Chairman Hyde has expressed, an expression by Chairman Rodino 
that we ought to expedite this, and a general time frame was 
sort of mentioned or set. But there was no definition either, I 
dispute with my colleagues, of what impeachable offenses are.
    So what are we dealing with today? The real issues that are 
presented in the Boucher amendment are suggestions that, 
instead of simply following the Watergate rules that were what 
we first thought would be appealing to everybody, and I think 
still should be, that we have three additional basic 
differences amended to that.
    One is that we set a time frame that is very narrow and 
very short. One is that we somehow have meetings for a couple 
of weeks to define what an impeachable offense is. And number 
three is that we not allow the scope of whatever we look at to 
be added to unless we come back and have another vote on it. I 
would suggest that we are not in need of any one of these 
three, and one of them is very harmful.
    But we are not in need of the impeachable decision because, 
frankly, we are never going to decide among ourselves precisely 
what it is that is an impeachable offense in the broad, 
general, abstract sense. The Founding Fathers gave us general 
guidance, high crimes and misdemeanors plus treason and 
bribery. What ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' are, I have a 
lot of historical context that the Subcommittee on 
Constitutional Law will go into, I am sure. But even in the 
Rodino Watergate report, it said on its face there is no fixed 
standard. We are not going to do that in this report.
    Yes, there are some allusions to guidelines you can follow 
and general precepts that they have to be pretty high offenses, 
and nobody is going to dispute that. But we waste, in my 
judgment, a couple of weeks discussing that.
    Number two, as far as the scope is concerned, Mr. Chairman, 
I know that there are a lot of folks that don't want to go 
beyond where we are, and I hope we don't need to. But I don't 
think we should be fixed and tied down, and those of us in the 
majority don't think we should be in this resolution anymore 
than the Watergate crew was when Mr. Rodino presented his.
    Last, but not least, and I think the most important part of 
this, the fundamentally flawed part of the amendment before us 
is the one that sets the timetable, 17 days, when we have all 
of these facts in dispute. Clearly the counsels out here were 
in dispute today about what the facts were about some of the 
various alleged offenses. I don't know how long it is going to 
take. I don't think it is going to take months. I hope the 
chairman is right, we finish this by the end of the year. I 
think that is a very admirable goal and one we would all like 
to achieve. Whether we can or not is not clear.
    But one thing is for certain: If we set an arbitrary 17 
days, things are going to slip, people are going to try to 
delay and punt, subpoenas may be ignored. As Mr. Sensenbrenner 
said earlier, they will try to appeal whatever it is we do. I 
think if we have a firm general idea we want to get this done 
in a reasonable time frame, that is far better than an 
arbitrary 17 days.
    So I would urge the defeat of the Boucher amendment. Let us 
then, I hope, have a bipartisan vote on the underlying 
proposal, because I think we do share common thought. And that 
is, for most of us at least, we believe that some inquiry, some 
further investigation is warranted to clear up the facts of 
this matter and resolve this once and for all, to get the 
overhang over our heads out of the way.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. McCollum. I will yield for a question.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. McCollum. I am certainly 
not going to offer this, but just an inquiry to you: If all of 
the time lines were removed, do you see merits in the amendment 
outside of the time line issue?
    Mr. McCollum. No, I have indicated I do not, but I think 
the most egregious part is the time lines. I think it would be 
a waste of time to go into the impeachment issue. I don't think 
we could define it. I don't think the scope should be limited. 
I think the amendment should be defeated, but clearly the time 
line is the most egregious part of it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
would just remind the gentleman there is a provision to extend 
the time line.
    Mr. Hyde. Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. The alternative resolution before us has been 
referred to as the fairness plan because it is fair, focused, 
deliberate and expeditious. Mr. Chairman, in order to assure 
basic due process, the order of the decisions we make is just 
as critical as the decisions themselves.
    This fairness plan ensures we follow a logical order of 
decisionmaking that ensures that we avoid putting the cart 
before the horse. That may be a novel idea, but it begins first 
with a question, even assuming all the allegations are true, do 
any of the Independent Counsel's allegations rise to the level 
of an impeachable offense? If so, we should proceed on those 
offenses about those and only those offenses.
    Mr. Chairman, during Watergate, even if no fixed standard 
was achieved, there was at least an understanding of what the 
impeachment process was about. There were no reports from 
constitutional scholars that the charges lacked merit, and the 
question wasn't even close.
    In addition to being essential to ensuring fairness to the 
President, there is another reason why we must first determine 
whether or not there are any impeachable offenses alleged. If 
in the end some of the allegations fall short of an impeachable 
offense, we will have needlessly violated the privacy of 
innocent people, embarrassed them, ruined their lives, people 
who are accused of no crimes and have committed no offenses.
    If there are no impeachable offenses, clearly there is no 
need for us to go forward, and we should not use the 
impeachment process just to dig up dirt on the President.
    The process proposed in the alternative resolution is 
focused. We should not be drawing this probe out in open-ended 
dragnet fashion, and we should ensure that the 
constitutionality prescribed in presidential impeachment 
inquiries is focused only upon those matters which have been 
found to warrant consideration as impeachable offenses. We 
should ensure that this committee's resources are not expended 
in a fishing expedition based on bizarre conspiracy theories.
    Mr. Chairman, the importance of first appreciating a 
standard has been emphasized this morning. We now see that some 
of the Independent Counsel's allegations are apparently so 
flimsy that the Republican counsel didn't even mention them. 
What salacious details have been released which relate only to 
those clearly meritless charges? And now, here we are with new 
charges blurted out on a television proceeding an hour before 
we have to act on them without any prior notice. This exposes 
the lack of deliberation in our consideration of these charges.
    Furthermore, what standard was used to add charges or 
delete charges? We have heard all kinds of different standards 
today, many without any connection to the Constitution or the 
history of impeachment proceedings.
    Our responsibility under H.Res. 525 was to determine 
whether sufficient grounds exist to recommend to the House that 
an impeachment inquiry be commenced. We have obviously not 
given any deliberation to that question. We have just listened 
to charges and as soon as we hear the charges, we are ready to 
vote. We have planned a hearing sometime in the vague future. 
No date has been set.
    Mr. Chairman, these are not the Watergate rules. The 
proceedings so far have not been bipartisan as it has been 
represented. And, the document dump was not bipartisan. There 
was a party line vote on whether to release the documents 
before the President had an opportunity to see them, a party 
line vote on whether or not we should simply focus--release 
just that information relating to impeachable offenses. Those 
were all party line votes, and despite the fact that by 
adopting a process which ensures fairness, focus and 
deliberateness, we also can ensure that we can act 
expeditiously.
    The fairness plan provides for an expeditious process with 
provisions for reasonable extension if somebody is trying to 
run out the clock.
    Mr. Chairman, the issues before us are relatively 
straightforward and simple. After all, none of the allegations 
involve suggestions of wholesale misuse of the FBI to spy on 
political enemies, the abuse of the CIA to undermine our 
congressional inquiry or the misuse of the IRS to audit 
political adversaries as the Watergate inquiry involved. 
Instead, we are talking about admitted inappropriate sexual 
behavior and allegations about lying and attempts to cover up 
that behavior.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Scott. Could I have 30 additional seconds?
    Mr. Hyde. Without objection.
    Mr. Scott. I believe we have a fail-safe way to assure that 
we meet all of our responsibilities under the Constitution by 
adopting a fair, focused, deliberate and expeditious process 
for discharging those responsibilities, and I urge my 
colleagues to adopt it.
    Mr. Hyde. The question occurs on the Boucher amendment, and 
the Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCollum votes no.
    Mr. Gekas.
    Mr. Gekas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas votes no.
    Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble votes no.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
    Mr. Canady.
    Mr. Canady. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Canady votes no.
    Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis votes no.
    Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte votes no.
    Mr. Buyer.
    Mr. Buyer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Buyer votes no.
    Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant.  No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bryant votes no.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot votes no.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr votes no.
    Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins votes no.
    Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson votes no.
    Mr. Pease.
    Mr. Pease. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pease votes no.
    Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes no.
    Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rogan votes no.
    Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Mrs. Bono.
    Mrs. Bono. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bono votes no.
    Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers votes aye.
    Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank votes aye.
    Mr. Schumer.
    Mr. Schumer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schumer votes aye.
    Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman votes aye.
    Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher.  Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher votes aye.
    Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler votes aye.
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott votes aye.
    Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt votes aye.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye.
    Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters votes aye.
    Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan votes aye.
    Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt votes aye.
    Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler votes aye.
    Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rothman votes aye.
    Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrett votes aye.
    Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde votes no.
    Mr. Hyde. The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 21 ayes and 17 noes.
    Mr. Hyde. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Berman, the gentleman from 
California.
    The Clerk. There are 21 ayes and 16 noes, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, there are 21 noes and 16 ayes.
    Mr. Hyde. See me after class. The amendment is not agreed 
to.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Hyde. The Clerk will report the amendment, I think.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.Res. ______, offered by Mr. 
Berman.
    Amend the first section to read as follows:

                      Amendment to H. Res. ______

                         Offered by Mr. Berman

    Amend the first section to read as follows:

That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a whole or by any 
subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman for the purposes hereof 
and in accordance with the rules of the committee, is authorized and 
directed to review the constitutional standards for impeachment and 
determine if the facts stated in the narrative portion of the Referral 
of the Independent Counsel, if assumed to be true, would constitute 
grounds for the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of 
the United States of America. If the committee determines that the 
facts stated in the narrative portion of the Referral, if assumed to be 
true, would constitute grounds for impeachment, then the committee 
shall investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist 
for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power 
to impeach the President. The committee shall report to the House of 
Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment or other 
recommendations as it deems proper.

    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes in support of his amendment.
    Mr. Berman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    My amendment amends only the first paragraph of the 
underlying resolution that the chairman has introduced. In 
other words, every other aspect of the procedures suggested by 
the chairman in the underlying resolution that is before us 
remains the same.
    Initially, I want to apologize to my Democratic colleagues. 
I have been in this position for 16 years and before that in 
the California legislature for a long time, and I normally 
don't offer amendments without talking to my colleagues about 
what I am going to do. But this idea came to me over the last 
couple of days as a way to try and resolve some of the 
differences between us and to both serve the country and serve 
the concept of bipartisanship.
    I would like to just lay out some of the points behind this 
amendment.
    I really speak here to a lot of my Republican colleagues. 
It is always tough to shift at the last second, to move away 
from established positions, but I just throw this out to you.
    First, what the amendment doesn't do. The amendment I am 
proposing does not delay the impeachment inquiry. It doesn't 
make it conditional on some findings down the road. This 
amendment makes no effort to try and define a constitutional 
standard beyond what is already in the Constitution.
    I think we obviously have to consider what precedent, what 
the Founding Fathers said, but it makes no effort to define it.
    This proposal has no interim deadlines. This proposal has 
no final deadlines. The chairman of the committee has said he 
wants to complete this by the end of the year. He is going to 
try to complete it by the end of the year. That is good enough 
for me.
    What this proposal does do is limit the scope to the 595(c) 
referral that we have received. I know the arguments that have 
been made against the approach--Watergate didn't have any 
limits on its scope--but I would suggest several things have 
happened since that time, and this is in a very different 
context. And while many would like to maintain the open-ended 
nature of an inquiry to deal with what might happen in the 
future, the chance to put together a bipartisan resolution and 
get a substantial number of Democrats and to cut through the 
charge that this is being moved on a partisan basis is worth 
making a compromise with your desire in its purest sense.
    The amendment says, let's limit an inquiry to the referral, 
and let's assume that the narrative in the Starr report is true 
and decide if that constitutes grounds for impeachment.
    Why do I do that? I think it is the logical order. I think 
it makes sense on its own. But the real goal is much broader 
than that.
    I cannot believe that anyone in this body wants to go 
through an evidentiary fact-finding process on a matter that 
has been investigated over 8 or 9 months to bring in Monica 
Lewinsky and Linda Tripp to testify and go through this whole 
process all over again.
    As I mentioned in my opening statement, for the sake of the 
children of America, if we can resolve this question without 
going through that process, if we can accept the Starr 
narrative as true--and that means we are not talking about 
exculpatory evidence that wasn't included in the report or the 
justification for the original referral--and then decide 
whether or not, based on a sense of the constitutional 
standards for impeachment whether the facts in the narrative 
constitute grounds for impeachment. If the answer is yes, then 
we have to go through that fact-finding process. But we are 
making an effort to do this the right way.
    I believe the country will be the better for it, I believe 
this institution will be the better for it, and so I ask you to 
consider it. It is meant in the spirit of trying to put 
together a bipartisan approach to this.
    Mr. Hyde. I certainly thank the gentleman.
    The gentleman from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
    Mr. Chairman, as well-intentioned as Mr. Berman's amendment 
is, I think it leads us into a constitutional trap which we 
don't want to get ourselves put into. In lines 7 and 8, it says 
that the committee, in the stage that Mr. Berman has described 
in his investigation, should assume that the facts in the 
referral that are in the narrative section are assumed to be 
true.
    I do not think we want to do that. The House of 
Representatives has the constitutional function of determining 
what the facts are. That was what was done in both the 
President Nixon and Judge Nixon impeachments, as well as the 
Judge Hastings and Judge Clayburn impeachments.
    Under the doctrine of separation of power, I am afraid the 
amendment of Mr. Berman's would, in fact, delegate part of our 
powers effectively to the Independent Counsel's office, because 
we are assuming everything that he sends over here is true, and 
that is something that I really don't think we should do.
    Now, I would like to read a bit from the memorandum that 
was submitted in 1974 as the Judiciary Committee began the 
President Nixon impeachment process.
    The third from the last paragraph says, this memorandum 
offers no fixed standards for determining whether grounds for 
impeachment exist. The framers did not write a fixed standard. 
Instead they adopted from English history a standard 
sufficiently general and flexible to meet future circumstances 
and events, the nature and character of which they could not 
foresee.
    Further on up in this introduction, they talked about 
having the inquiry staff go through the evidence, a lot of 
which was formed by the Erwin Committee and is contained in the 
green volumes that are over there on the table, which is much 
more massive than the evidence that Mr. Starr has sent over and 
which we have released as relevant.
    The impeachment memo of 1974 says ``as the factual 
investigation progresses, it will become possible to state more 
specifically the constitutional, legal and conceptual framework 
within which the staff and the committee work. Delicate issues 
of basic constitutional law are involved. Those issues cannot 
be defined in detail in advance of a full investigation of the 
facts. The Supreme Court of the United States does not reach 
out in the abstract rule on the constitutionality of statutes 
or of conduct. Cases must be brought and adjudicated on 
particular facts in terms of the Constitution. Similarly, the 
House does not engage in abstract, adversary or hypothetical 
debates about the precise nature of conduct that calls for the 
exercise of its constitutional powers. Rather, it must await 
the full development of the facts and understanding of the 
events to which those facts relate.''
    Here there is a huge dispute as to the facts. We heard that 
from Mr. Schippers and Mr. Lowell during their presentations 
this afternoon, and I think that that was reflected in the very 
good debate that we have had on this subject all day.
    Mr. Berman's amendment assumes that all of the facts that 
Judge Starr has sent over to be correct for the purposes of 
applying the constitutional standard. That I think is putting 
the cart before the horse, and I do think that this amendment, 
while well-intentioned, actually does derogate our 
constitutional powers in the future to future independent 
counsels or other officials of the executive or judicial 
branches, and we should not be doing that.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentlewoman from California.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, this amendment takes me by total 
surprise. I wish I had been able to see it or discuss it with 
my friend and colleague from California, Mr. Berman, because it 
is a leap. It is a leap from where I come from.
    I discussed earlier today my concept of fairness, and 
certainly I would have some difficulty without all parties 
stipulating to these facts, have some difficulty moving ahead 
with them. But the more you talked about saving the children of 
America and the more you talked about the prospects of having 
Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp before this committee, the more 
I began to think perhaps, just perhaps, there are some 
possibilities here.
    I am very anxious to look for compromise. I have been 
identified as one of the most partisan on this side of the 
aisle. And each time I hear it said, I look for ways by which 
to bring this committee to some consensus, because I think it 
is important that we do that.
    So, Mr. Berman, I would tell you that I have known you for 
many years, and I have worked very well with you, and I would 
carefully and somewhat reluctantly support this amendment in 
the interest of getting rid of the partisan identification that 
this committee has gotten.
    Mr. Gekas. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Waters. Yes.
    Mr. Gekas. If we were to adopt this amendment, I would 
submit to you we would be stipulating that perjury, in effect, 
did occur. If the report of the facts that are contained in the 
Starr report are to be considered as true, then the factual 
situation in which he concludes in the Starr report that 
perjury was committed would be for the purposes of this 
amendment--correct me if I am wrong--would be----
    Ms. Waters. Reclaiming my time, that is not my 
understanding as to the identification of the narrative 
portion.
    I yield to the maker of the motion first and certainly.
    Mr. Berman. I believe the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
going to develop this also, but I just want to turn your 
attention to it. It is the narrative portion. We will then get 
into the conclusions. I am not trying to say we should defer 
our process to Mr. Starr. What I am trying to say is, before we 
decide to go into a full-blown evidentiary hearing, let us take 
the facts as he has portrayed them and then decide as a 
committee if they constitute grounds for impeachment.
    Ms. Waters. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Frank. The gentleman from Pennsylvania issued an 
invitation to correct him if he was wrong. In this case, he 
misread it or read it too hastily. The resolution does not say 
the facts are true. It says, if assumed to be true. If assumed 
to be true is very different than true.
    And so what the gentleman from California has said is, let 
us first assume that they are true for the purposes of 
determining whether, if true, they would be impeachable. Then 
we will go back to a determination of whether they are true.
    Ms. Waters. Reclaiming my time, I yield to Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. Thank you.
    If I can try to be of assistance to my friend from 
Pennsylvania, the amendment offered by Mr. Berman does not say 
that we should accept the conclusions about the facts prepared 
by Mr. Starr or reached by Mr. Starr. It simply says that for 
the purposes of deciding whether the facts, if true, reach the 
level that the Constitution requires the President's 
impeachment, that we simply assume that the facts are true, not 
Mr. Starr's conclusion about the facts or inferences from the 
facts but simply the facts alone.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, I think we can explain some of the 
confusion. Mr. Berman is not playing fair. He actually listened 
to what was being said, drafted up an amendment based in part 
on some of the arguments and presented it. And, therefore, some 
of the pre-done arguments don't necessarily fit it.
    I have to say that some of the arguments we heard from the 
gentleman from Wisconsin simply aren't about this amendment. 
The amendment is very carefully written. The gentleman 
suggested that this delegates our fact-finding to Mr. Starr. 
Frankly, there are some of us here who would be very reluctant 
to delegate anything to Mr. Starr, up to and including mailing 
a letter.
    But the resolution does not say that. What the resolution 
says is, first, we will say that if you assumed the facts of 
Mr. Starr's narrative were true, if you assumed they were true, 
would it then be an impeachable offense? Then if you decided 
that it was or some parts of it were, you would then go and 
determine whether sufficient grounds exist.
    First, you find out if these facts, if true, would be the 
grounds. Then you would go and say, okay, then do the grounds 
exist?
    It also avoids the argument that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin was making about an abstract definition of 
impeachment. This does not call for an abstract definition of 
impeachment. It says, remember we have an Independent Counsel 
now; they didn't have one in Watergate. For that, we may envy 
them. Maybe some of us now wish that we didn't have an 
Independent Counsel. But we do, and he is a reality. So are his 
4-plus years of investigation.
    What this resolution says is, we will take the factual 
material that the Independent Counsel gave us, and we will not 
define impeachment in the abstract. We will see whether we 
think the arguments he makes, if we assume they were true, 
would be impeachable. It is not delegating anything.
    If the facts were true, we say this. What we are saying 
here is that we continue to do the fact-finding, and we will 
decide whether or not these are impeachable offenses, not in 
the abstract.
    Here is the crux and here is where I think my friends on 
the other side are having trouble. This does say that we will 
focus on the Monica Lewinsky matter. And let us not forget, 
Kenneth Starr, more than 4 years ago, started looking into 
Whitewater and the FBI files and the travel office. And he 
looked and he looked and he looked, and he wanted very much to 
find something because he really does not like Bill Clinton, 
but he was not able to find anything.
    And so what happened then was Monica Lewinsky, through 
Linda Tripp, came to his desk. And he then reported to us on 
the matter he has been studying since January, not on the 
matter he has been studying since 4 years ago and 3 years ago 
and 2 years ago.
    Here is the crux of this: What this says is, let us look at 
what he sent us. And what we have got on the other side have 
been, from the Speaker and from others, suggestions. Maybe we 
are going to look at Whitewater. Maybe we will look into the 
FBI files. The fact is that Kenneth Starr, a dedicated critic 
of Bill Clinton, has found nothing. You are in a position, if 
you don't accept this, of kind of invoking that. That is out in 
the atmosphere. No, they could not come up with anything. 
Kenneth Starr, who really dislikes Bill Clinton, who thinks he 
should not be President, he wants him out of there, could not 
send us anything.
    This resolution says, fine. Let us call Mr. Starr's bluff. 
Let us call everybody's bluff. Let us look at what you sent us. 
Here is what you sent us, and we will see. If it is true, is it 
impeachable? And if it is impeachable, then let us go back and 
see what the facts were. That is the argument.
    And the only reason not to adopt that, because this does 
not do an abstract impeachment, this says, specifically, are 
these facts impeachable. This does not delegate our fact-
finding. It says, if we decide that these facts, if true, would 
be impeachable, then we will apply them.
    What this does is to admit, and I think this is the 
problem, because I think there are elements out there in the 
electorate who have some strength in this party who don't want 
to give up on the ghost of Whitewater, who don't want to give 
up on the FBI files, who don't want to give up on the travel 
office.
    We talked about forests before trees and carts before 
horses. You want to make Monica Lewinsky the needle in the 
haystack. The haystack is all this other stuff that is out 
there. What people want to do is to use that somehow, and we 
see it in the right-wing columnists and elsewhere. They want to 
use that against Bill Clinton without ever having to come to 
terms with it.
    This amendment by Mr. Berman says, we will give a very 
thorough study of the Monica Lewinsky matter. We will check and 
see whether those facts would be impeachable and whether they 
were true. And, the only reason for denying it is that some 
people don't want to acknowledge that all of this other set of 
accusations going back over 3\1/2\ and 4\1/2\ years are untrue.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman from Tennessee. Would the gentleman 
yield?
    Mr. Bryant. I would be happy to.
    Mr. Hyde. I just want to say that if you read the 
introduction to the Starr referral, you find that Whitewater, 
Travelgate, Filegate are still alive. They are not closed out. 
He has not closed his shop down. This is not the only game in 
town. They are still pursuing those. They interrupted--they 
were nearly through with them. They interrupted when they got 
assigned the Lewinsky matter.
    But if we were to adopt Mr. Berman's amendment, that 
confines us to the narrative part of the Starr referral, and I 
am unwilling to do that. I want to see what else is there.
    Meanwhile, we will go ahead with what we have. We are not 
out looking for more. We are not trolling for additional 
subjects. But we would be foolish to foreclose any further 
referral should one come. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
convinced it is over and done with. The language of the 
introduction indicates otherwise.
    Mr. Frank. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bryant. I might at the end. Okay.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, I think this is really the crux of 
it, absolutely the crux of it. Because you say Kenneth Starr 
was almost finished when he was assigned Monica Lewinsky. He 
was not assigned it. He ran in and grabbed it. He structured it 
to get it. This is not a case where he was withheld from these 
other things by the assignment. He was delighted to get it 
because he was about to, I think, come up with zero. And the 
point is that there was no reason why he had to stop looking at 
these other things. He didn't have to interrupt Whitewater. The 
fact is that we have people here particularly, frankly, on the 
right wing who don't want to admit that all of this Whitewater, 
FBI files, travel office and other stuff has come to nothing.
    I think it is poisoning the atmosphere. It is being used as 
kind of a way to try and discredit the President. If Kenneth 
Starr wants to make a referral, then we will look at it. But to 
continue this kind of limbo with these things, where you invoke 
that they still may be around when they have not been able to 
find anything in 4 years, poisons the atmosphere.
    Mr. Bryant. Mr. Chairman, as I hurriedly read over this 
amendment, it is deja vu all over again. I thought we just 
voted on an amendment that would, in essence, convene a hearing 
on what is impeachable and then go to the facts, which is 
exactly opposite of the way we read the Rodino hearings and the 
way that we have been setting our course so far, that we want 
to get the facts first and then talk about what is impeachment.
    The only difference I see between what we just voted down, 
and now, is that maybe we have taken out the time limit, but we 
are still talking about a very limited scope of Monica Lewinsky 
only and a situation where we put the hearing to determine what 
is an impeachable offense ahead of a determination of what the 
facts are. Again, very similar to the vote that we just took 
and voted down.
    Now, I have some concerns with it, too, in terms of how 
would you go about accepting the evidence here. You have got--
in the report on the issue of obstruction of justice--you have 
got Ms. Currie saying one thing, Mr. Lewinsky saying another 
thing, the President saying a third thing. How would you weigh 
the credibility and determine who is right there?
    On the issue of perjury, you have the President saying, 
this particular sexual act did not occur. You have Ms. Lewinsky 
saying, it did occur. How do you weigh the credibility and 
decide who is right and who is wrong without some sort of 
factual determination?
    I will defer to Mr. Berman since it is his amendment.
    Mr. Berman. I appreciate that. This is not hard. This is 
not a courtroom, but let us pretend it is for a second. This is 
the motion for summary judgment. Take every fact and give 
credence to the Starr perspective on the facts.
    Mr. Bryant. There is a conflict in fact. The President says 
X, Ms. Lewinsky says Y.
    Mr. Berman. I read the Starr report. I saw the way he 
resolved the factual disputes.
    Mr. Bryant. But we don't accept his conclusions under your 
amendment.
    Mr. Berman. My intent in this case is to take the facts and 
construe them from his perspective. And where they conflict, I 
am willing to say, okay, we take your story. Now let us discuss 
whether that is impeachable.
    And the point to doing this. I know Peter Rodino, but I am 
no Peter Rodino--is, one, we have an Independent Counsel law 
and a 595(c) referral. We didn't have that at the time of 
Watergate.
    And, secondly, look what we might avoid that is not in the 
Democratic Party's interest, nor in the Republican Party's 
interest. It is in the country's interest to avoid prolonged 
hearings, if we can possibly come to a conclusion before we 
reach that point.
    Mr. Bryant. Well----
    Mr. Berman. If we can't, then we have to carefully examine 
all of the facts and deal with all of the problems.
    Mr. Bryant. I understand the basis on which Mr. Berman is 
submitting this. I think it is a good-faith effort to try to 
work this out. But I have heard it described, and my first 
thought was something in the nature of a motion for summary 
judgment. And my recollection is, when you have a conflict in 
the evidence, that it is grounds for overturning that. I have a 
hard time resolving how we can resolve that as a committee, 
these types of conflicts of evidence.
    I think, again, this is very similar to what we just voted 
on except that we are bifurcating this process, adding another 
step. And even if you reach that point, then you still have to 
come back and have that type of hearing. And we talk about the 
kids being out there. They are going to have to hear it then.
    I would, based on, again, recognizing a very good effort to 
try to strike a compromise, I see this as very similar to what 
we just voted down. At this point, I would still be voting in 
opposition to this.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Scott. I will.
    Mr. Conyers. I wanted to inquire, because the debate has 
been excellent, and I know yours will be beautiful and 
conclusive, if there are other members that care to respond on 
this matter? Just an indication. Mr. Wexler does. Ms. Lofgren 
does. Mr. Watt does.
    Thank you very much for yielding.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Just two quick points. One, on the issue of focus, I think 
we need to remind ourselves how we got here. The initial 
inquiry was into a land deal over 20 years old. That is what 
happens when you don't have some kind of focus.
    The other point I want to make is on the constitutional 
standard. It is true that in Watergate there was no fixed 
standard in Watergate, but they did have an understanding of 
the purpose of impeachment, the legislative history and the 
precedents.
    And with a reasoned approach, I would agree with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, there is a constitutional trap here. 
The trap is that if we conclude that there are no impeachable 
offenses even alleged, then we will not be able to proceed with 
a politically embarrassing hearing. That is a political trap 
not a constitutional trap.
    And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
    Mr. Hyde. Mr. Canady, do you seek recognition?
    The gentleman from Florida.
    Mr. Canady. Thank you.
    I want to rise in opposition to this proposal. I respect 
the intentions of the gentleman from California, but I think 
that this is just a variation on the theme that we have been 
debating this afternoon under the resolution that was offered 
by Mr. Boucher.
    I agree with the concerns expressed by the Chairman that 
this would arbitrarily limit the scope of our inquiry. I think 
our focus should be on the Lewinsky matter. I don't know that 
we will ever focus on anything else or that any other 
information will ever come our way, but I don't think that we 
should be arbitrarily precluded from considering such 
information of impeachable offenses if that information comes 
to us.
    I am also concerned that this proposal, the way it is 
structured, would actually slow down the process. I know that 
is not the gentleman's intention. I fully respect that. But I 
am concerned that the proposal, as presented, would delay the 
committee in conducting its analysis and weighing of the 
pertinent facts that are at issue here.
    I also believe that it simply is wrong for us to assume the 
truth of facts which the President disputes. I don't think we 
should go through a process where we say we are going to assume 
that these facts, which I understand would be taken in the 
light most unfavorable to the President, if I understand your 
proposal correctly, we are going to assume these facts, most of 
them unfavorable to the President, are true for purposes of 
this analysis. I don't think that is the right way to go about 
doing this.
    I believe that we should weigh the evidence. We should 
analyze the evidence. We should judge the credibility of 
witnesses, as any fact finder should do.
    If you look at it this way, I believe it would be ill-
advised for us to determine that certain assumed conduct of the 
President constitutes an impeachable offense with the prospect 
that further investigation, further weighing of the evidence, 
further judgment concerning the credibility of witnesses, could 
lead us to a conclusion that the President was not, in fact, 
guilty of that conduct. I think you set up a process here that 
I think would set a very bad precedent in this context.
    Again, I fully accept that the gentleman has offered this 
with the best of intentions.
    Let me comment on one further point that the gentleman has 
made, a point of which I am in sympathy. I agree that we should 
not have a full-scale trial of these issues here in the House. 
That is not the purpose of the Judiciary Committee or 
impeachment proceedings in the House. A full-scale trial of 
these matters, if it becomes necessary, should be conducted 
only in the Senate. But that does not mean that we do not have 
responsibility from the outset to carefully review, carefully 
analyze, carefully weigh the evidence.
    I am concerned that your proposal would unintentionally 
slow down that process and really prevent us from getting to 
that core function in a way that would be harmful to the 
process and would set, I believe, a dangerous precedent for 
future impeachment proceedings.
    For those reasons, I would urge the members of the 
committee to oppose the gentleman's proposal.
    Mr. Hyde. The question occurs on the Berman amendment.
    Who is seeking recognition?
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, several of us have indicated an 
interest in speaking.
    Mr. Hyde. Ms. Lofgren is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. I just want to say, I don't know that I will 
use 5 minutes, but I think there are several things that fall 
far short of what I think would be ideal in the Berman 
amendment.
    Number 1, on line 2, he would allow a subcommittee rather 
than the full committee to go through these matters of 
understanding.
    Number 2, the constitutional standard for impeachment is 
invoked but the committee never reaches a conclusion. But I 
will say that I think the Berman amendment is an effort at 
compromise that ought not to be dismissed so readily, even 
though it does not make every one fully satisfied. I'm also 
concerned there is no end time involved, there is no guarantee 
that this would be an expeditious process. Nevertheless, 
thinking of the chairman's New Year's resolution, perhaps we 
could hope for an expeditious process.
    I think that we need to take a look at some of the comments 
that have been made here today about the Berman proposal 
itself, and I think the majority has confused the issue. All 
over America, law professors are throwing tomatoes at their TV 
sets about the description or misdescription of the summary 
judgment motion that I have just heard here today.
    Let me try to make it clear. The facts--for the purpose of 
a summary judgment motion--are assumed to be true only for 
deciding whether they meet the legal standard. If they don't 
meet the standard, then you back off those facts. So I think it 
is very important that we make that clear.
    I finally want to say something that I find very alarming, 
very frightening, and I have heard it here in public, and I 
have heard it from members on the other side privately.
    There seems to be the assumption that the role of the House 
is a minor one in an impeachment proceeding and that we will 
automatically, without a lot of review as to the Constitution, 
be voting articles of impeachment and merely send them off to 
the Senate for trial. That has not been the process 
historically in America, and it is frightening to consider that 
this is the view of many members of the minority, that we would 
make the very limited tool of impeachment, meant to be, as one 
law professor said, the axe behind the break-in-case-of-fire 
mechanism for an executive whose misbehavior has so imperiled 
the fabric of our institution of government, that we would 
convert and misshape impeachment to just pass it on to the 
Senate in this very politicized way. I find this alarming.
    Finally, even though I think this motion falls far short of 
what many of us want and I assume what Mr. Berman would prefer, 
I am confident that, if we were to adopt this, that we would 
not regret it, because we will have the kind of discussion, 
either in the subcommittee or full committee, about the 
Constitution that is warranted.
    I do not want to hear people say that a discussion of the 
Constitution is a snag or a delay. What could be more important 
to our deliberations than an understanding of the Constitution 
under which we are supposed to be operating, that each of us 
took an oath to uphold? I know that we all meant it and 
believed it. Fulfilling our oath is not a delay. That is a 
necessity.
    I am confident that, with the eyes of the world watching 
us, we would then apply that standard well. I would hope that 
the majority would not just use its voting power to dismiss 
this compromise measure.
    I yield the balance of my time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I was anguished, Mr. Berman, over your 
amendment, because I had indicated earlier in debate that I 
thought there were some facts in dispute. I made some points 
about the confusion dealing with the gift issue and the 
confusion dealing with the question of lying and whether or not 
you got a job in order to fill out an affidavit.
    But as I listened to the debate, more importantly, as I 
underlined a very strong element here that I think is key, 
everything that we have been discussing today has been around 
constitutional standards. And what you are doing for this 
committee is you are taking us away from the clutter of the 
dispute of facts and you are saying, let us get down to the job 
and the task that is to understand the constitutional standard. 
I think this is a very bipartisan amendment.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    The question occurs on the Berman amendment. The Clerk will 
call the roll.
    Who wants recognition?
    Mr. Watt. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Well, let us go over here. Mr. Hutchinson?
    Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. Chairman, I primarily had some 
questions and some comments on this, but I want to first 
comment that I believe the gentleman from California is doing 
this in order to try to achieve some bipartisan support for 
what comes out of this committee. I think that is laudable. I 
think it would send a great signal to the people of America if 
that could be accomplished.
    I did have some questions about this because, as I read 
this, first of all on the summary judgment part, I think I 
understand that. We would basically accept the allegations that 
are made in the report as being true and the question would be 
whether obstruction of justice or perjury as outlined in the 
report would measure up to an impeachable offense. Am I correct 
in that understanding?
    Mr. Berman. No, Mr. Hutchinson. Not quite. If you will give 
me 1 minute to respond.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Well, 30 seconds.
    Mr. Berman. We are not a court of law. We are not a jury. 
We will not ultimately decide whether something is perjury or 
obstruction of justice. We will look at facts and determine if 
they constitute grounds for impeachment.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Is that the reason it is confined to the 
narrative portion of the referral?
    Mr. Berman. Yes.
    Mr. Hutchinson. The second question, I want to make clear, 
the way I read this, it would not be limited in scope, but I 
think your comments as well as those from the gentleman from 
Massachusetts indicate that it would be limited in scope.
    Mr. Berman. Yes, it is limited to the referral from the 
Independent Counsel.
    The chairman and the ranking member have asked the 
Independent Counsel if he has any more substantial and credible 
information that shows presidential conduct that might justify 
impeachment, and if he does, to please send it to us quickly. 
If we receive another 595(c) referral, I say we should look at 
that. But now we shall focus on what we have.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Let me reclaim my time. I know that we need 
to move on.
    I thank the gentleman from California. I do appreciate what 
he has done and his honest answers to this. I think if we are 
going to examine the standards for impeachment that we have to 
consider the whole report. I would be a little bit concerned 
about restricting it to the narrative portion of the report.
    Also, we want to keep this process moving, and it would be 
a concern to me if we had to go back to the full House for an 
additional vote that would slow it down, and we would not be 
able to get to a resolution of this in a timely fashion.
    So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Mr. Frank. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hyde. Someone over here. Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I should lean 
forward in my chair consistently so the chairman can see me. I 
seem to be having a little trouble.
    Mr. Hyde. I am not as flexible as I used to be, Mr. Watt. I 
certainly don't deny you any opportunity to speak.
    Mr. Watt. Well, I would hope not.
    Mr. Frank. This amendment will give you a chance to be more 
flexible, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Watt. I yield to Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. I thank the gentleman.
    I want to say, Mr. Berman may have been taken for granted, 
but there are two lines of his amendment that people are 
forgetting about. If we decide that the narrative, if assumed 
to be true, would be grounds for impeachment, then look at 
lines 13 and 14, then the committee shall investigate fully and 
completely whether sufficient grounds exist, et cetera. In 
other words, it is first the summary judgment proceeding, but 
if, in effect, on summary judgment type rules we decide it is 
impeachable, then look at lines 13 and 14. Then the committee 
shall investigate fully and completely whether sufficient 
grounds exist. That is fact-finding. That is everything.
    So much of the arguments are just about a different 
amendment. Mr. Berman has full fact-finding. If we first 
determine that the facts alleged are impeachable, then we go 
into this process and look at lines 13 and 14.
    Mr. Watt. I thank the gentleman. I acknowledge a level of 
frustration here that is growing, because I am not sure what 
rules we are going to be--what process we are going to be 
following in this committee, what standards we are going to be 
applying in making our decision. We have how many people on 
this committee? Thirty-seven. I bet you we got 37 different 
opinions now about what constitutes impeachment.
    You add the two that the majority counsel and the minority 
counsel have, that is 39. They have no idea how to go and 
marshal the facts because there are light years between what 
the majority counsel said and what the Minority counsel said, 
light years. We don't have any common ground here that I am 
able to decipher.
    I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Cannon. I agree with your premise that there are 37 
opinions. They are, generally speaking, highly informed 
opinions. Most of us are lawyers. Most of us studied 
constitutional law. Those who have not, worked very hard to 
figure it out.
    I fail to understand why this is not just an attempt to 
delay the process, since I can't imagine anybody on either side 
changing their vote based upon their background and 
understanding of constitutional law and, secondly, 
understanding what the Starr report already says.
    Mr. Watt. Let me reclaim my time. Because I acknowledge 
that this is not a perfect vehicle for getting to what I am 
trying to get to. I would be the first to acknowledge that. But 
it is a hell of a lot better than what we have going right now. 
We don't have any standard right now. And, unless we start with 
some kind of standard, other than 37 different opinions, we are 
going to be really in a serious problem. We will be doing a lot 
of work and spending a lot of money and spending a lot of time 
without having any basic, even minimal agreement about what the 
standard is.
    It would be nice to just talk to you about what your 
standard is. I heard for the first time what the majority 
counsel's standard is today, and I was horrified. I will be 
honest with you. I could not believe what the majority counsel 
was saying to us the standard was that we should be applying.
    Mr. Cannon. Why will a discussion--why will this protracted 
process yield more concurrence than we have developed in the--I 
think the average age in here is probably 50 or 60. Who knows? 
Why is debating going to change that greatly?
    Mr. Watt. We should just keep applying all of these 
different standards as we move along, not have any edification 
of the public or the committee members?
    I hope we will have some edification for the majority 
counsel. If he thinks that the standards that he outlined in 
the first three pages of his presentation today are the 
standards that I am going to apply, then I think the first 
thing we need to do is educate our counsel.
    And I would love to have somebody come in here who knows 
something about the precedents and history and talk about the 
Founding Fathers and what they intended. Isn't that what we are 
supposed to be proceeding on? Or are we just proceeding on 37 
different conceptions of what we think impeachment is?
    Mr. Cannon. If the gentleman will yield, there are going to 
be 37 votes in this committee.
    Mr. Watt. Sure. And we won't ever get to any conclusion 
about it until we have wasted taxpayer money, wasted endless 
hours of time. And we will get out there, and maybe we will 
have a consensus about it, which, if we talked about it at the 
beginning, could have developed from the very beginning and 
saved ourselves and the taxpayers a lot of money and time.
    Mr. Hyde. The question now occurs on the Berman amendment.
    The Clerk will call the role.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCollum votes no.
    Mr. Gekas.
    Mr. Gekas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas votes no.
    Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble votes no.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
    Mr. Canady.
    Mr. Canady. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Canady votes no.
    Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis votes no.
    Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte votes no.
    Mr. Buyer.
    Mr. Buyer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Buyer votes no.
    Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant.  No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bryant votes no.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot votes no.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr votes no.
    Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins votes no.
    Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson votes no.
    Mr. Pease.
    Mr. Pease. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pease votes no.
    Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes no.
    Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rogan votes no.
    Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Mrs. Bono.
    Mrs. Bono. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bono votes no.
    Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers votes aye.
    Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank votes aye.
    Mr. Schumer.
    Mr. Schumer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schumer votes aye.
    Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman votes aye.
    Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher.  Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher votes aye.
    Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler votes aye.
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott votes aye.
    Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt votes aye.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye.
    Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters votes aye.
    Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan votes aye.
    Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt votes aye.
    Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler votes aye.
    Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rothman votes aye.
    Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrett votes aye.
    Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde votes no.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble votes no.
    Mr. Hyde. The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 16 ayes and 21 noes.
    Mr. Hyde. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The Chair has been in consultation with the ranking member, 
and we expect votes imminently. Does anybody know down here?
    Mr. Conyers. The answer is yes.
    Mr. Hyde. In any event, we anticipate a couple of votes. 
The Democrats would like to caucus and----
    Mr. Conyers. Would the chairman yield so that I could 
announce to my colleagues on this side that we will meet, if 
there is going to be a brief recess or whatever time before the 
vote, if we could repair to 2142 for just a few moments, if it 
is the Chair's intention.
    Mr. Hyde. Sure.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. Ms. Jackson Lee wishes to be recognized.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I am sorry if I make an inquiry. I did not 
hear what the ranking member said. Are we recessing now?
    Mr. Conyers. The Chair is going to stop now, anticipating 
the votes, and we will be meeting in caucus in the library 
immediately after such recess.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Does that mean that we are going to come 
back again this evening?
    Mr. Conyers. It means exactly that.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. All right.
    Mr. Hyde. We fully expect to finish this evening. We will 
move in that direction, but you folks would like time for a 
caucus. There are going to be a couple votes. Let us take a 
recess until immediately after the votes and when you return 
from your caucus.
    The committee will stand at ease until we come back.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Hyde. The committee will come to order.
    The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes to 
strike the last word.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very 
much.
    We have come a long way this day. Many of us may disagree 
with how far and where we have gone and where we are going.
    Mr. Chairman, with the consideration of time, I had an 
amendment that I would like to briefly speak about, but I am 
not going to offer it.
    I raise it because I am puzzled and I have a sense of 
unreadiness. I know we are about to vote on a resolution, now 
that amendments that I would have been able to accept, that 
would have given us constitutional parameters, have not been 
adopted.
    I had intended to offer an amendment, because of the nature 
of the present amendment, to have us finish our work, in 
response I believe to the heightened sensitivity of Americans, 
a concern of what this will do to our Nation, the 
responsibility that we have in the international arena, that we 
would finish this work by December 10, 1998.
    This goes beyond my good friend's amendment that was 
offered earlier in the day, and it certainly goes beyond, to a 
certain extent, Mr. Berman, because Mr. Berman was, I think, 
astute enough to narrow the referral, narrow the investigation 
to deem the facts as true as those in the referral.
    I ask my colleagues on the Republican side, why can't we 
limit the time? Why can't we, in a bipartisan way, limit the 
time inasmuch as the resolution that we are voting on today is 
not ending, and with no focus?
    It means, as I understand the resolution presented, Mr. 
Hyde, that we can now investigate and draw in any and 
everything, even though we have all acknowledged that this 
investigation has been going on for almost 5 years, even under 
Mr. Ken Starr's predecessor, and we have brought nothing 
forward on Whitewater, we have brought nothing forward on 
Travelgate, on Filegate.
    We have a referral on Ms. Lewinsky, and yet what we vote on 
today, what I understand you present to the House on October 
9th, will be this kind of expansion, fishing-type resolution. 
Adding insult to injury is that we find out, in fact, that the 
resolution has no end time.
    Mr. Chairman, I do respect what you have offered, and I 
understand you said that you will be sensitive about time 
constraints. I don't want to cover up anything, and my 
colleagues don't want to cover up anything, but we have not 
established the constitutional parameters, even on these 
allegations of Ms. Lewinsky. Yet, now we are looking to expand 
this by this vote today.
    I am a little concerned, and I thought maybe if I offered 
the thought, that I could draw collaborative and bipartisan 
support for us voluntarily limiting ourselves to a certain time 
to end the pain, the divisiveness and, as well, allow this 
Nation to go on with its business.
    Might I just say this, Mr. Chairman. We have cited 
Watergate in so many different ways. We have even harnessed 
ourselves to Watergate, as Watergate has allowed us support for 
arguments, and then it has certainly posed opposition to 
arguments.
    But one point I think ran true through many of the themes 
of the Federalist Papers and, as well, constitutional scholars: 
The purpose of impeachment is not personal punishment, as cited 
by the Watergate staff in February, 1974; its function is 
primarily to maintain a constitutional government.
    Frankly, I believe that we are treading on very difficult 
ground here by moving forward with this resolution that now is 
open-ended. We have not established the constitutional basis of 
impeachable offenses. You are now suggesting that we start 
anew--and I am not sure what this resolution will suggest--
start anew the issues of Whitewater, start anew the issues of 
Travelgate, start anew the issues of Filegate.
    Frankly, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Starr has not presented anything 
to suggest that he has any further information on these alleged 
incidences that have been under investigation for so long.
    Can we, in the spirit of harmony, in the spirit of 
collaboration, concede to a time certain, December 10, 1998, 
which will give us time to either determine whether there are 
areas of impeachment, to determine whether there are 
alternatives and, likewise, have enough time in this Congress 
for this Senate to receive whatever we might so choose to 
present; or, in the alternative, to determine realistically 
that we have not reached the level of these incidences becoming 
impeachable offenses?
    December 10th gets us before the holiday. It is after the 
Thanksgiving holiday. We have committed to coming back here 
after the election. I know many of us are committed to doing so 
if you call us, Mr. Chairman. I am just stunned that, although 
we have had the tone of bipartisanship, the minority has not 
been able to gain the goodwill and good faith of this majority 
to, in fact, draw us together around some issues of 
commonality.
    Let me, as well, say what has been said on occasions, as I 
close, Mr. Chairman. The President is not above or beneath the 
law.
    I would just hope that we would be able to do that.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.  Mr. Chairman, I would ask an additional 
minute so I could yield to you and ask a question about the 
time element.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentlewoman is recognized for 1 additional 
minute.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, can we come to an agreement 
on working towards a reasonable time certain, not to cover up, 
not to deny my colleagues on the other side of the aisle their 
fair assessment of the facts, but recognizing where we are, Mr. 
Chairman, in this process?
    Mr. Hyde. I would say to the gentlewoman that we are 
opposed to arbitrary time lines, as was Peter Rodino in the 
Nixon impeachment. We find that is an invitation to delay. We 
are going to move as swiftly as human hands and feet and minds 
can do it, because nobody wants this to be attenuated and 
stretched out. But arbitrary time limits put more stresses and 
strains on trying to get the job done. They don't help us.
    I would just ask you to accept the fact that we want to 
move this thing along. I have announced my New Year's 
resolution, to have it over by then. But I can't tell how 
cooperative people will be that we find necessary to depose or 
have testify. There is a record of footdragging here, and I am 
not talking about this committee.
    But we will not just generally impose artificial time 
limits. We are following the Rodino format, which you asked us 
to do. He had resisted artificial time lines. Senator Thompson 
said the greatest mistake he ever made in his investigation was 
acceding to time lines. So we have gone to school on that.
    We decided that we will do our best to accelerate this, but 
we don't wish to succumb to artificial time lines.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would reclaim my time for a last word. I was hoping that 
we could, not in the spirit of delay or to give witnesses the 
opportunity to delay, but for people to realize that we are now 
voting for an open-ended, unending, with no cessation of time, 
to keep this going.
    I just hope we will come to our senses, Mr. Chairman, as we 
move forward.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentlewoman.
    Mr. Hyde. The question occurs on the resolution. The Clerk 
will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
    Mr. McCollum.
    Mr. McCollum. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCollum votes aye.
    Mr. Gekas.
    Mr. Gekas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas votes aye.
    Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble votes aye.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
    Mr. Canady.
    Mr. Canady. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Canady votes aye.
    Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis votes aye.
    Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte votes aye.
    Mr. Buyer.
    Mr. Buyer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Buyer votes aye.
    Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bryant votes aye.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr votes aye.
    Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins votes aye.
    Mr. Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson votes aye.
    Mr. Pease.
    Mr. Pease. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pease votes aye.
    Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes aye.
    Mr. Rogan.
    Mr. Rogan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rogan votes aye.
    Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham votes aye.
    Mrs. Bono.
    Mrs. Bono. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bono votes aye.
    Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers votes no.
    Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank votes no.
    Mr. Schumer.
    Mr. Schumer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schumer votes no.
    Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman votes no.
    Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher.  No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher votes no.
    Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler votes no.
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott votes no.
    Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.
    Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters votes no.
    Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan votes no.
    Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt votes no.
    Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler votes no.
    Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rothman votes no.
    Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. Hyde. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman, there are 21 ayes and 16 noes.
    Mr. Hyde. The resolution is ordered reported.
    Mr. Barr is recognized for a unanimous consent request.

 STATEMENT OF HON. BOB BARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 
                      THE STATE OF GEORGIA

    Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to insert the statement that was given earlier by 
majority counsel. It was a very moving statement, and I would 
like to adopt it as my own, in final remarks.
    Mr. Hyde. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to make a personal observation.
    I am speaking no longer as a Chief Investigative Counsel, but 
rather as a citizen of the United States, who happens to be father and 
grandfather.
    To paraphrase St. Thomas More in Robert Bolt's excellent play ``A 
Man for All Seasons,'' the laws of this country are the great barriers 
that protect the citizens from the winds of evil tyranny. If we permit 
one of those laws to fall, who will be able to stand in the guts that 
will follow?
    Members of the committee, it is not only the people in this room, 
or the immense television audience that are watching; 15 generations of 
our fellow Americans, many of whom are reposing in military cemeteries 
throughout the world, are looking down upon, and judging what you do 
today.

    Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, I also ask unanimous consent to 
insert the Judicial Watch Interim Report dated September 28, 
1998.
    Mr. Hyde. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
Judicial Watch Interim Report on Crimes and Other Offenses Committed by 
  President Bill Clinton Warranting His Impeachment and Removal from 
                             Elected Office
    Founded in 1994 by its Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman, 
Judicial Watch, Inc. is a non-profit, public-interest law firm 
dedicated to using the courts to fight corruption in government and the 
legal profession.

Judicial Watch Interim Report on Crimes and Other Offenses Committed by 
President Bill Clinton Warranting His Impeachment and Removal from 
Elected Office
INTRODUCTION
    The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United 
States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and conviction 
of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
            United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4
    In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, 
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath 
faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, 
to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the 
Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his 
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, 
has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, 
in that:
          Beginning around the Fall of 1994, William Jefferson Clinton, 
        his agents and subordinates engaged in bribery through the sale 
        of taxpayer-financed trade mission seats in exchange for 
        campaign contributions. Subsequent thereto, President Bill 
        Clinton, using the powers of his high office, engaged 
        personally and through his close agents and subordinates, in a 
        course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and 
        obstruct the investigation of such bribery; to cover up, 
        conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the 
        existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.
    Throughout his terms of office, William Jefferson Clinton has 
repeatedly engaged, personally and through his close subordinates and 
agents, in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, 
breaching the national security, impairing the due and proper 
administration of justice, and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or 
contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and 
the purposes of these agencies.
    In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has acted in a manner 
contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional 
government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and 
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
    Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants 
impeachment and trial, and removal from office.(1)
    Judicial Watch, Inc. respectfully submits to the United 
States Congress its Interim Report on Crimes and Other Offenses 
Committed by President Bill Clinton Warranting His Impeachment and 
Removal from Elected Office.
    As the United States House of Representatives considers whether to 
launch impeachment proceedings against President William Jefferson 
Clinton over his conduct relating to the Paula Jones sexual harassment 
lawsuit and resulting criminal grand jury investigations, we ask that 
it also consider this additional evidence, developed over the last 
several years through Judicial Watch's civil lawsuits, Freedom of 
Information Act requests, and other investigations of government 
corruption.(2)
    Judicial Watch has uncovered evidence that President Clinton and 
his agents have violated a number of federal laws relating to bribery, 
campaign fundraising, the theft of government services, privacy, 
corruption of federal law enforcement, abuse and misuse of federal 
agencies (including the Internal Revenue Service), perjury, civil 
rights violations, obstruction of justice, graft and likely breaches of 
national security.
    The evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch overwhelmingly indicates 
that President Clinton condoned, directed and effected this 
lawbreaking. It also shows that he was aided and abetted by, among 
others, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Vice President Albert Gore, late 
Commerce Secretary Ronald Brown, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other 
key White House personnel, including Leon Panetta, John Podesta, Harold 
Ickes, Bruce Lindsey, Bernard Nussbaum, and Labor Secretary Alexis 
Herman.
    For example, Judicial Watch has uncovered key evidence in the 
massive political espionage, witness tampering and intimidation 
operation popularly known as ``Filegate.'' In ``Filegate,'' the Clinton 
White House, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (``FBI''), Hillary 
Rodham Clinton, former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, and 
Clinton appointees Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca, illegally 
obtained and misused the FBI files of former Reagan and Bush 
Administration staffers and others to gain sensitive information on 
perceived political opponents and material witnesses for use in its 
smear campaigns. Judicial Watch represents the victims of ``Filegate'' 
in a civil lawsuit.
    The ``Filegate'' political espionage, witness tampering and 
intimidation operation, a horrendous violation of the Privacy Act and 
other laws, continues to this day. It represents the means by which the 
Clintons defend the various scandals which threaten their hold on 
power. The evidence indicates that the Clinton Administration, with the 
direct knowledge and participation of the President, continues to 
illegally compile, maintain and disseminate sensitive information on 
perceived adversaries from confidential government files. Contrary to 
previous Clinton Administration explanations, Judicial Watch discovered 
that it was a high-level Clinton political appointee who illegally 
ordered the release of Linda Tripp's confidential information from her 
Pentagon file in a clear effort to intimidate her from telling what she 
knew of Clinton White House illegal activities, and to destroy her 
credibility. Judicial Watch also uncovered evidence indicating that 
President Clinton authorized the illegal release of Kathleen Willey's 
letters, stored in a White House filing system subject to the Privacy 
Act, in an effort to intimidate and smear her. Like Ms. Tripp, Ms. 
Willey is a material witness in on-going criminal grand jury 
investigations and civil lawsuits.
    Part of the pattern of ``Filegate'' is President Clinton's use of 
private investigators, the Reno Justice Department, the FBI, the IRS, 
and political operatives such as James Carville to obstruct justice, 
silence witnesses and intimidate investigators. For example, Judicial 
Watch has uncovered evidence that President Clinton personally 
participated in this operation by threatening ``to destroy,'' and then 
defaming one witness, Dolly Kyle Browning, if she dared to tell the 
truth about their 30-year friendship and sexual relationship.
    President Clinton's political appointee and former IRS Commissioner 
Margaret Milner Richardson also illegally used the IRS to audit public 
interest groups thought to be hostile to the Clinton Administration, 
including the Western Journalism Center.
    Through discovery in its civil lawsuit against the Clinton Commerce 
Department, Judicial Watch also has found evidence that President 
Clinton condoned and participated in a scheme, conceived by First Lady 
Hillary Rodham Clinton and approved by the President, to sell seats on 
U.S. Department of Commerce trade missions in exchange for political 
contributions. Bribery is specifically highlighted in the U.S. 
Constitution as an offense warranting impeachment.
    In President Clinton's push to sell taxpayer-financed government 
services to raise money for his political operations, national security 
likely was breached by his Commerce Department appointees and those 
involved in his fundraising scheme, such as John Huang. While Judicial 
Watch is at an interim stage of investigation in this sensitive area, 
the breaches of national security uncovered at the Clinton Commerce 
Department raise real questions of treasonous activities by the 
President and members of his Administration.
    To cover-up this illegal fundraising and likely national security 
breaches, President Clinton's top two staffers, then-Chief of Staff 
Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta, ordered late 
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to obstruct justice and defy federal Court 
orders. The evidence also indicates that Secretary Brown personally 
consulted with President Clinton in furtherance of this cover-up.
    In addition to the illegal sale of taxpayer-financed services, such 
as seats on government trade missions, for political contributions, the 
President and Mrs. Clinton have illegally solicited and received monies 
directly from private citizens and others. The creation and use of 
legal defense funds is not only prohibited under federal law, but they 
have proved to be a means whereby lobbyists, influence peddlers and 
foreign powers have tried to influence the Administration, contrary to 
U.S. national security interests.
    This President's Administration has also misused government lawyers 
to obstruct investigations into his wrongdoing. His Commerce Department 
lawyers obstructed Court-ordered discovery into the illegal sale of 
taxpayer-financed trade mission seats for political contributions. His 
Justice Department lawyers threatened investigators with criminal 
prosecution, timed the indictment of a major whistle-blower witness to 
try to force her into silence, and consistently obstructed Court 
processes to cover-up Clinton-appointee wrongdoing, perjury and 
destruction of evidence.
    In sum, Judicial Watch has uncovered a pattern of conduct by this 
President and his agents that indicates he has run, in effect, a 
criminal enterprise from the White House to obtain and maintain hold on 
the Office of the President of the United States. Indeed, he is likely 
in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 
Act (RICO), a charge recently filed against him by Dolly Kyle Browning 
in federal court.(3) This pervasive corruption, flowing from 
the Oval Office, is the common thread throughout the various ``high 
crimes and misdemeanors'' outlined in this interim report.
                                 part i
            FILEGATE
   Crimes and Other Offenses Relating to the Misuse of FBI and other 
 Government Files that Warrant Impeachment and Removal from Office of 
                         President Bill Clinton
I. Introduction.
    Judicial Watch has been investigating the misuse of information in 
government files since September 1996, when it filed a class-action 
lawsuit on behalf of eight (8) former Reagan and Bush Administration 
appointees and employees whose FBI background investigation files were 
improperly obtained by the Clinton White House. That lawsuit is pending 
before The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for 
the District of Columbia.(4)
    In the course of its investigation, Judicial Watch has uncovered 
substantial evidence of unlawful misuses of information in government 
files, abuses of power and violations of the Privacy Act. The 
substantial evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch's investigation links 
key presidential advisors such as James Carville, Harold Ickes, Lanny 
Davis, Kenneth Bacon and even the President himself, to this unlawful 
conduct. The obvious purpose behind the unlawful misuse of this 
information is to discredit, if not destroy, perceived adversaries and 
critics of the President.
    Importantly, the evidence uncovered during the course of Judicial 
Watch's investigation, which still continues, goes beyond acquisition 
of the over 900 FBI background investigation files on former Reagan and 
Bush Administration appointees and employees. It also includes evidence 
of misuse of information in government files, and attempts to discredit 
or destroy the credibility of key witnesses in Independent Counsel 
Kenneth W. Starr's investigation of the Monica Lewinsky matter, 
including Ms. Linda R. Tripp and Ms. Kathleen Willey, if not Judge 
Starr himself. It also includes attempts to discredit and destroy 
congressional adversaries and other perceived opponents. At times, 
information in government files is released directly to the media by 
Clinton Administration officials. Other times, information is leaked to 
members of the media, such as The New Yorker magazine's Jane Mayer, 
Salon Magazine and Geraldo Rivera, so that it can be disseminated to 
the public without it being associated directly with, or coming from, 
the Clinton Administration.
    Most recently, this tactic of attempting to discredit and destroy 
the credibility of perceived adversaries has manifested itself in 
revelations about the personal lives of Speaker Newt Gingrich, House 
Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde, and Representatives Dan Burton and Helen 
Chenoweth, coupled with threats broadcast by Roger Clinton and 
published in Salon Magazine and other publications and news outlets. 
For example, in what can only be described as a thinly-veiled threat 
against perceived adversaries and other critics of the President, Salon 
Magazine has ``reported'' that:
    [D]ie-hard Clinton loyalists are spreading the word that a long-
ignored but fearsome tactic has now resurfaced as an element in the 
president's survival strategy: The threat of exposing the sexual 
improprieties of Republican critics, both in Congress and beyond, 
should they demand impeachment hearings in the House.(5)
    Jonathon Broder, the editor of Salon ``reports'' ``one close ally 
of the president'' as saying that ``[t]he Republicans with skeletons in 
their closets must assume everything is known and will come out. So the 
question is: Do they really want to go there?''(6) ``Sources 
in the Clinton camp say they are focusing their attention not only on 
issues of marital infidelity but also on issues of character,'' 
according to Mr. Broder.(7) Mr. Broder ``reports'' that his 
``sources'' say ``among those under scrutiny'' are House Speaker Newt 
Gingrich, House Majority Leader Richard Armey, Chairman Dan Burton of 
the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee and Chairman Henry 
Hyde of the House Judiciary Committee.(8)
    Salon is not alone in reporting details of Clinton's sexual 
scorched-earth plan. Insight Magazine reports that:

          [It] has learned from a variety of sources--lawmakers and 
        Hill staffers, journalists and dirt-diggers themselves--of 
        several active gumshoe probes into GOP figures, including a 
        governor suspected of a series of office romances and a House 
        member. An entrapment bid was launched recently on a prominent 
        Republican senator, claim private investigators. It 
        failed.(9)

    As further revealed by Insight, one Democratic member of Congress, 
who had the courage to call for President Clinton's resignation, was 
subsequently hit by the Clinton ``smear machine:''
    Clinton aides also demonstrated their readiness to play dirty in 
the last week of August when they ``reminded'' TV talk-show hosts of 
the highly dubious ``controversy'' surrounding Pennsylvania Democratic 
Representative Paul McHale's military record. The White House prompt--
McHale was said to have misrepresented what medals he'd been awarded--
was apparent punishment for the Pennsylvanian calling on the president 
to resign. It was so clearly dishonest that even Geraldo Rivera 
apologized for picking it up from a source close to the White 
House.(10)
    Representatives Burton and Gingrich were hit about a month after 
Salon's ``scorched-earth'' article. Faced with imminent publication of 
details about his family life, Chairman Dan Burton, who is conducting 
campaign finance investigations of President Clinton, recently was 
forced to admit, in the face of an imminent smear campaign against him, 
that in the early 1980s he fathered a child out of wedlock and provided 
continuing child support payments to the mother.(11) Salon 
itself recently committed an act of self-fulfilling prophecy by 
publishing articles detailing allegations about the sex lives of House 
Speaker Newt Gingrich(12) and House Judiciary Chairman Henry 
Hyde.(13)
    Thus, as more revelations about the Lewinsky matter become public 
and the President comes under increasing threat of impeachment and 
possible indictment, the White House and its allies are increasingly 
resorting to scorched-earth tactics to avoid impeachment or 
resignation. Indeed, given the Clintons' proclivities for controversy, 
if not scandal, it is likely that they ordered the gathering of FBI 
files and other information early on in their Administration for later 
use--whenever it became necessary.
II. Applicability of the Privacy Act.
    Judicial Watch's ``Filegate'' lawsuit is premised on common law 
invasion of privacy claims and the Privacy Act, a federal law enacted 
in 1974 as a result of misuse of information in government files and 
other abuses of power during the Nixon Administration.
    The protections afforded by the Privacy Act take effect whenever a 
federal agency maintains a ``system of records'' containing information 
on individuals ``from which information is retrieved by the name of the 
individual or by some identifying number, symbol or other identifying 
particular assigned to the individual.'' 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a(a)(5). 
Importantly, agencies must ``maintain in its records only such 
information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to 
accomplish a purpose of the agency required to be accomplished by 
statute or by executive order of the President.'' 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 552a(e)(1). They also must maintain only information that is 
accurate, timely and complete. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a(e)(5). Agencies are 
specifically prohibited from maintaining records that describe ``how 
any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, 
unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom 
the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of 
an authorized law enforcement activity.'' (14) 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 552a(e)(7).
    Each agency maintaining records on individuals must publish, at 
least annually in the Federal Register, notice of the existence of each 
system of records it maintains. By law, this notice must also include 
information about the system, including its name and location of the 
system, categories of individuals on whom records are maintained in the 
system, categories of documents maintained in the system, each routine 
use of records contained in the system, policies and practices 
regarding storage, retrievability, access controls, retention and 
disposal, the title and business address of the official who is 
responsible for the system of records, procedures whereby an individual 
can be notified at his request if the system contains a record 
pertaining to him, procedures whereby an individual can be notified at 
his request how he can gain access to any record pertaining to him 
contained in the system and how he can contest its contents, and 
categories of sources of records in the system. 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 552a(e)(4).
    There is to be no disclosure of any record about individuals 
maintained in a system of records ``except pursuant to a written 
request by, or with the prior written consent of,'' the subject. 5 
U.S.C. Sec. 552a(b). Importantly, a disclosure need not be public to be 
unlawful; an ``intra-agency'' disclosure may also violate the Privacy 
Act where the disclosure is made to officers or employees who have no 
need for the record in the performance of their official duties. Parks 
v. Internal Revenue Service, 618 F.2d 677 680-81 & n.1 (10th Cir. 
1980); 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a(b)(1).
    There are limited exceptions to this general rule of non-
disclosure, the most important of which is the ``routine use'' 
exception. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a(a)(7). Each type of ``routine use'' must, 
however, be published at least annually in the Federal Register. 5 
U.S.C. Sec. 552a(e)(4)(D). Agencies are required to keep an accounting 
of disclosures. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a(c).
    Finally, the Privacy Act provides for civil and criminal sanctions. 
Any officer or employee who willfully discloses subject material in any 
manner to a person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be 
guilty of a crime and fined not more than $5,000. 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 552a(i)(1). Any officer or employee of any agency who willfully 
maintains a system of records without meeting the notice requirements 
of subsection (e)(4) also shall be guilty of a crime and fined not more 
than $5,000. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a(i)(2).
    FBI background investigation files, such as those at issue in 
``Filegate,'' are admittedly maintained in a system of records by the 
FBI. Consequently, it cannot be questioned that they are covered by the 
Privacy Act. In fact, the FBI admitted as much in Judicial Watch's 
lawsuit. In response to the lawsuit, however, the Clinton White House 
claimed that the Privacy Act did not apply to it. In a Memorandum and 
Order dated June 12, 1997, the Court rejected this claim and confirmed 
that the Privacy Act did, in fact, apply to the White 
House.(15) However, the Privacy Act also makes clear that 
any time a federal official maintains records on individuals that can 
be accessed by reference to an individual's name, the protections of 
the Privacy Act come into play. It does not matter what information is 
stored in the file. To release anything from a covered file--even a 
press clipping--violates the Privacy Act.(16)
III. Factual Background.
    The origins of the Clinton White House's misuse of information in 
government files predate 1993. Former presidential advisor Dick Morris 
admitted that the 1992 Clinton campaign used private investigators, at 
U.S. taxpayers' expense, to obtain private and embarrassing information 
to coerce and extort the silence of women sexually involved with 
President Clinton while he was Governor of Arkansas. The effort was run 
by Betsy Wright, who, at crucial and relevant times, Secret Service 
logs show later visited Craig Livingstone, one of the key players in 
``Filegate,'' at odd hours in the White House.(7)
    Unknown to the public, in 1993 the Clinton White House obtained the 
FBI files of Billy Dale, the former head of the White House Travel 
Office, and Barney Brasseux, a White House Travel Office 
employee.(18) Apparently, these FBI files were obtained by 
the Clinton White House shortly after Mr. Dale, a twenty-year veteran 
of the White House Travel Office, Mr. Brasseux, and several other 
employees of the White House Travel Office were fired by the Clinton 
White House to allow their replacement with personal friends of the 
President and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mr. Dale was subsequently 
indicted on trumped-up charges of fraud. Later, Mr. Dale was completely 
exonerated of any wrong-doing. He even received an award of attorneys' 
fees for having to defend himself against the baseless charges brought 
against him. It is likely that the reason for indicting Mr. Dale was to 
avoid the appearance that he was fired simply to allow the Clintons to 
bring their personal friends into the White House Travel Office. It is 
also likely that the reason Mr. Dale's and Mr. Brasseux's FBI files 
were obtained was to try to find damaging information about them to 
avoid the appearance of political cronyism in firing them.
    About this same time, numerous press reports were circulating about 
illegal drug use and improper sexual conduct among White House 
staffers. Apparently to counter these and possibly other charges, or to 
retaliate against Reagan and Bush Administration appointees and 
employees for the release of information about President Clinton's 
passport during the 1992 election, the Clinton White House also 
obtained over 900 FBI background investigation files on former Reagan 
and Bush Administration appointees and employees. Surely, this 
information could also be very useful to discredit and destroy 
perceived adversaries, or simply to intimidate them. Among the FBI 
files unlawfully obtained by the Clinton White House were those of some 
prominent individuals, such as former Bush Secretary of State James A. 
Baker (who, not coincidentally, had been involved in the Clinton 
passport controversy), former Bush Press Secretary Marlin 
Fitzwater,(19) Kenneth Duberstein and Tony Blankley, a 
former aide to Speaker Newt Gingrich.(20) The FBI file of 
Ms. Linda R. Tripp, a Bush Administration ``hold-over'' who was 
apparently perceived to be a potential threat at that time, was also 
obtained. Ms. Tripp would later be transferred to the Department of 
Defense and suffer yet another violation of her Privacy Act rights.
    The evidence shows that the Clinton White House knowingly requested 
the FBI files of Republicans ``who were no longer working there.'' 
(21) Mari Anderson, Craig Livingstone's assistant, testified 
to Judicial Watch that she, Livingstone and Anthony Marceca were aware 
that Republicans, such as James Baker and Marlin Fitzwater, no longer 
had access to the White House, but that their FBI files were obtained 
anyway.(22) Anderson also testified that Livingstone 
regularly left their office with FBI files in tow.(23) A 
log, which was to have chronicled any removal of the FBI files to other 
areas in the White House, mysteriously developed a six-month gap, 
reminiscent of the eighteen-minute gap in Richard Nixon's oval office 
tapes.(24)
    While working for Clinton White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, 
whose name appears on the requisition forms for the FBI files, Ms. 
Tripp was in a bird's-eye view position to witness the unlawful conduct 
that would later become known as ``Filegate.'' In discussions with 
Judicial Watch, Ms. Tripp admitted to having witnessed FBI files on 
former Reagan and Bush Administration appointees and employees 
``stacked up to the ceiling'' in Assistant White House Counsel William 
Kennedy's office.(25) As reported by Ms. Lucianne Goldberg, 
Ms. Tripp's literary agent and friend, Ms. Tripp also ``witnessed a 
White House secretary loading up FBI files on a computer'' in the White 
House Counsel's Office.(26) Ms. Tripp also told Tony Snow, a 
nationally-syndicated columnist for The Detroit News and commentator 
for the Fox News Channel, that:

          [S]he was shaken by White House dishonesty during 
        investigations of Vince Foster's death, Filegate, Travelgate, 
        and reports of drug abuse among administration employees. 
        ``It's chilling,'' she says, ``to watch high government 
        officials lie under oath.(27)

(Emphasis added). Finally, Ms. Tripp reportedly saw a document 
evidencing Mrs. Clinton's direct involvement in the firings at the 
White House Travel Office.(28)
    In the course of Ms. Paula Corbin Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit, 
President Clinton, through his lawyers, David Kendall, Esq. of Williams 
& Connolly and Robert Bennett, Esq. of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & 
Flom, hired Terry Lenzoer's private investigation firm, Investigative 
Group International, Inc. (``IGI''), apparently to obtain information 
for use in that lawsuit and elsewhere.(29) Lenzner and IGI 
were later retained to provide similar services for other matters 
involving the President, including the Lewinsky matter. When Judicial 
Watch deposed Lenzner on March 13, 1998, he revealed that Larry Potts, 
a disgraced senior FBI official who allegedly gave the ``shoot on 
sight'' orders at the Ruby Ridge massacre, is ``virtually a partner'' 
of his in running IGI.(30) In addition, Lenzner testified 
that Howard Shapiro, Esq., the former General Counsel of the FBI who 
also left the Bureau in disgrace because of the ``Filegate'' matter, 
serves as IGI's principal attorney.(31) Indeed, Lenzner, a 
former Department of Justice lawyer, has worked closely with the FBI. 
Thus, Lenzner, Potts and Shapiro all had close ties to FBI personnel 
and were in a position to solicit information from inside the FBI. 
Significantly, on March 3, 1998, FBI Director Louis Freeh issued a 
warning to all FBI personnel against providing information to FBI 
alumni and others about the various investigations involving the 
President.(32) Obviously, Director Freeh must have been 
concerned that information in FBI files had been and was being leaked 
to individuals with close ties to the FBI such as Lenzner, Potts and 
Shapiro.
    At his deposition, Lenzner confirmed that he had investigated 
perceived Clinton adversaries, including members of the media, public 
interest groups and even members of the judiciary.(33) 
However, he selectively invoked the ``work product'' doctrine to avoid 
having to answer specific questions about who IGI had 
investigated.(34) Hiding behind the ``skirts'' of David 
Kendall and Robert Bennett, Lenzner asserted the ``work product'' 
doctrine in response to some questions, but tellingly failed to do so 
in response to others. For example, Lenzner testified that he had not 
been asked or retained to investigate Kathleen Willey, but refused to 
state whether he had been retained to investigate Linda Tripp:

          Plaintiffs' Counsel: Have you been approached or retained to 
        investigate . . . Kathleen Willey?
          Lenzner: No.
          Plaintiffs' Counsel: Linda Tripp?
          Lenzner's Counsel: Same privileged objections. Same 
        instruction.
          Lenzner: I will accept my instruction on that.(35)

    The clear implication behind this selective invocation of the work-
product doctrine, however disingenuous those invocations are, was that 
Lenzner, in fact, has been investigating these perceived adversaries of 
the President. A report in the San Francisco Examiner directly linked 
Lenzner to the recent dissemination of private information smearing 
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde.(36) Rather 
than let his private investigators, Lenzner and Potts, answer questions 
in Judicial Watch's ``Filegate'' lawsuit, incredibly, the President has 
sought to intervene personally to prevent this 
questioning.(37)
    When the most recent Clinton scandal involving Ms. Lewinsky broke 
in late January 1998, the Clinton White House again reverted to 
releasing information in government files--and threatening further 
releases--in order to silence and discredit its perceived adversaries. 
During a February 8, 1998 interview, George Stephanopoulos, a former 
top adviser to and continuing confidante of President Clinton, and 
other top advisors in the White House, told a national television 
audience on ABC's This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts that 
there is an ``Ellen Rometsch'' strategy by ``White House allies'' to 
attack perceived adversaries of the Clinton Administration:

          Sam Donaldson: We know what the White House tactics are. I 
        mean, they've been almost open about it. Attack the press--and 
        perhaps with good reason--attack the [I]ndependent [C]ounsel--
        perhaps for some good reason--and stonewall on the central 
        issue, which is the President of the United States. And if he 
        has nothing to hide, why is he hiding?
          George Stephanopoulos: I agree with that. And there's a 
        different, long-term strategy, which I think would be far more 
        explosive. White House allies are already starting to whisper 
        about what I'll call the Ellen Roemech (sic) strategy. . . . 
        She was a girlfriend of John F. Kennedy, who also happened to 
        be an East German spy. And Robert Kennedy was charged with 
        getting her out of the country and also getting John Edgar 
        Hoover to go to the Congress and say, don't you investigate 
        this, because if you do, we're going to open up everybody's 
        closets. And I think that in the long run, they have a 
        deterrent strategy on getting a lot of . . . [FBI files].
          Sam Donaldson: Are you suggesting for a moment that what 
        they're beginning to say is that if you investigate this too 
        much, we'll put all your dirty linen right on the table? Every 
        member of the Senate? Every member of the press corp?
          George Stephanopoulos: Absolutely. The President said he 
        would never resign, and I think some around him are willing to 
        take everybody down with him.(38)

    Historically, the ``Ellen Rometsch'' strategy refers to the late 
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's 
successful efforts to collect and use FBI files to blackmail Republican 
members of Congress to prevent an investigation into President John F. 
Kennedy's affair with an East German spy, Ellen 
Rometsch.(39) Judicial Watch deposed Stephanopoulos to learn 
the identities of the ``White House allies'' about which he spoke on 
ABC's This Week.(40) However, Stephanopoulos asserted his 
privilege as a ``journalist'' not to reveal confidential 
sources.(41) Judicial Watch recently filed a motion with the 
Court to try again to compel Stephanopoulos to release this 
information.
    Pursuant to this ``Ellen Rometsch'' strategy, the Clinton 
Administration apparently orchestrated the release of confidential 
information from Ms. Tripp's Department of Defense (``DOD'') personnel 
file. On March 23, 1998, The New Yorker magazine published an article 
by Jane Mayer stating that Ms. Tripp had failed to disclose information 
about a twenty-year old arrest on a security clearance 
form.(42) As such, forms are themselves confidential, 
Privacy Act records. Questions thus arose concerning how Ms. Mayer had 
obtained this information. In a March 17, 1998 article entitled 
``Bill's Secret Police,'' Dick Morris questioned the release of this 
information and the implications it had for the Clinton 
Administration's claim that ``Filegate'' was an innocent bureaucratic 
mistake:

          [N]o journalist questioned how Tripp's confidential file 
        ended up in The New Yorker. Instead, all the papers dutifully 
        reported on her arrest and her lack of candor in disclosing it. 
        . . . The White House secret police have struck again. 
        Desperate to discredit Linda Tripp, President Clinton's most 
        damning accuser, the president's men are most likely the ones 
        who delved into confidential Pentagon files to dig up and dish 
        out dirt on Tripp. . . . The release of the Tripp file lends a 
        new credibility to the Republican allegations that the White 
        House's possession of confidential FBI files on GOP leaders and 
        potential adversaries was no ``mistakes'' as the president's 
        men piously claimed. Is Linda Tripp the latest victim of a file 
        dump?(43)(Emphasis added.)

    Accordingly, Judicial Watch began an inquiry into the circumstances 
behind the release of this information, as it was obviously relevant to 
its ``Filegate'' investigation.
    On April 30, 1998, Judicial Watch deposed Clifford Bernath. 
Bernath, Principal Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for 
Public Affairs, had been publicly portrayed by the Clinton 
Administration as the ``career'' Department of Defense official 
responsible for having released the confidential information in Ms. 
Tripp's personnel file to reporter Jane Mayer. The Clinton 
Administration also portrayed Bernath as having acted alone. At his 
deposition, however, Bernath testified that he was directed to obtain 
and release the information by his superior, Kenneth Bacon, Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, a Clinton political 
appointee.(44) Bernath testified he told Mayer that Bacon 
``has made it clear it's [the release of the Tripp information] a 
priority,''(45) because Mayer ``was on deadline and whenever 
a reporter is on deadline, we call that a priority.''(46) As 
the Court later noted, Bernath's revelation that he was told to release 
the Tripp information by a Clinton political appointee was understood 
by the Court as conflicting with the Clinton Justice Department's 
statements to the Court that the release was made by a career 
official.(47)
    Judicial Watch then deposed Bacon on May 15, 1998. Bacon testified 
that Mayer initially contacted him about obtaining the information from 
Ms. Tripp's personnel file,(48) and that he then told 
Bernath to search the file to find out whether Ms. Tripp had disclosed 
information about her twenty-year old arrest on her security clearance 
form.(49) Bacon also testified that he ``was very aware of 
what Mr. Bernath was doing and . . . did nothing to stop 
it.''(50) Thus, it was a Clinton Administration political 
appointee, not a career civil servant, who was at the heart of this 
obvious violation of Ms. Tripp's privacy rights.
    This stands in marked contrast to Secretary of Defense William 
Cohen's public statements that Bernath had acted on his own in 
releasing the information.(51) Although Secretary Cohen said 
the release of Ms. Tripp's information was ``certainly inappropriate, 
if not illegal,''(52) neither Secretary Cohen nor the White 
House told the public about the involvement of Bacon or 
others.(53) Secretary Cohen said Bernath ``was responding to 
an inquiry from the press'' without mentioning that a Clinton political 
appointee, Bacon, had directed Bernath to do so.(54) Bacon 
testified that, after Secretary Cohen made his statement on Fox News 
Sunday, he told the Secretary that the statement should be 
corrected.(55) Yet Bacon testified that he was unaware of 
Secretary Cohen ever correcting his statement; nor was he aware of 
either the Department of Defense or the Clinton Administration ever 
acknowledging publicly he was involved in the release of information in 
Ms. Tripp's confidential personnel file.(56) When Judicial 
Watch questioned Bacon about Secretary Cohen's involvement in the 
matter, Clinton Justice Department lawyers instructed him not to 
answer.(57) Judicial Watch has moved the Court to compel 
answers.
    Judicial Watch also learned that, after Bernath's role in the 
release of information in Ms. Tripp's confidential personnel file 
became known publicly, Bernath apparently attempted to destroy evidence 
of his wrong-doing. Specifically, Bernath testified that between April 
1-10, 1998, he deleted all of the files on his computer's hard 
drive.(58) Yet Bacon testified that, by March 17 or 18, 
Bernath told him he ``had asked for a legal review'' of the 
circumstances behind the release.(59) This was confirmed by 
a March 18, 1998 New York Post article in which Pentagon spokesman Lt. 
Col. Dick Bridges is quoted as stating that Bernath had ``requested a 
Pentagon inquiry to examine the propriety of his 
actions.''(60) Therefore, Bernath had deleted potential 
evidence from his computer at a time when he obviously knew that his 
role in the release of information in Ms. Tripp's confidential 
personnel file would be investigated, if it was not being investigated 
already. In commenting on Bernath's deletion of files on his computer, 
the Court stated that ``cause for concern should exist when an upper-
level government employee completely deletes his hard drive when this 
hard drive may have information relevant to an ongoing criminal 
investigation, let alone the instant case,''(61) and ``it is 
highly unusual and suspect for such an action to have been undertaken 
by Bernath when matters relating to Tripp are being investigated by the 
Office of the Independent Counsel.''(62)
    Judicial Watch also discovered that after information in Ms. 
Tripp's confidential personnel file was released, Bernath was given a 
new job at higher pay with, ironically, responsibility for teaching 
about the Privacy Act. Bacon testified that ``sometime during the week 
of March 16th,''(63) he selected Bernath to run the American 
Forces Information Service, which entitled Bernath to grade and pay 
increase.(64) It is reported that in his new job, Bernath 
``has direct control over the Fort Meade school that teaches privacy 
regulations to public affairs officers.''(65) Bacon 
testified that ``I offered him that job because I thought he was the 
best of the three candidates.''(66) It appears far more 
likely that Bernath was being rewarded for his improper conduct.
    Throughout this controversy surrounding the release of information 
in Ms. Tripp's confidential, Department of Defense personnel file, an 
unknown factor was whether there had been White House involvement in 
the release. The key role of Bacon, a political appointee, made that 
link very likely. Judicial Watch then uncovered the release of a list 
of over 1,000 individuals whose FBI background files were unlawfully 
obtained by the Clinton White House.(67) Among the names on 
the list was Ms. Tripp. Consequently, her FBI background file also had 
been obtained by the Clinton White House. As an FBI background 
investigation file would likely contain information on prior arrests, 
this would seem to answer the question of how Jane Mayer, a former 
colleague of Sidney Blumenthal and close friend of the Clintons, knew 
to ask Bacon the precise question of whether Ms. Tripp had disclosed 
any arrests on her security clearance form. Finally, when Judicial 
Watch deposed Clinton advisor Harold Ickes on May 21, 1998, it also 
learned that Ickes had dinner with Bacon and discussed Ms. Tripp and 
Ms. Lewinsky during the period leading up to the release of the 
information in Ms. Tripp's confidential personnel file. This indicates 
a direct link between the Clinton White House and the release of 
information in Ms. Tripp's confidential personnel file in violation of 
her Privacy Act rights, obviously in an attempt discredit and 
intimidate her. Importantly, Ms. Tripp's FBI file was obtained about 
one (1) year after she began to work in the White House Counsel's 
Office Bernard Nussbaum. Did the White House know then that Ms. Tripp 
had the potential to be a whistleblower and thus began gathering 
information to use against her, if necessary? At a press conference on 
the courthouse steps on July 29, 1998, after her Starr grand jury 
testimony, she stated:

          As a result of simply trying to earn a living, I became aware 
        between 1993 and 1997 of actions by high government officials 
        that may have been against the law. For that period of nearly 
        five years, the things I witnessed concerning several different 
        subjects [at the White House] made me increasingly fearful that 
        this information was dangerous, very dangerous, to 
        possess.(68)

    It also appears that, soon after the Lewinsky story became public, 
the White House Counsel's Office requested information from White House 
files on Ms. Tripp, Ms. Willey and Ms. Lewinsky. On June 30, 1998, 
Judicial Watch deposed Terry Good, Director of the White House Office 
of Records Management (``ORM''). Mr. Good testified that, upon request 
of the White House Counsel's office, his office searched its computer 
database for records concerning Ms. Tripp, Ms. Willey and Ms. Lewinsky, 
and retrieved records on all three (3) individuals.(69)
    With regard to Ms. Tripp, Good testified as follows:

          Q: Has any office of the White House or person made a request 
        with regard to information or documentation concerning Linda 
        Tripp?
          A: I believe the counsel's office probably did, yes.
          Q: Who made that request?
          A: I do not know.
          Q: What was that request about?
          A: Again, if I don't remember the request, I can't tell you 
        what it was about. All I can say is it probably was about 
        anything and everything that we might have in our files 
        relating to Linda Tripp.'' (70)
    At about that same time, Representative Gerald Solomon wrote a 
letter to President Clinton asking whether anyone had pulled Ms. 
Tripp's White House files. However, Representative Solomon did not 
receive a response.(71) Representative Solomon cited Good's 
deposition and the President's failure to respond in a recent letter to 
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, referring to the matter as a 
``potential obstruction of a Congressional investigation'' and 
``intimidation of a federal witness.'' (72)
    With regard to Ms. Willey, a witness in the Lewinsky investigation, 
evidence indicates that President Clinton was directly involved in the 
violation of her Privacy Act rights in an effort to discredit her and 
harm her reputation. In testifying before the Lewinsky investigation 
grand jury, Ms. Willey accused President Clinton of making an improper 
sexual advance towards her in the White House. Ms. Willey then repeated 
these accusations during a March 15, 1998 television appearance on ``60 
Minutes.'' At his deposition, Good testified that, in response to a 
request from the White House Counsel's Office, ORM searched its files 
for documents concerning Ms. Willey and obtained a handwritten 
letter(s) Ms. Willey wrote to the President.(73) The 
letter(s) was then provided to the White House Counsel's Office, as 
were documents concerning Ms. Tripp and Ms. Lewinsky.(74) 
The letter(s) was then released to the media.(75)
    According to White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, ``I'm sure 
the President knew that we were putting the letters out and I'm sure 
that he approved.'' (76) In fact, James Carville was forced 
to admit at his March 16, 1998 deposition in Judicial Watch's 
``Filegate'' investigation that President Clinton sought his advice 
about Ms. Willey's letters prior to their release:

          Q: When was the last time you talked to the President?
          A: Saturday.
          Q: Was that in person or by phone?
          A: By phone.
          Q: Who called who?
          A: The President called me.
          Q: And how long was the conversation?
          A: Not very long. Maybe five minutes or so.
          Q: What was discussed?
          * * *
          A: He said that there were some--there was a Kathleen Willey, 
        and what he said was there was some letters that she had 
        written, and they were--his lawyers were considering--I think 
        were considering about making them public, and what did I think 
        about it?
          Q: And what did you tell him?
          A: I'm not sure if I know what's in there, but if it was 
        something that was past the time that she made this allegation, 
        it was probably a pretty good idea.
          Q: Did he ask you to help make them public?
          A: No, sir.(77)

    Former White House Chief of Staff Thomas ``Mack'' McLarty also 
testified in Judicial Watch's ``Filegate'' case that he and the 
President discussed Willey's credibility ``a day or two'' after her 
interview on ``60 Minutes'':

          A: . . . After her ``60 Minutes'' interview, I believe the 
        President commented to me that he thought a mutual friend had 
        made a remark about her credibility was not that high in 
        Richmond. I didn't know the mutual friend. He thought I did. . 
        . .
          Q: Who is the mutual friend?
          A: I don't recall his name. I didn't know him. I think the 
        President thought I did know him, and I just don't--I don't 
        remember who it was. I didn't know the person.(78)

    During his grand jury testimony, the President admitted that Ms. 
Willey's letters were taken from White House files.(79) He 
also admitted that he authorized their release,(80) and 
testified that the letters ``shattered Kathleen Willey's credibility.'' 
(81) Thus, the Good, Carville and McLarty depositions, and 
the President's grand jury testimony directly implicate President 
Clinton in this violation of Ms. Willey's Privacy Act rights in order 
to discredit and harm her reputation, and thereby undermine the 
accusations she had made against the President.
    Carville appears to have played a significant, if not central role 
in misusing information in government files against perceived 
adversaries of the President.(82) When Judicial Watch 
subpoenaed Carville to appear for a deposition in its ``Filegate'' 
investigation, it also required him to produce documents in his 
possession, custody and control.(83) After a prolonged Court 
fight over obtaining the required documents, Carville finally gave in 
and produced voluminous quantities of information in his possession and 
in the possession of his business entity, Education and Information 
Project, Inc. (``EIP''). Included among the documents produced to 
Judicial Watch were facsimiles to Carville from the White House--the 
Chief of Staffs Office the White House Counsel's Office in particular--
enclosing documents on perceived adversaries of the President. These 
documents included information on Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, 
former FBI Agent Gary Aldrich, philanthropist Richard M. Scaife and 
Republican strategist Donald Sipple.(84) The White House 
Chief of Staffs Office even faxed excerpts from Sipple's divorce 
proceedings to Carville.(85)
    Judicial Watch's review of documents and other materials provided 
by Carville and EIP revealed evidence of other likely attempts to 
destroy and obstruct members of the staff of the Independent Counsel, 
and Judicial Watch has delivered to the Court tape recordings made by 
James Carville in this regard. These Carville tape recordings show that 
Carville was probing into the sexual and personal backgrounds of 
investigators. As the tape recordings evidence potential obstruction of 
justice and other criminality, Judicial Watch informed the Independent 
Counsel of their existence. The Independent Counsel has yet to issue a 
subpoena for the tape recordings.
    Also included among the documents Judicial Watch subpoenaed from 
Carville and EIP was an EIP ``target list'' identifying Independent 
Counsel Kenneth Starr, Speaker Newt Gingrich (indeed, in the September 
27, 1998 edition of NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' Carville admitted he was 
targeting Gingrich), Representative Dan Burton, Senator Fred Thompson 
and former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett as ``Individuals to 
Target'' for ``expos[ing] the motives and methods behind Republican 
partisan attacks against the President and the Democratic 
Party.''(86) At his deposition, Carville also was forced to 
admit that he stays in regular contact with David Kendall, who hired 
Terry Lenzner as the President's private investigator.(87) 
Moreover, former Carville aides and employees--Tom Janenda and Glen 
Weiner--are now staffing the White House opposition research 
office.(88) Based on all of the direct and circumstantial 
evidence obtained thus far, as well as Carville's own repeated threats 
to destroy Clinton adversaries, he appears to be the ``ringleader'' of 
President Clinton's smear operations--in violation of the Privacy Act 
and other laws.
    Carville is apparently not the only Clinton advisor or aide 
misusing information in government files against perceived adversaries 
of the President. Lanny Davis, a ``Special Counsel to the President,'' 
testified at his deposition in Judicial Watch's ``Filegate'' 
investigation that he was hired by the Clinton White House Counsel's 
office and worked closely with that office.(89) That office, 
which helped to orchestrate the unlawful transfer of hundreds of FBI 
files, and, according to Linda Tripp, loaded them onto White House 
computers, is at the very center of egregious violations of privacy 
rights and other unlawful conduct.
    Davis' testimony shows, at the very least, that he unlawfully 
maintained a system of records on notable Clinton adversaries without 
fulfilling the proper notice requirements as mandated by the Privacy 
Act. Davis testified that during his tenure at the Clinton White House, 
he personally maintained files containing information about prominent 
Clinton adversaries, such as Judge Kenneth Starr,(90) 
Senator Fred Thompson,(91) Representative Dan 
Burton,(92) Senator Henry Hyde,(93) Monica 
Lewinsky,(94) Kathleen Willey,(95) and David 
Hale.(96) Davis also maintained files containing information 
about Larry Lawrence, Roger Tamraz, Doris Matsui, Webster Hubbell, Nora 
and Gene Lum, John Huang, Pauline Kachanalak, Johnny Chung, and Charlie 
Trie.(97) Many of these files were identified, either in 
whole or in part, by the individual's name, such as ``Starr,'' ``Monica 
Lewinsky,'' ``Kathleen Willey'' and ``John Huang.''(98) 
Davis also testified that he was ``eclectic'' in his judgment as to 
what to put in such files, and that he would generally include any 
document that he might need to use at some point.(99) Such 
documents included public statements and stories by the 
media.(100) Yet, Davis admitted that the media ``frequently 
does not'' publish accurate information, undoubtedly thanks to his 
assistance.(101)
    Davis admitted that he maintained these files so that he could 
disseminate information to the media and thus help them write ``good'' 
and ``bad'' stories.(102) Yet before Davis released 
information from any of these files to the media, he never consulted 
with anyone referenced in the materials, never sought their permission, 
and knew of no one at the Clinton White House who did 
so.(103) Davis, Ickes and Carville continue to advise the 
Clinton White House on impeachment and other issues,(104) 
and it is likely that they continue to receive information from 
government files.
    Judicial Watch also plans to question others in the White House 
suspected of participating in these unlawful smear operations such as 
Sidney Blumenthal, Rahm Emanuel, Ann Lewis and Mike McCurry.
    In the course of its investigation, Judicial Watch has uncovered 
evidence of possible crimes involving obstruction of justice and abuse 
of power. During his deposition in Judicial Watch's ``Filegate'' 
investigation, Harold Ickes implicated himself, President Clinton and 
others in possible obstruction of justice in the Independent Counsel's 
``Filegate'' investigation. After it was publicly reported that Dick 
Morris had told Sherry Rowlands that Mrs. Clinton was the 
``mastermind'' of ``Filegate,'' Mr. Morris lamely tried to recant in 
having any independent knowledge of Mrs. Clinton's role. Rather, he 
claimed that his comments were based on polling data which reflected a 
public perception that Mrs. Clinton was behind the ``Filegate'' 
scandal. Consequently, the Independent Counsel staff subpoenaed the 
polling data. At his Judicial Watch deposition, Mr. Ickes testified to 
an effort to delay production of this polling data until after the 1996 
elections.(105)
    Finally, Judicial Watch is submitting this interim report for 
Congress' consideration at this time because it has uncovered 
substantial, additional evidence of unlawful conduct in the Clinton 
Administration, and because it appears that, while Independent Counsel 
Kenneth Starr has been given the responsibility to investigate the 
``Filegate'' matter, unfortunately his efforts apparently have been 
devoted almost exclusively to the Lewinsky and Whitewater 
investigations.
    In fact, it would appear the Independent Counsel's investigation of 
``Filegate'' is still at an early stage, if indeed any real 
investigation is being conducted at all.(106) Key 
``Filegate'' witnesses recently deposed by Judicial Watch have yet to 
be questioned by the Independent Counsel about the matter. Thomas 
``Mack'' McLarty, the White House Chief of Staff during the time period 
the FBI files were obtained unlawfully, incredibly testified that he 
was never questioned about ``Filegate'' before a grand jury:

          Q: But you never answered questions concerning Filegate 
        before a Grand Jury, to the best of your knowledge.
          A: To the best of my knowledge and memory, that is 
        correct.(107)

    Likewise, ORM Director Terry Good, who stored FBI files for Craig 
Livingstone for several months, testified that he has ``never been 
interviewed by anybody'' from the Independent Counsel's 
office.(108) Earlier this year, the Independent Counsel 
staff questioned Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton for only about nine 
(9) minutes on the subject of ``Filegate.'' According to Mandy 
Grunwald, one of the Clintons' friends and media advisors, even Mrs. 
Clinton remarked about the conduct of the Independent Counsel staff in 
questioning her so briefly. Ms. Grunwald testified that Mrs. Clinton 
thought the Independent Counsel staff ``came to the White House for 
what was very little business.''(109)
    Judicial Watch sought to take the deposition of Ms. Tripp on 
September 4, 1998, but the Independent Counsel intervened to try to 
convince the Court to postpone the deposition temporarily. In light of 
the fact that the Independent Counsel's investigation of ``Filegate'' 
appears to be in its preliminary stages only and that no meaningful 
report will likely be forthcoming any time soon, Judicial Watch hopes 
that the Independent Counsel will withdraw its objection and allow Ms. 
Tripp's deposition to go forward without further delay. Judicial Watch 
believes that it is important for the American public to learn what Ms. 
Tripp witnessed while working in the Clinton White House precisely 
because the Independent Counsel's report on ``Filegate'' will not be 
issued any time soon--particularly since Judicial Watch depositions 
confirm that its investigation is seemingly still in an infant state.
    It is also important that the full facts of ``Filegate'' be made 
public at this time because the ``Filegate'' strategy of misusing 
information in government files concerns not just the unlawful 
acquisition of FBI files of former Reagan and Bush Administration 
appointees and employees, but is part of a continuing campaign to smear 
witnesses and obstruct justice in the numerous on-going investigations 
of the President. By smearing, or at least threatening to smear its 
perceived adversaries and critics, the Administration hopes to 
intimidate them and gain their silence. This reaction is most typified 
by the response to Pennsylvania Representative Paul McHale's recent 
call for President Clinton's resignation. When Representative McHale 
subsequently appeared on Rivera Live,(110) one of the prime 
mouthpieces of the President, he was confronted with claims that he had 
misrepresented his military credentials. This type of information 
concerning military credentials would almost surely have come from 
government files, and Judicial Watch will seek discovery on this 
matter. The misuse of information, obstruction of justice and abuse of 
power apparently has become the last line of defense for a severely 
weakened Administration. Judicial Watch is thus providing these 
preliminary results from its ``Filegate'' investigation so that 
Congress can be fully informed at this critical time as it considers 
the future of the Clinton Presidency.(111)
                                part ii
            IRS-GATE
   Crimes and Other Offenses Relating to the Misuse of the Internal 
  Revenue Service that Warrant Impeachment and Removal from Office of 
                         President Bill Clinton
I. Introduction.
    President Clinton's pattern of using government agencies and their 
files to harass and intimidate those he considers to be his political 
adversaries apparently extends to the Internal Revenue Service 
(``IRS''). Among several of his targets was the Western Journalism 
Center (``WJC'').
    On May 13, 1998, Judicial Watch, on behalf of WJC, a non-profit 
organization established to promote education in journalism and 
investigative reporting,(112) sued former IRS Commissioner 
Margaret Milner Richardson, IRS agent Thomas Cederquist, and several 
unnamed IRS officials for violating its First Amendment rights to 
freedom of speech and freedom of the press, as well as its Fourth 
Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. The 
gravamen of WJC's suit was that these IRS officials violated WJC's 
constitutional rights in retaliation for WJC's having sponsored an 
investigation into the death of former Deputy White House Counsel 
Vincent Foster. Importantly, Ms. Richardson is a close personal friend 
of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, and had worked on President 
Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign.(113)
    Mr. Foster's death on July 20, 1993 was ruled a suicide by 
Independent Counsels Robert Fiske, and Kenneth Starr, the United States 
Park Police, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Because the 
official investigations left significant questions unanswered, WJC 
sponsored an investigation and published statements that challenged the 
official results. As a consequence, WJC was targeted by the Clinton 
Administration and subsequently audited by the IRS. Afterwards, WJC's 
tax status remained unchanged and no additional taxes or penalties were 
assessed.(114) However, WJC's ability to investigate and 
report on government corruption was severely curtailed by the audit.
    WJC's lawsuit alleges that the IRS audit was not about taxes; it 
was about illegal use of the IRS for political 
retaliation.(115) Thus, the case presents yet another 
example of the Clinton Administration's use of governmental power to 
intimidate and destroy its perceived adversaries.
    The audit violated WJC's constitutional rights. Not only was WJC 
subjected to an onerous and burdensome audit to retaliate against it 
for its prior reporting, but it also was prevented from further 
exercising its First Amendment rights, because WJC was forced to devote 
its limited personnel and resources to the audit instead of to its 
journalistic endeavors. Because WJC was required to turn over 
substantial quantities of information and documentation, the audit also 
violated WJC's Fourth Amendment right of freedom from unreasonable 
searches and seizures. Also, the audit had a chilling effect on WJC's 
ability to raise funds.
    Evidence indicates that WJC was not the only likely victim of 
President Clinton's IRS. A later survey by WJC revealed that at ``least 
20 non-profit organizations `unfriendly' to the Clinton administration 
have faced Internal Revenue Service audits since 1993,'' while ``not a 
single prominent public policy organization friendly to the Clinton 
Administration has apparently been targeted for audit in the same 
period, according to two random samples and research into the non-
profit community.''(116) The targeted organizations included 
National Review, American Spectator, Citizens Against Government Waste 
and the Heritage Foundation.(117) In January 1997, even the 
left-leaning Public Broadcasting Service found ``that a remarkable 
number of Bill Clinton's critics have recently become the target of IRS 
audits.'' (118)
    These reports are consistent with the Clinton Administration's use 
of the IRS in the White House Travel Office matter. In 1993-94, 
UltrAir, a charter company used by the White House Travel Office, as 
well as Billy Dale, the former director of that office, audited by the 
IRS.(119) Associate Counsel to the President William Kennedy 
had reportedly sought to have the FBI investigate UltrAir and Dale in 
order to replace them with allies of the President.(120) 
Kennedy reportedly advised an official of the FBI that the IRS would be 
used to investigate the White House Travel Office if the FBI did not do 
so.(121) Subsequently, both UltrAir and Dale were audited by 
the IRS, with no income tax violations being found.(122)
II. Background of the WJC.
    WJC is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, charitable organization and, as 
such, pays no federal income tax. WJC was granted 501(c)(3) status by 
the IRS in August of 1996.
    WJC's operations are funded by contributions from its supporters 
and foundations, who, in turn, are able to deduct these contributions 
from their own federal income taxes. WJC's contributors rely on WJC's 
501(c)(3) status when making contributions.
    WJC's journalism credentials are substantial. It was founded by 
Joseph Farah, an award-winning journalist and former editor of The 
Sacramento Union, and James G. Smith, the former President of The 
Washington Star, to promote journalism education and investigative 
reporting. WJC was formerly the publisher of Inside California, which 
focused primarily on investigations concerning the state of California. 
WJC currently is the publisher of Dispatches, a bi-weekly investigative 
publication that focuses primarily on national events. Its extensive 
investigative reporting has been widely cited and credited in such 
influential national publications as The Los Angeles Times, The Oakland 
Tribune, The Orange County Register, The Sacramento Bee, The San 
Francisco Chronicle, The San Francisco Examiner, The Wall Street 
Journal and Investor's Business Daily.
    WJC's investigative reporting is non-partisan. For example, it 
undertook an extensive investigation into the National Education 
Association's political power. It also undertook a substantial 
investigation into the ``militarization'' of the federal government 
during both Republican and Democratic administrations. It also 
undertook an extensive investigation into corruption, waste, fraud and 
abuse in California government during a Republican administration.
III. Details of the Harassment.
    The audit clearly was intended to harass WJC. In July 1996, WJC 
learned that it was being audited by the IRS. On at least two separate 
occasions, the IRS agent conducting the audit, defendant Thomas 
Cederquist, admitted to WJC's accountant that ``this is a political 
case,'' and ``the decision is going to be made at the national level.''
    During the course of the audit, WJC was asked to produce documents 
about its decision to undertake an investigation into Mr. Foster's 
death and about why opposing viewpoints were not presented in published 
statements about its investigation. At least five (5) IRS ``Information 
Document Requests'' (Form 4565) were served on WJC demanding the 
production of thousands of pages of documents and substantial 
quantities of information. One document request, dated August 16, 1996, 
sought the following materials, among others, relating directly to the 
investigation into Foster's death:

          Copies of all documents relating to the selection of 
        Christopher Ruddy as an investigative reporter and how the 
        topic was selected. Who was on the review committee? What 
        review process is used for peer review? Were any other projects 
        considered? What about any opposing viewpoints? Why were they 
        not presented in your advertisements? (123)

    When WJC's executive director challenged the audit as being 
retaliatory in an opinion article published in The Wall Street Journal 
(124) and charged that the IRS had undertaken other 
politically-inspired audits of perceived adversaries of President 
Clinton and his Administration, the scope of the audit was enlarged. 
The IRS then began audits of two of WJC's largest individual donors, as 
well as several individuals WJC had retained to provide expert and 
research services for its Foster investigation.
    Evidence unknown to WJC at the time, but later revealed, showed 
Clinton Administration targeting of WJC. WJC learned of a December 1994 
internal memorandum prepared by Associate White House Counsel Jane C. 
Sherburne that outlined strategies for addressing various political 
scandals confronting President Clinton and his 
Administration.(125) WJC was specifically named in the 
memorandum for its investigation into Foster's death.(126) 
WJC later learned of a 1995 report prepared by the White House 
Counsel's Office in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee 
entitled ``Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce,'' that 
purported to document a ``right wing'' conspiracy to convey ``fringe'' 
stories about political scandals to the mainstream 
media.(127) The first news organization identified on the 
first page of this report was WJC.(128)
    The tremendous burden imposed on WJC because of the tax audit, 
including the time WJC was forced to devote to the audit and the funds 
it was compelled to expend, severely curtailed WJC's ability to 
exercise its First Amendment rights. WJC was effectively forced to shut 
down its investigative reporting and other activities, including its 
investigation into Foster's death. One of WJC's investigative reporting 
publications, Inside California, was terminated as a result of the 
audit.(129)
    Because of the audit, several foundations and other contributors 
who had made donations to WJC in the past and/or were considering 
making donations to WJC, decided against making new and/or additional 
donations either because they feared retaliatory audits or because they 
feared that the ongoing audit would lead to the revocation of WJC's 
501(c)(3) tax exempt status and, consequently, that their donations 
would not be tax-deductible. As a result of this funding loss, WJC was 
forced to lay off at least two members of its already small staff, 
which further limited WJC's ability to exercise its First Amendment 
rights.
    In May 1997, defendant Cederquist undertook a two-day examination 
of documentation in WJC's offices. Cederquist did not appear for the 
second day of this examination, however, as IRS Agent John Grisso 
appeared in Cederquist's place. During this second day of the 
examination, Agent Grisso stated to Farah that he did not understand 
why so much time and energy had been devoted to the WJC audit because 
``there was nothing there.'' Agent Grisso advised Farah that he would 
recommend that a ``no-change'' letter be issued.
    Ultimately, the Clinton Administration failed to destroy WJC, which 
has become an influential source of news and commentary on the 
Internet.
IV. Conclusion.
    The likely reason for the audit was to retaliate against WJC for 
sponsoring an investigation into the Foster death, punish it for 
challenging the results of the official investigations, limit its 
ability to continue to both investigate and publish materials perceived 
as being harmful to the President and his Administration, and 
discourage potential donors from contributing.
    The lawsuit is based on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), wherein the U.S. 
Supreme Court declared that federal officials may be held liable in 
their individual capacities for violating a person's constitutional 
rights while acting under color of federal law. Judicial Watch expects 
the lawsuit to serve as a warning and deterrent to IRS officials, that 
they cannot violate citizens' constitutional rights without being held 
personally accountable.
    This personal accountability includes President Clinton. Any 
impeachment inquiry should include the misuse of the IRS, as 
demonstrated by the experience of WJC and other organizations that 
President Clinton perceives as his adversaries.(130)
                                part iii
            COMMERCEGATE/CHINAGATE
    Crimes and Other Offenses Relating to the Illegal Sale of U.S. 
 Department of Commerce Trade Mission Seats for Campaign Contributions 
  that Warrant Impeachment and Removal from Office of President Bill 
                                Clinton
I. Introduction.
          After the elections of 1994, and the Democrats' loss of 
        Congress, I became aware, through my discussions with [late 
        Commerce Secretary] Ron [Brown], that the trade missions were 
        being used as a fundraising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore 
        presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. Specifically, 
        Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to 
        donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to 
        participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department. Ron 
        expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the 
        Commerce trade missions had been and were being perverted at 
        the direction of The White House.
        Affidavit of Nolanda Butler Hill, January 17, 1998 
        (131)
          * * * * *
          Question: You are aware, however, that Alexis Herman would 
        set up briefing sessions for participants that went on trade 
        missions before they went overseas? You were aware of that?
          Nolanda Hill: I was.
          Question: And at those briefing sessions appeared the 
        President and Vice President.
          Nolanda Hill: I was told that by Secretary Brown.
          * * * * *
          Question: You've mentioned, to some extent--I'll let your 
        testimony speak for itself--Harold Ickes. Anybody else? . . .
          Nolanda Hill: Ultimately, [Ron Brown] believed that the 
        President of the United States was, at least tangentially.
          Question: Involved?
          Nolanda Hill: Yes, sir. It was his re-election that was at 
        stake.
          Question: Ron believed that the President of the United 
        States knew the trade missions were being sold and their 
        purpose being perverted?
          Nolanda Hill: Yes, sir.
        Nolanda Butler Hill Court Testimony, March 23, 1998 
        (132)

    In the Fall of 1994, Judicial Watch first became aware of evidence 
that the Clinton Commerce Department was illegally selling seats on its 
international trade missions in exchange for political 
contributions.(133) Reports in Business Week and The Wall 
Street Journal showed that there was a high incidence of Democratic 
Party contributors on these taxpayer-financed trade 
missions.(134)
    The fact that the President installed the former head of the 
Democratic National Committee, Ronald H. Brown, as Commerce Secretary 
also raised concerns about Clinton Commerce Department operations. When 
Brown brought his entire DNC fundraising staff with him to Clinton 
Commerce, these suspicions increased.
    After Judicial Watch filed requests with the Clinton Commerce 
Department for information regarding these trade missions under the 
Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA''), it was immediately stonewalled 
and was forced to file a lawsuit in 1995 to obtain the requested 
information.(135) Even after filing suit, the Clinton 
Administration continued to stonewall.(136)
    Over the next three (3) years, Judicial Watch, in its efforts to 
uncover what the Clinton Commerce Department was hiding from the 
American people, found substantial, compelling evidence that seats on 
Clinton Commerce Department trade missions were indeed being sold in 
exchange for campaign contributions, with the knowledge and complicity, 
if not at the direction of, officials at the highest levels of the 
Clinton White House, including the President, Hillary Rodham Clinton 
and Vice President Al Gore. In addition, Judicial Watch's attempts to 
uncover the truth were obstructed through perjury, obstruction of 
justice, intimidation and retaliation that has marred other recent 
investigation of Clinton scandals, including the Paula Jones and Monica 
Lewinsky matters. In short, the court process was obstructed by Clinton 
appointees at his Commerce Department and elsewhere by:

           Perjury;
           Submission of false sworn declarations;
           Destruction and shredding of evidence;
           Improperly withholding documents contrary to Court 
        orders;
           Threats and intimidation of witnesses and 
        investigators; and
           Misconduct by Clinton Administration lawyers.

    Nevertheless, Judicial Watch, through its investigations and the 
legal discovery process, found ``smoking gun'' documents detailing the 
sale the trade mission seats for campaign contributions in the files of 
the Clinton White House, Clinton Commerce Department, and the DNC, 
including:
           Memos from the Clinton White House files of Harold 
        Ickes and Alexis Herman showing that the $100,000 DNC Managing 
        Trustee Program included the sale of the Clinton Commerce 
        Department trade mission seats (among other government-financed 
        perks) and was designed to net President Clinton's DNC 
        political operation $40 million; (137)
           A brochure by the Democratic National Committee 
        showing that ``foreign trade mission'' seats were available for 
        $100,000 contributions to the DNC; (138)
           A list of DNC minority donors found in the files of 
        a key Clinton Commerce Department Official; (139)
           A Clinton Commerce Department memo indicating that 
        the DNC donors were input into the Commerce Department 
        government database;(140) and
           A DNC memo showing that the DNC provided the names 
        of donors to the Clinton Commerce Department for trade missions 
        to Russia and Belgium.(141)

    In January 1998, Judicial Watch uncovered a witness, Nolanda Butler 
Hill, a close confidante and business partner of late Commerce 
Secretary Brown, with whom Secretary Brown had shared key details about 
the campaign-contributions-for-seats-on-trade-missions scheme, as well 
as the Clinton Administration's efforts to stonewall Judicial Watch's 
lawsuit. Secretary Brown had even shown important documents to Ms. Hill 
that detailed this unlawful sale of taxpayer-financed government 
services. With Ms. Hill's uncontroverted testimony providing the 
capstone to its investigation, Judicial Watch has proven beyond all 
reasonable doubt that not only was the Clinton Administration engaged 
in an unlawful scheme to sell seats on Commerce Department trade 
missions in exchange for campaign contributions, but that a criminal 
cover-up was ordered by President Clinton's top aides to thwart 
Judicial Watch's Court-ordered investigation and to hide the 
culpability of the President, Mrs. Clinton, the Clinton Administration 
and the DNC for their use of Commerce Department trade missions as a 
political fundraising vehicle.
    Ms. Hill testified that then White House Chief of Staff Leon 
Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered Commerce 
Secretary Brown to defy Court orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch 
suit until after the 1996 federal elections. Ms. Hill's sworn testimony 
implicated the President's top staff members in obstruction of justice.
    Ms. Hill also tied the sale of trade mission seats directly to 
President Clinton. In both a sworn affidavit and Court testimony, Ms. 
Hill explained that:

           The First Lady conceived of the idea to sell the 
        trade mission seats in exchange for political contributions;
           The President knew of and approved this scheme;
           The Vice President participated in this scheme;
           Commerce Secretary Ron Brown helped implement the 
        illegal fundraising operation out of the Clinton Commerce 
        Department;
           Presidential White House aides Harold Ickes and (now 
        Labor Secretary) Alexis Herman helped orchestrate the sale of 
        the Commerce trade mission seats;
           The President's top fundraisers at the DNC and his 
        reselection campaign (Marvin Rosen and Terrence McAuliffe) 
        helped coordinate the selling of these taxpayer resources in 
        exchange for political contributions;
           Presidential Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy 
        Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered the cover-up of these 
        activities; and
           The President's appointees at the Commerce 
        Department have committed perjury, destroyed and suppressed 
        evidence, and likely breached our nation's security.

    Even more troubling than the revelations about the unlawful sale of 
seats on Commerce Department trade missions in exchange for campaign 
contributions, and the criminal cover-up that followed,(142) 
is evidence of likely national security breaches also uncovered by 
Judicial Watch's investigation. From the beginning of Judicial Watch's 
investigation, national security issues always were a concern. In fact, 
Bernard Schwartz of Loral Space and Communications Corporation 
(``Loral''), a major Clinton donor who had participated in a key 1994 
trade mission to China and was quoted in the Business Week and The Wall 
Street Journal articles that helped pique Judicial Watch's interest in 
the trade missions, now stands at the heart of a scandal over Clinton 
Commerce Department-approved missile technology transfers to China. 
Documents relating to Schwartz, Loral, and other entities involved in 
the current China technology transfer scandal were among those 
requested by Judicial Watch in its first FOIA request to the Clinton 
Commerce Department. Schwartz went on this key trade mission to China 
with Secretary Brown shortly after making a $100,000 contribution to 
the DNC. During the trade mission, Secretary Brown set up an important 
meeting for Schwartz with a Chinese government official that later led 
to the missile deals that are now the subject of various national 
security investigations.
    In addition, Judicial Watch also uncovered the removal by Ira 
Sockowitz, an official at the Clinton Commerce Department and 
confidante of alleged Chinese agent John Huang, of top secret documents 
relating to satellite encryption and intelligence reports on China, 
Russia and India. These documents have since been impounded by Court 
order. Other documents, which have been withheld by the Clinton 
Commerce Department, indicate that Ron Brown's Chief of Staff at the 
Clinton Commerce Department, William Ginsburg, kept allegedly personal 
diaries detailing ``state secrets,'' including information on satellite 
surveillance, intelligence personnel and capabilities, notes of a 
meeting of the National Security Council, among other ``national 
security'' information.(143) He too removed documents from 
the Department when he left its employ.
    The Judicial Watch investigation also uncovered John Huang, the 
Commerce official/DNC fundraiser now believed to have been a spy for 
the Chinese Government. To date, Judicial Watch lawyers are the only 
investigators to have questioned John Huang under oath. Since Judicial 
Watch deposed Huang in October 1996, it has been learned, largely 
contrary to his sworn testimony, that Huang:

           Raised money for the DNC while at the Clinton 
        Commerce Department;
           Received over 100 top secret intelligence briefings 
        at Commerce;
           Continued his contacts while at the Clinton Commerce 
        Department with his former employers at the Lippo Group, an 
        Indonesian company that has also been linked to Chinese 
        intelligence;
           While still working at the Clinton Commerce 
        Department, had access to the office of Stephens, Inc., a firm 
        with close ties to the Lippo Group; and
           Maintained contact with the Chinese 
        Government.(144)

According to President Clinton, Huang is a close friend--going back to 
his governorships in Little Rock.
    Indeed, any complete understanding of China's plan to influence the 
electoral process and spy on American interests must begin with an 
examination of the operations of President Clinton's Commerce 
Department. Many of the key figures associated with the ``Chinagate'' 
scandal all had direct connections to it:
    John Huang worked for the Clinton Commerce Department, before 
moving to the DNC.
    Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, now deceased, organized the Clinton 
Commerce Department trade missions to China now under scrutiny.
    Johnny Chung informally participated in the Clinton Commerce 
Department trade mission to China in 1994. Chung later admitted to 
funneling $100,000 from the Chinese military to the DNC.
    Bernard Schwartz, Chief Executive Officer of Loral, participated in 
the Clinton Commerce Department trade mission to China in 1994.
    Charlie Trie, who was indicted earlier this year on charges that he 
illegally funneled foreign money to the Democrats, also participated in 
the 1994 Clinton Commerce Department China trade mission.
    Wang Jun, the powerful Chinese communist ``princeling'' and friend 
of Clinton fundraiser Charlie Trie, met with Secretary Ron Brown 
shortly after attending a fundraising coffee with President Clinton. 
The same day as Wang Jun's meeting with Secretary Brown, President 
Clinton signed a controversial waiver allowing Bernard Schwartz's Loral 
to work with the Chinese on launching a satellite into 
space.(145)
    James and Mochtar Riady's Lippo Group, in addition to benefitting 
from ex-employee John Huang's placement at Commerce, benefitted 
directly from deals negotiated by him on Clinton Commerce Department 
trade missions.
    The DNC, the recipient of most of the illegal foreign money, 
coordinated with the Clinton Commerce Department and White House to 
sell seats on the taxpayer-financed trade missions.
    In short, the crimes at the Clinton Commerce Department were not 
solely related to the illegal sale of taxpayer-financed trade mission 
seats in exchange for political contributions, but likely include 
breaches of national security as well. Key Clinton fundraisers such as 
John Huang, the Riadys, Charlie Trie, Marvin Rosen and Terry McAuliffe, 
were able to use the Clinton Commerce Department for the benefit of 
their overseas patrons, while DNC donors such as Loral's Bernard 
Schwartz and Johnny Chung were allowed to use the Clinton Commerce 
Department trade missions as the means to advance their business 
dealings with the Chinese government--business dealings that eventually 
led to the illegal transfer of missile and other high technology to 
China, and the transfers of hundreds of thousands of illegal dollars 
from the Chinese Government to the DNC; an obvious quid pro quo.
    Congress now has before it other evidence, uncovered by Independent 
Counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation, that President Clinton has 
committed impeachable acts relating to the Paula Jones sexual 
harassment lawsuit, and other issues that warrant his impeachment and 
removal from office. President Clinton's misuse of his Commerce 
Department for political fundraising and the subsequent cover-up, and 
the national security breaches that likely resulted from this scheme, 
provide even more compelling evidence of why he must be impeached, 
removed from office, and, at the appropriate time, subject to criminal 
prosecution along with those that aided and abetted him.
II. Judicial Watch's Investigation Has Uncovered Substantial, 
        Compelling Evidence that Seats on Taxpayer-Financed, Commerce 
        Department Trade Missions Were Sold in Exchange for Campaign 
        Contributions.
    During the course of its investigation, Judicial Watch discovered 
substantial, compelling evidence that the Clinton Administration sold 
seats on taxpayer-financed Commerce Department trade missions in 
exchange for campaign contributions to the DNC/1996 Clinton-Gore re-
election campaign.
    At a March 23, 1998 evidentiary hearing in Judicial Watch's FOIA 
lawsuit, Ms. Nolanda B. Hill, a close confidante and business partner 
of the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown,(146) testified, 
under oath, that Secretary Brown told her that he was ordered by the 
Clinton White House to begin selling Commerce trade mission seats in 
exchange for political contributions to the DNC/1996 Clinton-Gore re-
election campaign.(147) Ms. Hill's oral testimony confirmed 
written testimony she had given to Judicial Watch in an affidavit on 
January 17, 1998:

          After the elections of 1994, and the Democrats' loss of 
        Congress, I became aware, through my discussions with Ron 
        [Brown], that the trade missions were being used as a 
        fundraising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore presidential 
        campaign and the Democratic Party. Specifically, Ron told me 
        that domestic companies were being solicited to donate large 
        sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on 
        trade missions of the Commerce Department. Ron expressed to me 
        his displeasure that the purpose of the Commerce trade missions 
        had been and were being perverted at the direction of The White 
        House.(148)

    According to what Secretary Brown told Ms. Hill, the trade mission 
seats were being sold in part because of ``panic'' by the President and 
First Lady induced by their Democratic Party's loss of Congress to the 
Republicans in 1994:

          [Ron Brown's] discussion with me centered around the panic 
        of--or his perception of panic--with the President and First 
        Lady, after the loss of Congress to the Republicans, and that 
        that was going to--they were afraid they wouldn't be able to 
        raise money, and they were really worried about 
        it.(149)

    Ms. Hill testified that Secretary Brown told her that it was 
Hillary Rodham Clinton who ordered that the trade mission seats be 
sold:

          Q: And did he not say to you that--and I am kind of 
        paraphrasing--Hillary believes that every thing is politics and 
        politics is driven by money; correct?
          A: He did say those--close to those words, as I recall. . . .
          Q: And he told that you that, in fact, it was Hillary's idea 
        to use the trade missions to raise money; correct?
          A: He initially believed that she was very instrumental, and 
        he gave her a lot of credit.(150)

Secretary Brown told Ms. Hill that he was ``[j]ust doing my chores for 
Hillary Rodham Clinton'' and he complained, ``I'm not a mother''--
expletive deleted--``king tour guide for Hillary 
Clinton.''(151)
    Importantly, Secretary Brown told Hill that the President himself 
was involved in the sale of seats on Commerce Department trade 
missions:

          A: Ultimately he believed that the President of the United 
        States was, at least tangentially.
          Q: Involved?
          A: Yes sir. It was his re-election that was at stake.
          Q: Ron believed that the President of the United States knew 
        the trade missions were being sold, and their purpose was being 
        perverted?
          A: Yes, sir.(152)

In fact, Ms. Hill testified that Secretary Brown resented the Clinton's 
involvement in the misuse of the Commerce Department trade missions, 
which he believed had become nothing more than a ``street level 
protection racket.'' (153)
    Ms. Hill also testified that, in addition to the President and Mrs. 
Clinton, high level Clinton Administration officials were also directly 
involved. The Commerce Department's Office of Business Liaison, then 
run by former DNC fundraiser Melissa Moss, worked with the President's 
Office of Public Liaison at the White House, then run by Labor 
Secretary Alexis Herman, to set up White House ``briefing sessions'' 
for trade mission participants with either President Clinton or Vice 
President Gore, or both.(154) Hill also testified that 
Clinton's top political aide, former Deputy Chief of Staff Harold 
Ickes, served as the White House's ``point man'' for the sale of seats 
on Commerce Department trade missions:

          Q: . . . Harold Ickes was involved in the sale of trade 
        missions, too, wasn't he?
          A: It was my understanding through Secretary Brown that Mr. 
        Ickes was the political point man for the White House. . . . 
        Mr. Ickes, according to what Secretary Brown told me, 
        participated heavily in determining what happened from a 
        political standpoint.(155)

    Clinton's top political fundraisers for the DNC and his re-election 
campaign, Terry McAuliffe and Marvin Rosen, were also heavily involved 
in the illegal sale of the trade mission trips, according to what 
Secretary Brown told Ms. Hill:

          Q: And [Terry McAuliffe] was instrumental, based on your 
        discussions with Ron, in working with the White House and 
        coordinating the sale of seats on trade missions; correct?
          A: He was certainly highly involved, according to Ron.
          * * * * *
          Q: And another person who was highly involved from the DNC in 
        coordinating the sale of seats on trade missions for campaign 
        contributions was Marvin Rosen; correct?
          A: I understood from Ron that that was correct.
          Q: And these people worked with the White House in furthering 
        what Ron thought was a perversion of his trade missions; 
        correct?
          A: That's correct.(156)

    Indeed, the sworn testimony of Ms. Hill indicated that donors had 
to pay the DNC/Clinton-Gore campaign a minimum of $50,000 in order to 
receive access to government services--Commerce trade mission seats:

          In early 1996, Ron showed me a packet of documents, about 1 
        inch thick, which he removed from his ostrich skin portfolio. 
        Ron told me that these documents had been provided to him from 
        Commerce Department files as part of the collections efforts to 
        produce documents to Judicial Watch in this case. I only 
        reviewed the top five or six documents, which were on Commerce 
        Department letterhead under the signature of Melissa Moss of 
        the Office of Business Liaison. What I reviewed comprised 
        letters of Ms. Moss to trade mission participants, each of 
        which specifically referenced a substantial financial 
        contribution to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). My 
        response was immediate and decisive. I told Ron he must 
        instruct that production of these documents and all responsive 
        documents be immediate and I advised him to mitigate his own 
        damages by releasing Ms. Moss from her duties and admonishing 
        her for using the offices of the Commerce Department for 
        partisan political fundraising.(157)

    Ms. Hill testified in open Court that she understood that $50,000 
was the minimum ``the White House was charging to go on a trade 
mission. . . .'' (158) According to Ms. Hill, Secretary 
Brown was personally offended that the White House put such a low 
dollar figure on his trade trips. ``I'm worth more than $50,000 a 
pop,'' Secretary Brown told her.(159) A DNC brochure 
soliciting members for its ``Managing Trustee'' program shows that 
participation in ``foreign trade missions'' was only one of the perks 
available to a contributor who donated at least $100,000 to the 
DNC.(160) Documents from the White House files of Harold 
Ickes and Alexis Herman also clearly show that the $100,000 DNC 
Managing Trustee Program, which included trade missions, among other 
taxpayer-financed quid pro quos, was designed to net President 
Clinton's DNC political operation $40 million.(161) 
Importantly, Alexis Herman was listed on the documents as the person to 
see to purchase a ``ticket'' on a Clinton Commerce Department trade 
mission.(162)
    Additional evidence corroborates Ms. Hill's testimony that seats on 
Clinton Commerce Department trade missions were being sold in exchange 
for contributions to the DNC/1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign. In 
the course of discovery in its FOIA litigation, Judicial Watch 
discovered a list of DNC ``minority donors'' in the possession of the 
Clinton Commerce Department.(163) Apparently, this list of 
DNC contributors had been sent by the DNC to the Commerce Department to 
select participants on trade missions.
    Just recently, Judicial Watch discovered additional documents from 
the DNC that provide further corroboration of Ms. Hill's testimony. A 
January 13, 1994 memorandum from DNC official Eric Silden clearly 
demonstrates the DNC's direct role in selecting participants for 
Commerce Department trade missions:

          Sally Painter at Commerce called to ask for a list of 
        candidates for a trade mission to Russia. She needs an initial 
        list by tomorrow (Friday 1/14) of 20-30 names. . . . Ari will 
        use the ``Belgium trade mission list'' as a base of names, to 
        be augmented by additional names that he feels are relevant to 
        Russian trade. It was suggested that he contact Reta Lewis to 
        determine which names on the Belgium list will be included in 
        the delegation, so that they are not also submitted to Commerce 
        for the Russian delegation. . . . Bob will be the point contact 
        with Commerce, as I will not be in the office on Friday 
        afternoon to deliver the list to Sally. (Emphasis added.) 
        (164)

    Judicial Watch has subpoenaed similar materials from the DNC, and 
will depose top DNC officials Terry McAuliffe and Marvin Rosen in the 
next few weeks. Even without the additional evidence that Judicial 
Watch is likely to uncover, it is clear that during the Clinton 
Administration, the Commerce Department has become nothing more than an 
arm of the DNC, where taxpayer-financed government services can be 
bought and sold in exchange for campaign contributions. Even the 
liberal Center for Public Integrity, after examining some of the 
evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch, concluded this was a ``pay to 
play'' scheme:

          When Ron Brown was simultaneously a partner at the preeminent 
        Washington law and lobbying firm of Patton, Boggs and Blow and 
        chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), he was 
        renowned as the consummate deal-maker. By all appearances, 
        Brown's Department of Commerce has continued to apply the art 
        of the deal. As one Justice Department investigator put it, a 
        corporation can ``pay to play.'' American giants such as AT&T 
        and ARCO, among others, which made contributions to the DNC, 
        have gotten seats on Brown's plane when he has traveled to far-
        off lands to meet with foreign governments in an effort to 
        promote American business.
          The seat on the secretary's plane can be viewed essentially 
        as the quo in the quid pro quo relationship between 
        contributors and the administration. Those DNC contributors, 
        with Brown's assistance, were in a position to cut their own 
        deals for projects in those foreign countries whose 
        representatives attended meetings with the U.S. delegation. 
        Some companies came away from the trips with million and 
        sometimes billion dollar deals.
          Others came away with expanded business contacts that led to 
        future deals. And others went in search of tax breaks. For 
        example, gas and oil company representatives on the Russia trip 
        argued for a lowering of the excise tax on oil imposed by the 
        Yelstin government. The Texas-based TGV/Diamond Shamrock 
        company came away from the South America trip with a tax break 
        from Argentina worth an estimated $20-$30 
        million.(165)

    In sum, Judicial Watch has uncovered substantial, compelling 
evidence demonstrating a massive sell-off of taxpayer-financed 
services--namely seats on Commerce Department trade missions--upon the 
orders of, and with the direct knowledge and participation, of the 
President and Mrs. Clinton. This illegal sale of taxpayer-financed 
services violates several federal statutes against the misappropriation 
of government funds, bribery and graft, as well as a host of campaign 
fundraising statutes, including but hardly limited to 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 600, et seq.
III. The Cover-Up.
    Judicial Watch's attempts to uncover evidence of the unlawful sale 
of seats on Commerce Department trade missions began immediately after 
Judicial Watch filed its September 12, 1994, September 13, 1994 and 
October 19, 1994 FOIA requests, which were thwarted at every 
turn.(166)
    After the Clinton Commerce Department received Judicial Watch's 
FOIA requests, Melissa Moss, a former DNC fundraiser who became 
Director of the Department's Office of Business Liaison, telephoned 
Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman on October 18, 1994 to try to 
persuade Judicial Watch to substantially limit the scope of the FOIA 
request.(167) When Mr. Klayman refused to limit the scope of 
the request, Moss abruptly ended the conversation, angrily slamming the 
phone down.(168) The following day, October 19, 1994, Ms. 
Moss sent Judicial Watch a letter via facsimile falsely claiming that 
Judicial Watch had, in fact, voluntarily agreed to limit the scope of 
its FOIA request to a list of trade mission 
participants.(169) Judicial Watch wrote back to Ms. Moss 
that same day to correct her false statements.(170) Judicial 
Watch believes that the likely intent behind Ms. Moss' false facsimile 
was to create a false record if litigation ensued.
    Moss had more reason to be worried than angry. Ms. Hill would later 
testify that she reviewed letters from Ms. Moss to trade mission 
participants, on Department letterhead, detailing the campaign-
contribution-for-trade-mission-seat scheme that would be withheld from 
Judicial Watch in violation of FOIA and in contravention of a Federal 
Court order. According to Ms. Hill, Moss placed that telephone call 
with Secretary Brown's knowledge, to try and convince Judicial Watch 
not to pursue its FOIA requests regarding the trade 
missions.(171) Moss' telephone call and false facsimile to 
Mr. Klayman in 1994 were among the first known efforts by a Clinton 
Administration official to cover-up the fact that taxpayer-financed 
government services were being sold in exchange for political 
contributions. It was far from being the last.
    In January 1995, Judicial Watch was forced to file suit in federal 
district court after the Commerce Department failed to turn over the 
requested information on trade mission trips pursuant to 
FOIA.(172) Not coincidentally, the Clinton Commerce 
Department then tried to create the appearance of complying with the 
FOIA, and in doing so it cleverly attempted to place Judicial Watch in 
a ``Catch-22.'' It required that Judicial Watch pay $13,131 in alleged 
search and duplication costs in order to obtain the requested 
documents.(173) As an all-volunteer, non-profit 
organization, Judicial Watch simply could not afford such an exorbitant 
fee. Seeing through this ruse, the Court ordered the Clinton Commerce 
Department to agree to produce responsive documents under a fee waiver, 
within twenty-four (24) hours.(174)
    The Commerce Department then produced some 28,000 pages of 
documents. Notably absent from this production of documents, however, 
was any correspondence, notes or memoranda of Secretary Brown, or any 
documents to or from the White House and/or the DNC concerning trade 
missions. The failure to produce such documents was inexplicable, if 
not incredible, and provided prima facie evidence that the Clinton 
Commerce Department had withheld documents.(175)
    At approximately this same time, the Clinton Commerce Department 
provided Judicial Watch with a Vaughn index of documents allegedly 
exempt from FOIA.(176) Because of its suspicions that the 
Clinton Commerce Department had not produced all responsive documents, 
and because of the Clinton Commerce Department's previous lack of 
straightforwardness, Judicial Watch asked the Court to review a portion 
of the withheld documents in camera. After this in camera review, the 
Court found that the Clinton Commerce Department's Vaughn index 
``fail[ed] in many instances `to supply [the Court] with even the 
minimal information necessary to make a determination' of whether the 
documents [were] properly withheld.''(177) Accordingly, the 
Court directed that a second Vaughn index be prepared and allowed 
Judicial Watch to begin discovery into the Clinton Commerce 
Department's search for responsive documents.(178) After the 
submission of a revised Vaughn index and a second in camera review, the 
Court determined that fully one half of the documents that the Clinton 
Commerce Department was withholding from Judicial Watch were, in whole 
or in part, improperly claimed as being exempt from 
FOIA.(179)
    Importantly, at that point the Court could have simply ordered the 
Clinton Commerce Department to conduct a second search for responsive 
documents. However, given the Clinton Commerce Department's previous 
failure to respond and its improper withholding of responsive 
documents, the Court obviously recognized the futility of a second 
search. Moreover, given that two (2) years had already passed since 
Judicial Watch submitted its first FOIA requests, the Clinton Commerce 
Department would have had substantial opportunity to remove, if not 
destroy, responsive documents--which, as shown by subsequent discovery, 
turned out to be the case. Thus, the only true option was to allow 
discovery into the adequacy of the first search and the whereabouts of 
other responsive documents. The Court thus permitted Judicial Watch to 
question Commerce Department officials under oath about their 
``search'' for requested documents.(180)
    The discovery process commenced, and Judicial Watch began the 
investigation that would ultimately expose John Huang and spark the 
campaign finance and ``Chinagate'' scandals. President Clinton's agents 
grew increasingly worried about Judicial Watch's lawsuit and increased 
their efforts to cover-up the sale of trade mission seats. Ms. Hill 
later testified that:

          In the spring of 1995, when this Court ordered production of 
        documents to Judicial Watch, Ron [Brown] became very concerned 
        and he thus began to discuss with me the strategy of handling 
        the defense of the Judicial Watch lawsuit.
          * * * * *
          In late fall 1995, after several rulings or statements by 
        this court, Ron himself became more involved in the defense of 
        the case. Specifically, he told me that he had decided to 
        personally review any documents that might be damaging to the 
        Clinton Administration, or in any way be sensitive. Ron told me 
        that he was very worried about the potential damage of the 
        Judicial Watch case to the Clinton 
        Administration.(181) (Emphasis added.)

    In fact, Secretary Brown took the extraordinary step of turning 
over responsibility for responding to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests to 
the Office of the Secretary. This was confirmed in a telephone 
conversation with Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman prior to the 
commencement of the lawsuit. During that phone conversation Brenda 
Dolan, a Clinton Commerce Department FOIA officer, admitted that 
Judicial Watch's FOIA requests had been taken from her and given to the 
Office of the Secretary. She further admitted that this was a highly 
unusual occurrence that did not square with usual Department 
procedures.(182)
    Secretary Brown personally involved himself in the FOIA process 
because of his concerns about what the Judicial Watch suit might 
expose. He also was ordered to do so by the Clinton White House, with 
whom he stayed in routine contact about the case.(183) As 
Ms. Hill would later testify in both her January 17, 1998 affidavit and 
at the March 23, 1998 evidentiary hearing, President Clinton's two top 
deputies, then White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, and Deputy 
Chief of Staff John Podesta, directly ordered Brown to defy the Court's 
orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch suit until after the 1996 
elections:

          I further learned through discussions with Ron [Brown] that 
        The White House, through Leon Panetta and John Podesta, had 
        instructed him to delay the case by withholding the production 
        of documents prior to the 1996 elections, and to devise a way 
        not to comply with the court's orders.(184) 
        (Emphasis added.)
          * * * * *
          Q: And that Leon Panetta had told Ron that, quote, ``He had 
        the responsibility of containing the Judicial Watch lawsuit?''
          A: Yes.
          Q: And you responded to Ron, did you not, by telling him that 
        that strategy of stall, stall, stall would not work forever?
          A: Yes, in part.(185)

    Weekly reports sent by Secretary Brown to Chief of Staff Leon 
Panetta at the Clinton White House confirm Panetta's involvement, as 
they discussed the status of Judicial Watch's FOIA 
requests.(186)
    Ms. Hill would later testify about Mr. Panetta's and Mr. Podesta's 
efforts to obstruct justice and cover-up the sale of trade mission 
seats for the President's re-election effort:

          Q: And you learned that Leon Panetta and John Podesta had 
        instructed him to delay the case for political reasons?
          A: Yes.
          Q: Now, do you remember Ron saying to you that Panetta and 
        Podesta wanted him to, quote, ``slow pedal'' the case until 
        after the [1996] elections? Those were the words that were 
        used, was it not?
          A: Yes.
          Q: And that Ron mimicked Leon Panetta and laughed when he 
        used the words ``slow pedal?''
          A: Well, he did a pretty good Leon Panetta.
          Q: Imitation?
          A: (Nods head affirmatively.)(187)

    Ms. Hill's testimony indicates that the President was personally 
aware of this unlawful obstruction. She would later testify that, 
shortly after she saw Commerce Department correspondence indicating 
that trade mission seats were being sold in exchange for political 
contributions, Secretary Brown and the President had a meeting. This 
meeting occurred just before Brown took his fateful trip to 
Croatia:(188)

          Q: What did he tell you was the reason he went to see the 
        President?
          A: . . . It concerned the independent counsel investigation.
          Q: Ron was also concerned about the situation at the Commerce 
        Department; correct?
          A: He was very concerned about the attempt by Congress to 
        shut down the Commerce Department.
          Q: And he was also concerned about this lawsuit; correct, 
        Judicial Watch's lawsuit?
          A: He was concerned about it, yes, sir.
          Q: And you had actually suggested to him that he go see the 
        President, didn't you?
          A: I suggested to him that that--yes, I did.
          Q: And Ron relayed to you--there was a meeting between Ron 
        and the President at that time, Ron told you; did he not?
          A: Ron told me that there was.(189)

    The evidence thus shows that key White House officials, acting on 
the likely command of the President himself, ordered Secretary Brown to 
obstruct the lawsuit and defy Court orders. This obstruction of justice 
would involve the use of perjury, the destruction of documents and 
threats and intimidation of witnesses and investigators.
            A. False Sworn Declarations
    Secretary Brown himself submitted a sworn statement, which Judicial 
Watch later learned was patently false and misleading. In his March 14, 
1996 declaration, Secretary Brown testified:

          1. I did not direct, supervise, or otherwise participate in 
        determining, the scope of the Department of Commerce's search 
        for and/or preparation of response to the Freedom of 
        Information Act (``FOIA'') requests made the basis of this 
        suit. 2. I do not maintain documents responsive to the FOIA 
        requests made the basis of this suit, nor at the time of the 
        FOIA requests did I maintain any such 
        documents.(190)

In reviewing this declaration, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. 
Lamberth remarked about its obviously careful wording:

        Well, unfortunately, the Secretary died before his deposition, 
        but that statement from the Secretary raises more questions 
        than it answers. . . . He didn't say there were no such 
        documents or that he never had any such documents . . . which 
        would have been the logical thing to say. . . .(191)

    Ms. Hill would later testify that, not only did Secretary Brown 
maintain responsive documents in his office, but he even showed her 
clearly responsive documents on Clinton Commerce Department letterhead, 
under Melissa Moss' signature, which he kept in an ostrich skin 
portfolio.(192) These documents have never been produced to 
Judicial Watch despite Ms. Hill's advice to Secretary Brown that they 
be produced immediately,(193) and were likely destroyed 
after Secretary Brown's death.(194)
    Ms. Hill also later testified that Secretary Brown told her that 
his declaration was purposely misleading:

          A: He felt like the wording was truthful, but it was crafted 
        very carefully.
          Q: How was it crafted very carefully?
          A: The words ``in determining.'' He felt like he could 
        truthfully say that he didn't determine the scope of the 
        search.
          Q: Why was that important?
          A: I don't think I understand.
          Q: In other words, he didn't want to be part - he didn't want 
        to be implicated in the aspect of actually searching? He didn't 
        want to have to swear to that; correct?
          A: That's right.
          Q: Because of the sensitive nature of some documents, showing 
        the involvement of the White House in selling trade missions?
          A: He just didn't want to be involved.
          Q: Dealing with the White House, the sale of trade missions; 
        correct?
          A: He didn't want to be involved with the FOIA issue.
          Q: Because of the legal ramifications; correct?
          A: He was under investigation by independent counsel.
          Q: So the answer is yes?
          A: Yes.(195)

    Secretary Brown carefully crafted a misleading affidavit to the 
Court and unlawfully withheld responsive documents. He personally 
showed Ms. Hill ``smoking gun'' Commerce Department documents under 
Melissa Moss' signature detailing the sale of the taxpayer-financed 
trade mission seats for political contributions to the 
DNC.(196) He obviously complied with his orders from the 
White House, and in doing so obstructed justice.
    In addition, the Clinton Commerce Department touted Anthony Das, 
the Executive Secretary in the Executive Secretariat of the Office of 
the Secretary of Commerce, as the person charged with overseeing the 
search for and production of documents responsive to Judicial Watch's 
FOIA request. In a sworn declaration dated March 10, 1995, Mr. Das 
testified that, as Executive Secretary, he had ``been delegated 
authority to initially respond to the requests for records of the 
Executive Secretariat,'' and that, upon receipt of such a request, it 
was the job of the Executive Secretariat to ``direct[] all other 
Department offices which might have responsive records to conduct 
searches for records.''(197)
    Contrary to his sworn declaration, at his March 27, 1996 and 
October 9, 1996 depositions, Das made it clear that his role in the 
search for responsive documents was minimal, if not non-existent. 
First, Das testified that he never reviewed Judicial Watch's FOIA 
requests.(198) Das also testified that he never discussed 
the document search with Secretary Brown, although he had frequent 
contact with him.(199) He also testified that he didn't know 
of anyone searching Secretary Brown's office.(200) Upon 
reviewing these obvious inconsistencies between Das' declaration and 
his deposition testimony, the Court asked Clinton Justice Department 
counsel:

          Don't you think it's rather curious that you would file with 
        me an affidavit from Das saying the Secretary had no records 
        and then admit in his deposition he never asked the 
        secretary?(201)

    Clinton Justice Department lawyer, Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce 
Hegyi, responded that Das somehow knew Brown did not keep records in 
his office.. Thirty-eight (38) subsequent depositions showed no one 
asked about or searched Secretary Brown's office for responsive 
documents.
    Additional evidence of false, sworn declarations arose when 
Judicial Watch deposed Mary Ann McFate, Director of the Office of 
Organization and Management Support at the Commerce Department's 
International Trade Administration (``ITA''). Ms. McFate submitted no 
less than eight (8) sworn declarations claiming responsibility for the 
search for and production of responsive documents throughout the 
Clinton Commerce Department.(202) However, at her October 
15, 1996 deposition, Ms. McFate testified that her search for documents 
was limited solely to the ITA, although the ITA was clearly not the 
only branch of the Clinton Commerce Department possessing responsive 
documents.(203) Ms. McFate also testified at her deposition 
that she was not involved in searching any other bureaus or offices of 
the Clinton Commerce Department.(204) Accordingly, the 
declarations of Ms. McFate, submitted by the Clinton Commerce 
Department's Office of General Counsel, were clearly false and 
misleading.(205)
            B. Destruction of Evidence
    The letters Ms. Hill reviewed, which detailed the unlawful sale of 
seats on Commerce Department trade missions in exchange for campaign 
contributions, were never turned over to Judicial Watch or the 
Court.(206) This alone constitutes evidence of obstruction 
of justice. In addition, however, Ms. Hill testified that Secretary 
Brown kept documents in his office that were responsive to Judicial 
Watch's FOIA request and which the Court had ordered to be produced:

          A: I became aware that [late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown] 
        kept documents related to this [Judicial Watch FOIA] lawsuit. 
        He had some in his office. . . .
          Q:And what types of documents were they?
          A: The ones that I know about were documents relating to 
        Commerce Department activities that had been subpoenaed.
          Q: And ordered by the Court to be produced?
          A: Yes, sir.(207)

    Depositions taken by Judicial Watch revealed the likely fate of 
these and other likely responsive documents that were never produced to 
Judicial Watch.
    Although Judicial Watch's lawsuit seeking production of documents 
concerning trade missions was pending, and although the Clinton 
Commerce Department was under a Court order to produce all responsive 
documents, several witnesses testified about the wholesale shredding of 
documents in the Office of the Secretary after Brown's death. In a 
sworn affidavit volunteered by Mr. Robert Adkins, a former Commerce 
Department employee who worked with Clinton fundraiser and Commerce 
Department appointee John Huang, Mr. Adkins testified that there was so 
much shredding of Clinton White House and DNC documents at the Clinton 
Commerce Department that the shredder broke. ``Among the documents 
which I personally saw shredded,'' Adkins said, ``were . . . documents 
bearing the logo of the Executive Office of the President as well as 
documents bearing the logo of the Democratic National Committee.'' 
(208)
    Ms. Barbara Schmitz and Ms. Melanie Long, Secretary Brown's 
``Executive Assistant'' and ``Special Assistant,'' respectively, both 
testified at their depositions that documents from Secretary Brown's 
office were shredded after his death.(209) Ms. Dalia 
Traynham, who was in charge of scheduling for Secretary Brown, 
testified at her deposition that she had been assigned the task of 
shredding documents after Secretary Brown's death, even though she 
previously had never been asked to shred documents.(210) In 
fact, during an October 18, 1996 hearing, the Clinton Commerce 
Department was forced to admit that documents from Secretary Brown's 
office were shredded without determining whether any of them were 
responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA request.(211) In light 
of the pendency of Judicial Watch's lawsuit and the existence of a 
Court order requiring production of all responsive documents, this 
massive shredding of documents in Secretary Brown's office after his 
death constitutes clear evidence of obstruction of justice.
    Judicial Watch uncovered further evidence of obstruction of justice 
as well. In the more than thirty-nine (39) plus depositions taken by 
Judicial Watch thus far in this case, curiously few individuals in the 
Clinton Commerce Department admit to having taken any notes concerning 
trade missions and other relevant and important matters. No one admits 
to having seen Secretary Brown ever taking any notes.(212) 
Few notes were ever produced to Judicial Watch in response to its FOIA 
requests. Ms. Melinda Yee, one of the few witnesses who admitted to 
having taken notes(213)--who was, in fact, the designated 
``note-taker'' for the trade missions to China and India--admitted that 
she destroyed her notes from the very important China trade 
mission.(214)
    Yee held several positions in the Clinton Commerce Department, 
including Director of Policy Development Programs at the ITA, and 
Senior Adviser to the Chief of Staff. Yee also has been a very 
important figure in Democratic fundraising activities and was a close 
confidante of John Huang.(215) Yee also once described 
herself as a close friend of the Riady family, which, through the Lippo 
Group, employed Huang before he was appointed to the Clinton Commerce 
Department.(216)
    Yee went on several Clinton Commerce Department trade missions, 
including one to China in 1994 in which key Commerce Department 
officials Ira Sockowitz, Ginger Lew, and Jude Kearney also 
participated.(217) It was on this 1994 trade mission to 
China that the Clinton Commerce Department advocated a joint-venture 
project between Entergy Corporation (a large Clinton donor), the Lippo 
Group (another large Clinton donor), and a Chinese Government-owned 
electric power company.(218) Campaign fundraising scandal 
figures Bernard Schwartz, Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, and Tricia Lum 
also participated in this trade mission.
    Importantly, at her deposition, Yee admitted to having taken notes 
on the China and India trade missions, and other 
matters.(219) It has also been reported in the press that 
Yee served as the designated note-taker on these key trade missions. 
Although Yee appears to be one of the few persons in the Clinton 
Commerce Department who admitted to having kept notes about the trade 
missions, at her deposition she was also forced to admit having 
destroyed these notes, along with other documents.(220)
    Not only were these documents responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA 
requests--which had been pending for a substantial period of time when 
Yee is said to have destroyed them--the federal Court had specifically 
ordered that the documents be produced.(221) Although Yee 
claims that she was never informed of Judicial Watch's FOIA requests or 
the Court's orders (222)--a claim which is not believable 
given the substantial publicity surrounding Judicial Watch's case and 
her constructive notice of Court orders given her positions at 
Commerce--she reportedly contacted one of her lawyers, John Tisdale, 
who is also a law partner of Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey, 
one of the President's closest confidantes, around the same time she 
says she destroyed her notes.(223) Tellingly, she also said 
that she was instructed by her attorney not to answer questions about 
this odd contact with the Lindsey firm at the time of her 
deposition.(224) Given the clear importance of these 
documents to this case, as well as to the campaign finance and 
Chinagate scandal as a whole, their destruction exemplifies clear 
evidence of obstruction of justice.
            C. Concealment of Evidence
    Judicial Watch's depositions yielded further evidence of 
obstruction of justice--in the form of concealment of evidence. The 
existence of key documents--never produced to Judicial Watch and the 
Court--only became known when witnesses testified about them at 
deposition. Other key documents were only produced to Judicial Watch 
when the group learned about them during the discovery process.
    Emblematic of the efforts to ``slow-pedal,'' if not prevent, the 
production of documents to Judicial Watch, was the deposition of Lesia 
Thornton, the FOIA officer assigned to the Office of the Secretary at 
the time of the Judicial Watch FOIA request. At her deposition, Ms. 
Thornton produced detailed, typed notes--some of which contain multiple 
entries per day--that she personally kept concerning her involvement in 
the response to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests.(225) Ms. 
Thornton's notes describe a complete lack of cooperation from Office of 
Business Liaison Director Melissa Moss, the former DNC fundraiser whose 
letters detailing the Clinton Commerce Department's sale of seats on 
taxpayer-financed trade mission were reviewed by Ms. Hill, but never 
produced to Judicial Watch. Ms. Thornton's notes state that Moss, who 
had worked intimately with Secretary Brown on selecting participants 
for the trade missions, ``made it more than obvious that she just 
didn't want to do the [FOIA] request. She said her office has more 
important things to do.''(226) Ms. Thornton was distressed 
and frustrated by this conduct: ``I have made every effort humanly 
possible to obtain these documents, however I still do not have them.'' 
Ms. Thornton also noted: ``When we were leaving Melissa's office she 
made the comment that `we are going to try to get this done since 
[Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch] is threatening to sue'--Judith 
[Clinton Commerce Department Counsel Judith Means] then said, `If he 
sues; he sues.' '' (227)
    Ms. Thornton's personal notes also make reference to John Ost, who 
had worked with Melissa Moss in the Office of Business Liaison. At Mr. 
Ost's deposition, Judicial Watch learned that he received a facsimile 
from the DNC listing companies that the DNC was recommending for 
participation in the trade missions.(228) Mr. Ost testified 
that he turned this document over to his supervisors to be produced to 
Judicial Watch.(229) The document, which would have provided 
further corroboration that trade missions seats were being sold 
illegally, was never produced to Judicial Watch.
    Another key document, the DNC ``Minority Donor's List'' found in 
the files of the Clinton Commerce Department, was produced two years 
late and only after being ``uncovered'' by Judicial Watch during a 
deposition.(230) At his May 27, 1998 deposition, Graham 
Whatley, an assistant to Deputy Assistant Secretary Jude Kearney at the 
Clinton Commerce Department, revealed that Kearny kept a list of 139 
minority donors in his files.(231) Importantly, it was 
Kearney who selected the participants for Secretary Brown's trade 
missions.(232) At least five (5) of these donors 
participated in a trade mission to South Africa with Secretary 
Brown.(233)
    Morever, at her deposition Ms. Traynham also testified that her 
office prepared schedules for Secretary Brown, which included meetings 
held in Washington to prepare for various trade missions. She also 
testified that these schedules listed the meetings' participants, and 
indicated the subjects to be discussed. Traynham further testified that 
back-up copies of these schedules were stored on 
computer.(234) As with other key documents and records, the 
existence of these materials was also concealed from Judicial Watch. 
Prior to Traynham's deposition, Judicial Watch had not received and was 
given no information about records reflecting Secretary Brown's 
schedules. Although these schedules contained information responsive to 
Judicial Watch's FOIA requests, no such schedules were ever produced to 
Judicial Watch.
    Another top official at the Commerce Department, former Deputy 
Undersecretary David Rothkopf, took a large stack of documents with him 
when he left the Department to join Kissinger & Associates. The Court 
remarked on June 27, 1997 that this was a particularly ``unique'' way 
of defeating FOIA regulations.(235)
    In response to a deposition subpoena from Judicial Watch, Rothkopf 
testified that he handed over some documents to the Clinton Justice 
Department without reviewing them.(236) Without knowing what 
documents were allegedly given to the Clinton Justice Department, 
Judicial Watch has been unable to confirm either that the documents 
were returned to the Commerce Department, or that they were produced to 
Judicial Watch pursuant to Court orders.
            D. Perjury
    In addition to the perjury committed by Secretary Brown and others 
in the submission of false declarations to the Court, a host of other 
Clinton Administration witnesses perjured themselves under oath.
    Prominent among these is Melissa Moss, the key Clinton fundraiser 
at the Commerce Department. Moss falsely testified at her October 10, 
1996 deposition that fundraising was not a factor in selecting 
participants for Commerce Department trade missions, and that she did 
not conduct fundraising out of the Commerce Department for the 
DNC.(237) Ms. Hill reviewed Moss's videotaped deposition 
testimony and swore in her affidavit that Moss did not tell ``the truth 
in response [to] a number of questions concerning Commerce Department 
trade missions, as well as other representations she has made under 
oath.''(238) In addition to having seen letters on Commerce 
Department stationary under Moss' signature concerning the sale of 
seats on Commerce Department trade missions,(239) Ms. Hill 
testified:

          Q: Okay. Now, Melissa Moss worked with the White House, based 
        on your discussions with Ron, over the trade missions; correct?
          A: Yes.
          Q: So when she says that trade missions weren't a factor in 
        terms of getting campaign contributions, that's false, isn't 
        it?
          A: Yes.
          Q: When she says that she was not engaging in fundraising, 
        based upon what you know, having seen those documents, that's 
        false isn't it?
          A: Yes, sir.
          Q: And when she says that she didn't know of criteria to 
        choose trade mission participants other than the ones she 
        listed, which she claimed were based on economic 
        considerations, that's false, isn't it?
          A: Yes, sir.(240)

    Further evidence of Moss' illegal fundraising activities on behalf 
of the DNC and the President's re-election campaign (241) 
came from the files of the Clinton Commerce Department. A series of 
letters from prospective and actual trade mission participants, and 
internal memoranda from top Commerce officials show that political 
contributions were indeed a factor.(242) On April 8, 1994, 
businessman Ko Saribekian, a participant in the Clinton Commerce 
Department trade mission to Russia, wrote Secretary Brown to thank him. 
Obviously referring to the expected political contributions, Saribekian 
wrote:

        Again I thank you and your exceptional team for the opportunity 
        to participate and I look forward to repaying the generosity of 
        Department of Commerce in some way in the months ahead. Melissa 
        and I are keeping in touch about the latter.(243)

    It thus seems quite clear that Moss was using the Commerce 
Department trade missions for political fundraising to benefit 
President Clinton. It also seems quite clear that Moss continuously 
lied about this activity and worked to cover it up.
    It is also beyond dispute that John Huang, the DNC fundraiser and 
Commerce official now believed by many to be an intelligence agent for 
the Chinese Government,(244) also perjured himself at his 
October 29, 1996 deposition. Before moving to the DNC, Huang was Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for International Economic Policy at the Clinton 
Commerce Department. At his October 29, 1996 deposition, Huang 
testified that he was, in effect, little more than a ``budget clerk'' 
at the Clinton Commerce Department.(245) Subsequent 
revelations indicate he was much more. In fact, it is now clear that 
Huang participated in the planning of Clinton Commerce Department trade 
missions,(246) and had extensive telephone contacts with 
Asian and American business people, diplomats and lawyers, many of 
whom, such as Webster Hubbell and Joe Giroir, had ties to Huang's 
former employer, the Lippo Group.(247) Huang also 
participated in numerous departmental meetings concerning Asia 
policy,(248) and even received frequent intelligence 
briefings.(249) These revelations indicate Huang was not 
``walled-off'' while at the Clinton Commerce Department, contrary to 
the obviously false, public testimony of former Commerce Official 
Jeffrey Garten before Senator Fred Thompson's Government Affairs 
Committee, which investigated some of the various fundraising issues 
arising from the 1996 federal elections.
    In addition, at his deposition Huang testified that he kept 
virtually no records at the Clinton Commerce 
Department.(250) Although he was under subpoena, Huang 
produced no documents at his deposition.(251) He stated that 
his notes were thrown away, his reports were destroyed, his computer 
files were erased and copies of his correspondence were not 
kept.(252) However, subsequent news reports, including a 
report in the December 30, 1996 edition of The New York Times, portray 
Huang as a ``pack rat'' who left the Clinton Commerce Department with 
and kept ``bulging files.''(253) Moreover, at the March 19, 
1997 deposition of Huang's secretary, Ms. Janice Stewart, she admitted 
that Huang kept detailed desk diaries that documented his activities at 
the Clinton Commerce Department day-by-day and hour-by-
hour.(254) No desk diaries were produced to Judicial Watch 
until Ms. Stewart made them known more than two (2) years after 
Judicial Watch's FOIA requests. When copies of these desk calendars 
were eventually produced to Judicial Watch, they were illegible in many 
places and therefore essentially useless. Indeed, to this day, the 
Public Integrity Section of the Clinton Justice Department, which 
maintains the originals of Huang's diaries, has refused to produce them 
for inspection and copying, despite a Court subpoena requiring their 
production.(255)
            E. Intimidation and Tampering With Witnesses and 
                    Investigators
    As it has done to contain its numerous other scandals, the Clinton 
Administration went to extreme lengths to cover-up the sale of the 
taxpayer-financed trade mission seats for campaign contributions, even 
attempting to intimidate and retaliate against witnesses and Judicial 
Watch itself.
    Foremost among these apparent efforts was the indictment of Ms. 
Hill on fraud and tax evasion charges only a week before she was to 
testify at the March 23, 1998 evidentiary hearing.(256) When 
Judicial Watch uncovered Ms. Hill and obtained an affidavit from her in 
January 1998, the affidavit was presented to the Court. In her 
affidavit, Ms. Hill testified that she feared retaliation from the 
Clinton Administration:

        I would like to come forward and tell this court everything I 
        know about the failure to produce documents to Judicial Watch 
        and this court. I am concerned, however, that if I do so, the 
        Clinton Administration, and more particularly its Justice 
        Department, will try to retaliate against me. As a result, I 
        look to this court for guidance on how I can come forward and 
        tell all I know in the interest of justice.(257)

Consequently, on February 4, 1998, the Court ordered Ms. Hill's 
affidavit be kept under seal, specifically because Ms. Hill was 
concerned about retaliation.(258) Judicial Watch lawyers 
argued as well that the affidavit should not be provided to Main 
Justice by the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of 
Columbia, which was representing the Clinton Commerce Department. On 
February 13, 1998, Ms. Hill agreed to testify at an evidentiary hearing 
before the Court on March 23, 1998.(259) After learning 
about this scheduled hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Hegyi, who 
represented the Clinton Commerce Department in this matter and already 
had been sanctioned for other misconduct apparently provided this 
information and a copy of Ms. Hill's affidavit to ``Main'' Justice, 
despite the fact that the information was under seal. When Judicial 
Watch later raised this issue before the Court, Hegyi did not deny it.
    Between March 10, 1998 and March 13, 1998, Ms. Hill's legal 
counsel, Christopher Todd, who also represents President Clinton's 
private detective Terry Lenzner, and, apparently, Webster Hubbell's 
accountant, was reportedly told by Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder 
and Mary Spearing, Chief of the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division 
of the Clinton Justice Department, or others at ``Main'' Justice, that 
``[Holder] is not pleased by Ms. Hill's involvement with Judicial 
Watch, and her coming forward in this case.''(260) According 
to Todd, Holder also told him that Ms. Hill is ``persona non grata at 
the Justice Department.''(261) On March 14, 1998, Ms. Hill 
was indicted on tax charges,(262) obviously in an attempt to 
retaliate against her and/or short-circuit her testimony at the 
upcoming March 23, 1998 evidentiary hearing by forcing her to invoke 
her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Fortunately, 
however, the Court ordered Ms. Hill to testify in a manner which would 
not implicate her Fifth Amendment rights.
    Tellingly, before her indictment, Ms. Hill had not been formally 
notified that she was under investigation, which is highly unusual 
whenever indictments are issued. Furthermore, at Ms. Hill's 
arraignment, the Clinton Justice Department admitted that they had not 
had time to prepare an inventory of evidence against Ms. Hill, 
indicating that the charges were hurriedly prepared.(263) 
And, after Ms. Hill testified at the March 23, 1998 evidentiary 
hearing, the Clinton Justice Department re-indicted her, purportedly to 
correct typographical errors in the original indictment. Clearly, this 
re-indictment was nothing more than another warning against further 
cooperation with Judicial Watch and the Court.
    Clinton Commerce Department personnel were also subjected to 
intimidation and retaliation. Graham Whatley, the career civil servant 
who revealed the existence of the DNC ``Minority Donors List'' in the 
files of top Commerce official Jude Kearney, was promptly fired by the 
Clinton Administration after his deposition.(264)
    Ms. Christine Sopko served as Kearney's secretary. Ms. Sopko 
testified that she had turned over the DNC ``Minority Donors List'' to 
Clinton Commerce Department and Clinton Justice Department lawyers at 
least three (3) months before Mr. Whatley's deposition. Sopko, a non-
political career employee, broke down in tears as she testified about 
being afraid of losing her job.(265) She also testified that 
she believed Whatley had been fired for revealing the existence of this 
DNC document.(266)
    An attempt was even made to intimidate and coerce Judicial Watch's 
General Counsel, Larry Klayman, into agreeing to a settlement of the 
case, in an obvious attempt to cover-up the scandal. In April 1997, 
Judicial Watch was the first to depose Mr. John Dickerson, the CIA 
officer who regularly briefed John Huang at the Commerce Department. 
Because of the potentially sensitive nature of the deposition, it was 
to take place at the federal courthouse in Washington, DC rather than 
at Judicial Watch's offices. However, the Clinton Administration made 
no efforts to conceal Dickerson from the public. (Indeed, it had 
already lifted his ``cover.'') Dickerson, AUSA Hegyi and other CIA, 
Clinton Justice Department and Clinton Commerce Department personnel 
used public entrances and exits to the Courthouse, and had lunch 
together in the Courthouse's public cafeteria, where members of the 
press frequently congregate. The Clinton Administration later claimed 
that Dickerson was videotaped by a news crew as he left an admittedly 
public exit from the Courthouse later that day.
    Apparently upon returning to his office, AUSA Hegyi and his 
supervisor, Deputy Chief John Oliver Birch, telephoned Mr. Klayman's 
office. In grave, menacing tones, they informed Mr. Klayman about what 
had allegedly transpired, alleging that he had blown the cover of a CIA 
operative, and then placed a call to the Court. After this initial 
conversation with the Court, Mr. Klayman called the Court and offered 
to make himself available for an immediate in camera conference in 
order to support any steps necessary to remedy the alleged videotaping. 
During the ensuing conference on the evening of April 4, 1997, Mr. 
Klayman advised the Court of a routine press inquiry about when and 
where the Dickerson deposition would take place:

        I was asked by the press, in response to their knowledge that I 
        was taking Mr. Dickerson's deposition, whether they could have 
        a copy of the video. And I said no; that its going to be 
        transcribed and that Your Honor would have to have an 
        opportunity to review it, and only then would it be releasable. 
        . . . I did tell them that it was being held in camera at the 
        courtroom. . . .(267)

    Mr. Klayman also stated that it was not his understanding that 
information about the date and place of the deposition had been sealed 
by the Court, and that he would support any effort by the Clinton 
Administration, through the Court, to obtain the alleged videotape of 
Dickerson:

        . . . But technically speaking . . . Your Honor did not seal or 
        order confidential where it was taking place or the date. And I 
        am here to try to facilitate anything that I can do to help in 
        this matter, not here to cover my own rear end, for lack of a 
        better word on the court record, because I feel strongly about 
        this as everybody else.(268)

    In what was clearly a threat of criminal prosecution, Deputy Chief 
Birch responded by invoking the Specter of the ``Pentagon Papers'' 
case, adding pointedly:

        . . . [I]t may be that it would be appropriate for me to relate 
        to the Court the position of the United States Attorney's 
        Office, what we perceive to be our options right now for 
        purposes of both the Court and for purposes of unilaterally, 
        the Government.(269)

(Emphasis added). The Court adjourned the conference without taking any 
further action.(270)
    Immediately upon leaving the conference room, AUSA Hegyi and Deputy 
Chief Birch approached Mr. Klayman and another Judicial Watch attorney 
who had attended both the Dickerson deposition and the April 4, 1997 
hearing. In what can only be viewed as a coercive attempt to force 
settlement, he asked whether Judicial Watch would now agree to submit 
the case to a ``settlement judge'' (i.e., a judge other than Judge 
Lamberth). On April 7, 1997, Judicial Watch filed a pleading with the 
Court to record these same events.(271) This improper 
attempt to coerce a settlement from Judicial Watch constitutes a clear 
violation of Rule 8.4(g) of the District of Columbia Rules of 
Professional Conduct, which prevents the threat of criminal charges to 
gain an advantage in civil litigation.(272) In addition, it 
also constitutes a clear abuse of power by the Clinton Administration. 
Later, the Clinton Administration filed pleadings to have Mr. Klayman 
held in criminal contempt, and then criminally prosecuted. The Court 
summarily denied the request.(273)
    Even Secretary Ron Brown was fearful of crossing the Clinton White 
House. Ms. Hill testified that one of the reasons Secretary Brown did 
not want to turn over incriminating documents to Judicial Watch was 
because he needed the support of the Clinton White House as he faced 
his own Independent Counsel investigation:

          A: [Secretary Brown] was concerned about the independent 
        counsel investigation that he was under, and the potential for 
        how he was going to--not the potential, but the catch 22, 
        because he didn't want to be put in the position that he was 
        in, of appearing to be non-responsive, while at the same time 
        he felt the support of the White House during the pendency of 
        the independent counsel investigation.
          Q: So he was concerned that he needed the support on the 
        independent counsel side, and the White House needed his 
        support with regard to the sale of trade missions and exposing 
        that; correct?
          A: (No response.)
          Q: In other words, he was between a rock and a hard place. He 
        didn't want to have to turn the White House in for selling 
        trade missions?
          A: He didn't want to do anything that would rock the boat.
          Q: So the answer is yes?
          A: I think the answer is what I said. He didn't want to do 
        anything that would rock the boat--
          Q: With the White House?
          A:--with the White House.
          Q: With the White House?
          A: Yes.(274)

Indeed, it was about his own independent counsel investigation, and the 
``catch-22'' he was in over the illegal sale of seats on Commerce 
Department trade missions and cover-up, that he went to see President 
Clinton shortly before he was killed.(275)
            F. Misconduct BY Clinton Commerce Department Counsel
    In addition to false declarations, destruction of evidence, 
concealment of evidence, perjury and attempted intimidation of and 
retaliation against key witnesses, and even Judicial Watch itself, the 
Clinton Administration has misused government lawyers to cover-up its 
unlawful conduct. It is very important to understand the obstructionist 
role lawyers in the Clinton Commerce Department's Office of General 
Counsel (``OGC'') played in impeding the flow of Judicial Watch's 
investigation, and in thwarting the Court's orders--conduct which is 
contrary to their obligations as public servants, and contrary to their 
obligations as officers of the Court and members of the bar.
    Several key lawyers for the Clinton Commerce Department admitted to 
playing significant roles in ``responding'' to Judicial Watch's FOIA 
requests. These lawyers include: Barbara Fredericks, Judith Means and 
Elise Packard. All were deposed by Judicial Watch in early 1997. The 
depositions of these OGC lawyers demonstrate that they: (1) gave advice 
on responding to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests; (2) examined 
documents; (3) prepared the Clinton Commerce Department's Vaughn 
indexes, which contained numerous, spurious claims of exemption and 
attorney-client privilege; (4) prepared sworn declarations submitted to 
the Court; (5) prepared witnesses for deposition; and (6) attended 
depositions In this case, often disrupting the process.(276)
    Importantly, in her January 18, 1998 affidavit and at the March 23, 
1998 evidentiary hearing, Ms. Hill testified that Barbara Fredericks 
helped to draft the false and misleading declaration of Secretary 
Brown.(277) The declaration Fredericks helped to draft was 
carefully worded to avoid Secretary Brown having to acknowledge any 
involvement in the search for documents responsive to Judicial Watch's 
FOIA requests.(278) It also falsely asserted that Secretary 
Brown did not ``maintain documents responsive to the FOIA requests made 
the basis of [Judicial Watch's] suit, nor at the time of the FOIA 
requests did [Secretary Brown] maintain any such 
documents.''(279) In fact, Ms. Hill testified that not only 
did Secretary Brown maintain documents responsive to Judicial Watch's 
FOIA requests in his office, he had even showed her responsive 
documents on Commerce Department letterhead and under Melissa Moss' 
signature that he kept in an ostrich skin portfolio.(280)
    The evidence also reveals that Judith Means was intimately involved 
in providing the Clinton Commerce Department's response to Judicial 
Watch's FOIA requests.(281) Means testified that she met 
with John Ost and his supervisor to answer questions about withholding 
documents responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests under claim of 
exemption.(282) Ost would later testify that he provided his 
supervisor with a facsimile from the DNC to the Commerce Department 
listing companies that the DNC was recommending for participation in 
trade missions.(283) In addition, Means also testified that 
she met with Melissa Moss, who had signed the letters Secretary Brown 
showed to Ms. Hill concerning the sale of seats on trade 
missions.(284) However, at her deposition, Means failed to 
produce her notes of these meetings.(285) Neither the 
facsimile from the DNC Ost provided to his supervisor nor the Moss' 
letters have ever been provided to Judicial Watch.(286) 
Obviously, Means' notes of her meetings with Ost, Ost's supervisor and 
Moss might shed light on the disappearance of these crucial pieces of 
evidence.
    The testimony in Judicial Watch's case also shows that OGC lawyers 
knew about the DNC ``Minority Donors List'' long before its existence 
was revealed by Graham Whatley.(287) Indeed, Christine Sopko 
testified that she turned over this list of 139 contributors to the DNC 
to her superiors months earlier.(288) A number of donors on 
the list, which included bankers, union officials, and corporate 
executives, attended a trade mission to South Africa with Secretary 
Brown in November 1993. The list thus constitutes further primo facie 
evidence that the Clinton Commerce Department was doing political 
fundraising by selling seats on the taxpayer-financed trade missions. 
OGC lawyers also reviewed the now-missing documents previously 
maintained in Secretary Brown's office.(289)
    When confronted with evidence of obstruction and unlawful conduct 
by Commerce Department officials--such as the shredding of documents in 
Secretary Brown's office,(290) the destruction of documents 
by Melinda Yee,(291) and the removal of classified, national 
security documents by Ira Sockowitz (292)-Clinton Commerce 
Department lawyers testified that, in effect, they did nothing.
    The issue of the adequacy of the Clinton Commerce Department's 
search for computer files has also assumed a central role in this case. 
Court orders dated December 6, 1996 and February 13, 1997 charged the 
Clinton Commerce Department's OGC with the specific responsibility of 
searching for and producing computer files responsive to Judicial 
Watch's FOIA requests. Yet, OGC not only failed in its responsibilities 
to supervise the search for responsive computer files throughout the 
agency,(293) it also failed to search even its own 
computers, even though the existence and location of these records was 
well known.(294)
    As General Counsel to the Clinton Commerce Department, Ginger Lew 
was the ultimate supervisor of all the attorneys who participated in 
the Department's response to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests. She was 
also a confidante of John Huang and very active in Asian-American 
politics. Lew later left the Clinton Commerce Department to become 
Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') 
under Erskine Bowles, who is now White House Chief of Staff. Lew was 
instrumental in having her special assistant at OGC, Ira Sockowitz, 
join her at the SBA.(295)
    Like John Huang before her, Lew went to great lengths to avoid 
being deposed, and to avoid producing subpoenaed documents. She and her 
counsel initially sought to avoid service of a subpoena, then attempted 
to ``voluntarily'' appear for the deposition at Judicial Watch's 
offices so as to avoid having to produce documents. The gamesmanship 
then escalated.
    When Judicial Watch was forced to postpone Lew's deposition because 
of the evasive tactics it had encountered in attempting to serve its 
deposition subpoena, Lew's counsel and counsel for the Clinton Justice 
Department then conducted an unauthorized and essentially unlawful 
deposition of Lew and a court reporter to elicit false and misleading 
testimony. The Court would later rebuke counsel for Lew and the Clinton 
Justice Department saying, ``[W]hat you're just giving him and waiving 
around today is a purported transcript of a deposition that is totally 
unauthorized.'' (296) The Court also rebuked Ms. Lew for 
refusing to accept Judicial Watch's subpoena:

        Why would a person like Ms. Lew, who is a lawyer, not just say 
        to her lawyer, ``Accept the subpoena. Don't go play all these 
        games and have people chasing all over town looking for me to 
        serve me?'' Why would a lawyer do that? I don't understand 
        that.(297)

    Ultimately, Judicial Watch was able to at least begin its 
deposition of Lew on March 12, 1997. This deposition demonstrates that 
Lew is an astute political operative.(298) It is also clear 
from her demeanor during the deposition that Lew was not being candid. 
She has still failed to produce the requested documents, and, in the 
middle of the deposition, she, the Clinton Justice Department counsel, 
and Lew's counsel all arbitrarily walked out of the court proceeding, 
without authorization from the Court. The obstruction Lew committed and 
condoned further substantiates and corroborates the other evidence and 
testimony that there was a desperate effort on the part of Secretary 
Brown, under orders and pressure from the President's top political 
aides, to cover-up the fact that taxpayer-financed trade missions were 
being used as a fundraising tool for President Clinton's re-election, 
and other political needs. It is important to remember that Lew was the 
Clinton Administration's lead lawyer at Commerce.
    The testimony of these lawyers also shows that they directly 
obstructed the public's right to know about the operations of its 
government pursuant to FOIA. Incredibly, OGC lawyers directly 
obstructed court processes by participating in the drafting of false 
declarations, the misapplication--with an error rate found by the Court 
of least fifty percent (50%)--of exemptions from disclosure under 
FOIA,(299) the invocation of spurious claims of attorney-
client privilege, and the failure to disclose documents in their 
custody or control (e.g., the ``Minority Donors List''). None of them 
felt a duty to investigate acts of wrongdoing by others in the Clinton 
Commerce Department, such as the destruction by Melinda Yee of her 
notes and other documents, the removal of classified documents by Ira 
Sockowitz, and the disappearance of documents from Secretary Brown's 
office. In fact, according to them, they did not even have an 
obligation to report this evidence of obstruction of justice to the 
Clinton Commerce Department's Inspector General, the Department of 
Justice, or the Court.
    In light of the role of attorneys to uphold the law, the conduct of 
OGC lawyers has been most troubling. While one OGC attorney, Gordon 
Fields, acknowledged that government lawyers have an obligation to the 
American people and not just the Administration or department which 
they serve,(300) the conduct of the OGC lawyers in this 
matter demonstrates anything but such an obligation. In fact, the 
conduct of the OGC lawyers in this matter, obviously under orders from 
supervisors acting on behalf of the Clinton Administration, amount to 
obstruction of justice.
            G. Clinton Justice Department Complicity
        This is the Justice Department. And so I cannot imagine a more 
        seriously jeopardizing situation for Ms. Hill to be in at this 
        point in time.
          Stephen Charles, Ms. Hill's lawyer, just prior to her court 
        testimony on March 23, 1998.(301)

    Throughout this case, it has not only been the Clinton Commerce 
Department and its lawyers that have attempted to thwart Judicial 
Watch's efforts to obtain documents responsive to its FOIA requests. 
The Clinton Commerce Department has enjoyed the apparent approval and 
complicity of the Clinton Justice Department as well.
    For example, in a February 24, 1997 article asking ``How Honest Is 
Justice's Probe?'' Investor's Business Daily noted that the Clinton 
Justice Department is defending some of the very same Clinton Commerce 
Department officials it is supposedly investigating for illegal 
fundraising.(302) Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, who 
admittedly owed his former position as U.S. Attorney for the District 
of Columbia in part to Secretary Brown, who admittedly recommended 
him,(303) and who obviously owes his current position to 
President Clinton,(304) publicly announced on NBC's Meet the 
Press that he was ``intimately involved'' in the Chinagate 
probe.(305) In early 1997, however, Holder tried to shut 
down Judicial Watch's lawsuit. ``[This lawsuit] is not about whether in 
fact Secretary Brown `sold seats on trade missions to big contributors 
to the Democratic Party' . . .,'' Holder wrote in filing a motion with 
the Court.(306) Holder's inherent conflict-of-interest only 
adds to the already substantial conflict-of-interest of the Clinton 
Justice Department.
    The end result has been the lack of any serious investigation by 
the Clinton Justice Department.(307) While Attorney General 
Janet Reno claims to be conducting an investigation of the campaign 
finance scandal that will leave ``no stone . . . unturned,'' 
(308) depositions taken in this case demonstrate the 
contrary. About a year after the scandal exploded, in the summer of 
1997, discovery confirmed that neither the Clinton Justice Department 
nor the FBI had called one Clinton Commerce Department official before 
the grand jury. Not even Huang's secretary, Janice Stewart, had been 
interviewed by the Clinton Justice Department or the 
FBI.(309) Likewise, Ginger Lew, the supervisor of Ira 
Sockowitz at both the Clinton Commerce Department and the SBA, had not 
been interviewed either.(310) Nor have many 
others.(311)
    In addition to the telling lack of any meaningful investigation by 
the obviously conflicted Clinton Justice Department, the conduct of 
Clinton Justice Department lawyers in Judicial Watch's case has been 
marked by a pattern of litigation misconduct and abuse, including 
outright suppression of evidence. For example, Clinton Justice 
Department counsel unilaterally terminated the depositions of Anthony 
Das and Ginger Lew. With regard to the Das deposition, the Court had 
granted Judicial Watch the right to subpoena documents from Das prior 
to his being deposed.(312) Yet, when Das appeared for his 
deposition, he produced no documents. Bruce Hegyi, the Clinton Justice 
Department lawyer defending the deposition, unilaterally declared that 
Das had no obligation to produce the subpoenaed documents, then Das, 
Hegyi and the OGC lawyers attending the deposition walked 
out!(313) The Court ultimately issued sanctions for this 
outrageous misconduct.(314) Similarly, after engaging in 
substantial ``gamesmanship'' prior to her actual deposition, Lew also 
failed to produce subpoenaed documents when she was finally deposed. 
Then, in the middle of the deposition, she, Hegyi, OGC counsel and 
Lew's counsel all arbitrarily walked out again, without any 
authorization from the Court. Motions are pending before the Court to 
sanction this additional misconduct at Lew's 
deposition.(315)
    In addition, the Court has repeatedly criticized Clinton Justice 
Department counsel for improper use of ``speaking objections'' during 
depositions, which have had the obviously intended effect of tipping-
off witnesses about how to respond to Judicial Watch's questioning. 
This grossly improper misconduct has been repeated in deposition after 
deposition.(316) During a June 27, 1997 hearing, the Court, 
responding to the Clinton Justice Department's rationalizations for its 
improper conduct, went to the heart of the matter:

        [T]he one thing that just leaps out at me is that in a case in 
        which the government is being accused of [a] cover-up, and, in 
        which I have suggested that government counsel should take 
        certain actions not to suggest answers to witnesses, I don't 
        understand this whole approach that you continue to take in 
        your brief about, ``Well, we can always try to clarify 
        ambiguous questions, and, therefore . . .'' I mean, you're 
        going to be constantly accused of tipping off witnesses and 
        suggesting answers to witnesses by putting your head in the 
        sand with that kind of approach. That's why I said to the 
        government that you need to reexamine your approach. I just 
        don't understand it.''(317)

Clinton Justice Department counsel was admonished again for using these 
blatantly obstructionist tactics during a number of 
depositions.(318)
    The Clinton Justice Department also has made repeated, material 
misrepresentations of fact. To cite just a few of the more significant 
examples, when Judicial Watch took the deposition of John Dickerson, 
who briefed John Huang on intelligence matters, the Clinton Justice 
Department represented that Huang had received 37 intelligence 
briefings. However, it was later reported in the press that Huang 
actually had received as many as 109 briefings.(319)
    Likewise, the Clinton Justice Department represented that the 
office of Melinda Yee--the official note-taker on Commerce Department 
trade missions who later admitted to having destroyed all of her notes 
despite the fact that the Court had ordered them to be produced to 
Judicial Watch--was searched by Dawn Evans Cromer, Carola McGiffert and 
Beth Bergere.(320) When Judicial Watch deposed these 
individuals, however, it became clear that they had never been assigned 
to conduct any such search, had not conducted any such search, and did 
not even know that their names had been given to the Court as the 
individuals who conducted a search of Ms. Yee's office.(321)
    Moreover, the Clinton Commerce and Justice Departments also were 
involved in suppressing the crucial DNC ``Minority Donors List'' for 
months before Judicial Watch learned of its existence at the May 28, 
1997 deposition of Graham Whatley. Clinton Justice Department counsel 
made repeated false representations that they were ``surprised'' by 
this revelation.(322)
    The lies by Clinton Administration officials continued. During his 
June 13, 1997 Senate confirmation hearing for the post of Deputy 
Attorney General, U.S. Attorney Eric Holder testified that he had no 
involvement in this case and had not signed any pleadings or 
memoranda.(323) While a cursory review of the court file 
shows the contrary, taken at face value, Holder's testimony likely 
means that this case--which has paramount political and national 
security ramifications--is being run by ``Main'' Justice--and out of 
the Attorney General's office.
    This is a massive conflict-of-interest. According to a memorandum 
recently produced in another Judicial Watch anti-corruption case, the 
DNC requested Attorney General Reno's assistance in raising $40 million 
for the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.(324) Thus, 
it appears Attorney General Reno herself is most likely involved in the 
Clinton campaign fundraising scandal.
    In light of this memorandum, and Attorney General Reno's refusal to 
appoint an Independent Counsel despite overwhelming evidence of 
criminal misconduct on the part of Clinton Administration officials, 
and her Department's obvious conflict of interest, it would certainly 
appear that the litigation misconduct in this case is attributable to 
partisan political loyalties to the Clinton Administration.
IV. Clinton's Fundraising Push Likely Resulted in Breaches of National 
        Security
    As Judicial Watch uncovered evidence that seats on Clinton Commerce 
Department trade missions were being sold in exchange for campaign 
contributions, it also uncovered alarming evidence about likely 
breaches of national security. In the four (4) years that Judicial 
Watch has investigated this unlawful sale of taxpayer-financed, 
government services, it also discovered John Huang, the removal by Ira 
Sockowitz, a confidante of both Huang and Ginger Lew, of classified, 
national security documents from a Commerce Department safe, the 
removal of national security information by Secretary Brown's Chief of 
Staff, William Ginsburg, curious links between former Clinton Commerce 
appointees and Iridium World Communications, Ltd., and more. Although 
Judicial Watch is only at an interim stage in its investigation of 
these sensitive issues, the potential national security breaches 
already discovered raise ominous questions about further unlawful 
conduct by the President and his Administration.
            A. John Huang, Accused Spy, Had A Role in Commerce Trade 
                    Missions and Other Clinton Fundraising Schemes
    While investigating the sale of taxpayer-financed trade mission 
seats by the Clinton Commerce Department, Judicial Watch uncovered John 
Huang, the Clinton fundraiser/Commerce operative believed by many to be 
an agent for the Chinese Government.(325) To date, only 
Judicial Watch has deposed Huang under oath.(326) This 
deposition uncovered Huang's lies and sparked the Clinton controversy 
called ``Chinagate.'' Not surprisingly, the Clinton Administration and 
its allies at the DNC did their best to prevent Huang from testifying 
under oath, and Huang himself went into hiding from federal agents 
trying to serve him with a deposition subpoena.(327) In 
attempting to learn of Huang's whereabouts, DNC officials later lied to 
the Court.(328)
    Indeed, Judicial Watch has learned that, not only was Secretary 
Brown ordered by the White House to sell seats on (Commerce Department 
trade missions, but he was also forced to hire Huang. Ms. Hill 
testified that Mrs. Clinton was involved in Huang's placement at the 
Clinton Commerce Department:

          Q: And he told you, Secretary Brown, did he not, that John 
        Huang was forced into the Commerce Department by the Hillary 
        Rodham Clinton Arkansas group at the White House? He told you 
        that, didn't he?
          A: Yes, sir.(329)

    Indeed, as we now know, Huang was the ``top priority for 
placement'' in the new Clinton Administration by the Lippo Group, the 
Jakarta-based business conglomerate that has substantial dealings and 
joint operations with the Chinese Government, and is headed by the 
Riady family.(330) James and Mochtar Riady have been 
longtime friends and strong financial supporters of the Clintons dating 
back to when President Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas. Mochtar 
and James Riady are believed by U.S. authorities to ``have had a long-
term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency.'' 
(331) Before being placed at Commerce, Huang was the top 
U.S. executive for Lippo, and ``the political power that advise[d] the 
Riady family on issues and where to make contributions.'' 
(332)
    In fact, it is now clear that Huang participated in the planning of 
Clinton Commerce Department trade missions,(333) and had 
extensive telephone contacts with Asian and American business people, 
diplomats, lawyers, and fundraisers, many of whom, such as Webster 
Hubbell and Joe Giroir, had ties to Huang's former employer, the Lippo 
Group.(334) In February 1997, The Washington Times reported 
that ``[t]elephone records show that while at Commerce, he made and 
received dozens of calls from Lippo lobbyists and executives while he 
worked on sensitive trade missions.'' (335)
Huang also participated in departmental meetings on Asia 
policy(336) and, astonishingly, received more than a hundred 
CIA intelligence briefings, many on matters related to areas that his 
old employers at the Lippo Group would have an 
interest.(337) While working for the Clinton Commerce 
Department Huang made ``more than 400 telephone calls . . . to Lippo 
and some of its business representatives. . . .'' (338) 
Huang also made a number of visits, while supposedly working for the 
Clinton Commerce Department, to the offices of Stephens, Inc., a firm 
that had close ties to the Lippo Group. Paula V. Greene, a former 
secretary for Stephens Inc., testified before Senator Fred Thompson's 
fundraising investigation that:

          Huang had unrestricted use of the telephone, copier and fax 
        machine in the spare office when he stopped by ``sometimes two, 
        three times a week, perhaps not every week,'' she said. But Ms. 
        Greene said she did not know whom he called or whether Huang 
        transmitted any faxes.(339)

    The Clinton Administration gave Huang access to top-secret 
information apparently without even conducting an overseas background 
check on him.(340) Moreover, press reports indicate that 
Huang ``held top-secret clearances for three years, although he worked 
at Commerce for only 18 months,'' and ``initially was issued a top-
secret clearance in January 1994, five months before he resigned as a 
top executive at the . . . Lippo Group.'' (341) Electronic 
intercepts have also apparently confirmed that, at a minimum, he 
committed economic espionage by passing government secrets to the Lippo 
Group.(342) Indeed, some believe he may have endangered the 
lives of U.S. intelligence agents.(343) The Washington 
Post's Bob Woodward reported on November 14, 1997, that the FBI had 
uncovered ``reports considered reliable but unconfirmed that Huang, 
while serving as a senior Commerce Department official in the Clinton 
administration, passed a classified document to the Chinese 
government.'' (344)
    Coupled with the risk of this Clinton-appointee's activities to 
national security, was his illegal fundraising at the Clinton Commerce 
Department. Huang testified at his deposition that he had little 
contact with the DNC and the Clinton White House while at the Clinton 
Commerce Department.(345) In fact, he was in regular contact 
with top Democratic fundraisers, and often supplied them with names of 
prospective donors in the Asian-American community, and was the ``king-
maker'' for Asian-American political appointments in the Clinton 
Administration.(346) The DNC even credited him for raising 
money while working at the Clinton Commerce Department.(347)
    Also, contrary to his Judicial Watch testimony, Huang was a 
frequent White House visitor and often talked with key White House 
officials, including President Clinton. According to logs kept by the 
Secret Service, Huang made at least 78 visits to the White House 
beginning July 1, 1995, at least a dozen of which were while he was 
working at the Commerce Department.(348) He was also in 
regular contact with top Democratic fundraisers, and often supplied 
them with names of prospective donors in the Asian-American 
community.(349) Indeed, President Clinton personally lobbied 
on Huang's behalf to ensure that he would be placed in a high-level DNC 
fundraising post after leaving Commerce.(350)
    Despite Huang's false and misleading testimony in the Judicial 
Watch lawsuit, and his unlawful fundraising activities,(351) 
the Clinton Justice Department has yet to prosecute, much less 
interview him. In fact, Judicial Watch has seen first-hand the Justice 
Department's complicity in covering-up these offenses. Just one among 
many examples--the Clinton Justice Department's Criminal Division Chief 
until recently was John Keeney. Keeney's son is one of Huang's personal 
lawyers, and represented Huang during his Judicial Watch 
deposition.(352) Huang only surfaced because of the 
relentless due diligence of Judicial Watch--and only after a nationwide 
manhunt in which he temporarily evaded service of a court subpoena with 
the cooperation of the White House and the DNC.(353)
    A final, important note. By testifying nearly two years ago in 
Judicial Watch's lawsuit against the Clinton Commerce Department, Huang 
waived any Fifth Amendment rights he may have been able to assert. 
Thus, Huang cannot now ``take the Fifth.'' Judicial Watch has moved the 
Court to continue Huang's deposition.
            B. Ira Sockowitz, Special Assistant at Commerce, 
                    Misappropriated Government Secrets on Encryption 
                    and Satellite Technology and Likely Harmed National 
                    Security
    In addition to the sale of seats on trade missions and the 
mysterious operations of John Huang at the Commerce Department, in 1996 
the Clinton Administration abruptly gave Commerce the power to control 
exports of sensitive technology to China. This came as a shock to many 
experts because it is generally believed that, unlike the State 
Department, which served as the technology gatekeeper in the past, the 
Commerce Department is not equipped to properly guard against national 
security breaches. In fact, according to a top defense expert in the 
Bush Administration, ``[i]t was tantamount to a complete overthrow of 
the old export-control regime.'' (354)
    Even more shocking was that such a transfer of power would be 
authorized by President Clinton when the Commerce Department could not 
even control breaches of security within its own building. Thanks to an 
anonymous tip in October 1996, shortly after authority for export 
controls on technology was shifted to the Commerce Department, Judicial 
Watch discovered that Ira Sockowitz, a former Special Assistant in the 
Commerce Department's Office of General Counsel, removed 136 files 
containing classified satellite encryption data from a safe in his 
former office after he had had left OGC to work at the Small Business 
Administration.(355) Sockowitz had worked at OGC under 
Ginger Lew, a confidante of John Huang, then joined Lew at the SBA 
after she left OGC for that agency. Sockowitz' replacement at OGC, 
Jeffrey May, allowed Sockowitz unsupervised access to the safe in his 
former office, apparently allowing Sockowitz to remove the classified 
satellite encryption data.(356)
    The sensitivity of this information is immeasurable--encryption 
data are used by U.S. intelligence to keep instructions sent to 
communication satellites, including instructions for nuclear missiles, 
secret.(357) Undoubtedly, the documents Sockowitz took with 
him contained information extremely vital to U.S. national security--
and likewise invaluable to rival nations. Despite this alarming 
security breach, the Clinton Justice Department decided in a matter of 
only weeks without any real investigation, that there was no case 
against Sockowitz. It came to this astonishing conclusion without even 
questioning Lew or his replacement at OGC, Jeffrey May.(358) 
In pursuing its own case against the Clinton Commerce Department, 
Judicial Watch may have uncovered how these secret files were used. 
Both Sockowitz and Lew were involved in the process of selecting 
participants for trade missions.(359) In fact, Sockowitz was 
put in charge of screening companies seeking to participate in trade 
missions. One such mission was the now-controversial 1994 trade mission 
to China during which Loral's Bernard Schwartz began a business 
relationship with a Chinese government official that would ultimately 
lead to U.S. satellites being launched on Chinese rockets and the 
possibly unlawful transfer of missile technology to the Chinese.
    At his deposition in Judicial Watch's lawsuit, Sockowitz admitted 
that he kept classified materials, as well as documents concerning 
trade missions, in the safe in his Commerce Department office at 
OGC.(360) Sockowitz also admitted that he took some of these 
documents from the Clinton Commerce Department--including documents 
that were responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests--and stored them 
in another safe at the SBA.(361) Lew, Sockowitz's boss, 
testified that she knew of no reason why Sockowitz would have taken 
these documents with him, because they would be of no value to anyone 
at the SBA.(362)
    On November 5, 1996, the Court ordered that Sockowitz's safe at 
SBA, which already had been taken into custody by special agents from 
the SBA's Office of Inspector General (``IG''),(363) was to 
be inventoried by Commerce Department officials no later than November 
13, 1996. The Court also ordered that Sockowitz's safe and computer at 
the Commerce Department remain in the custody of the Commerce 
Department IG, pending further order from the Court. The resulting 
inventory of Sockowitz's safe at SBA revealed that not only did it 
contain documents responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests, but 
also highly sensitive, classified national security intelligence data 
on China, Russia and India, as well as the highly sensitive satellite 
encryption and telecommunications data previously 
mentioned.(364) Some of these materials were ultimately 
turned over to the Central Intelligence Agency. When another 
organization sought access to some of these same documents through 
FOIA, both the Commerce Department and the National Security Agency 
stated, in sworn affidavits, that the release of these documents 
``could harm national security.''(365)
    According to Nolanda Hill, Secretary Brown was also worried about 
Sockowitz' activities at the Commerce Department:

          Q: And I believe you told me that Ira [Sockowitz] funneled 
        information to others, that Ron was aware of that?
          A: I don't believe I used those words.
          Q: What words did you use?
          A: He--Ron--Secretary Brown was concerned that that might be 
        happening.(366)

    Additional questioning of Hill, and the later deposition of Lauri 
Fitz-Pegado, another close confidante of Secretary Brown who traveled 
with him on nearly every trade mission, and the Commerce Department's 
Director of the Foreign Commercial Service, revealed what may have 
happened with the highly sensitive satellite encryption and 
telecommunications data misappropriated by Sockowitz. Ms. Hill 
testified:

          Q: You knew that Ira Sockowitz had been close to (top 
        Commerce official) Laurie Fitz-Pegado at the Commerce 
        Department from your discussions with Ron?
          A: Not close. I mean--
          Q: Or had worked with her in some way?
          A: I knew that he--she had worked--that he had worked with 
        her, yes.(367)
    At the July 18, 1997 and August 1, 1997 deposition of Fitz-Pegado, 
Judicial Watch discovered that she and at least three (3) other former 
Clinton Commerce Department employees, who also had access to top-
secret classified information, left Commerce and went to work for 
Iridium World Communications, Ltd.(368) Iridium is a multi-
billion dollar company that is building a global wireless communication 
network that will enable subscribers to communicate using handheld 
telephones and pagers virtually anywhere in the world.(369) 
Iridium's global network operates through combining a series of low-
orbit satellites with land-based wireless systems. The sixty-six (66) 
low-earth-orbit satellites communicate with each other through 
encrypted messages. Iridium is owned, in part, by state-controlled 
entities in China, Russia and India.(370) These are the same 
three (3) countries that were the subject of classified intelligence 
data secretly removed by Sockowitz from the Clinton Commerce Department 
and stored in his safe at the SBA.(371)
    Obviously, Iridium stood to benefit enormously from the sensitive 
satellite encryption and telecommunications data that Sockowitz 
apparently removed from his safe at the Clinton Commerce Department and 
later kept in his safe at the SBA. Also, Fitz-Pegado seemingly had few 
qualifications for either her Clinton Commerce Department position, or 
her Iridium position, and ostensibly was hired because she was a close 
confidante of Secretary Brown and had accompanied him on trade 
missions.(372) It is more likely that Fitz-Pegado and her 
staff were extremely attractive to Iridium and its foreign joint-
venture partners because they had access to top-secret, classified 
national security information while at the Clinton Commerce Department.
    The Clinton Administration's transfer to the Commerce Department of 
the power to control exports of highly sensitive technology, without 
even minimally adequate measures to properly protect that information, 
raises serious national security questions. Moreover, the revolving 
door uncovered by Judicial Watch raises the additional concern that 
highly sensitive information may have already been compromised. Were 
the individuals at the Clinton Commerce Department approving technology 
transfers to China on behalf of, or to aid companies they planned to 
work for after leaving the government?
            C. The Infamous 1994 Trade Mission Trip to China
    Press reports indicate that the Clinton White House expended 
substantial effort on the 1994 trade mission to China.(373) 
The most likely reason for this substantial effort is because during 
the trip, the Lippo Group, John Huang's former employer, the Chinese 
Government, and Entergy Corporation, a company with offices in 
Arkansas, successfully concluded negotiations for the building of a 
power plant in China.(374) According to Ms. Hill, Secretary 
Brown was ordered by Clinton to further the negotiations on behalf of 
Huang's Lippo Group. In attendance on the China trip were Melinda Yee, 
the mission's official note-taker who later testified at her Judicial 
Watch deposition that she destroyed all of her notes, Ira Sockowitz, 
who would later remove classified satellite encryption data and 
classified national security intelligence on China, Russia and India 
from his office at OGC, and Bernard Schwartz, Chief Executive Officer 
of Loral.(375)
    Sockowitz reportedly claimed that he did not recall seeing Huang or 
Yee on the trip, but did recall sitting next to Bernard Schwartz at a 
dinner in Beijing with Chinese officials.(376) Huang 
reportedly pushed for Schwartz to be on the China trip, and Secretary 
Brown reportedly arranged a meeting between Schwartz and a top official 
of China's Ministry of Post and Telecommunications.(377) 
Schwartz later recalled that the meeting ``helped open doors that were 
not open before.'' (378) Soon after the trip, Schwartz won 
the satellite transmission rights for a multi-billion dollar mobile 
telephone network in China.(379) Schwartz also reportedly 
lobbied hard to get satellite export control authority moved from the 
State Department to Commerce, and contributed heavily to the Democratic 
Party in the process. Indeed, he has provided some $1.9 million to 
Democrats since 1992, and was the party's largest, single donor in 
1997.
    In the months before Loral received the Clinton Administration's 
permission to launch a satellite from China, Schwartz reportedly 
attended three events inside the White House with President 
Clinton.(380) He was also under scrutiny at the time for 
earlier assistance to China that U.S. officials feared improperly aided 
the communist country's missile program. Some believe Loral may well 
have passed sensitive satellite launch data to China Aerospace, an 
entity that is controlled by the People's Liberation Army, which, 
perhaps not coincidentally, is also an owner of Iridium. In fact, the 
Pentagon recently reported that Loral's data disclosure ``harmed'' 
national security.
            D. Commerce Official's Diaries Detail Information of 
                    ``State Secrets''
    In addition to the top secret documents taken by Ira Sockowitz from 
the Clinton Commerce Department,(381) Judicial Watch also 
uncovered that Secretary Brown's Chief of Staff, William Ginsburg, 
recorded classified information in ``personal'' diaries he kept in his 
office. The Clinton Administration itself admits that Ginsberg's 
allegedly ``personal'' diaries detailed ``state secrets,'' including 
information on satellite surveillance, intelligence personnel and 
capabilities, and notes of a meeting of the National Security Council 
on an unnamed foreign country, among other ``national security'' 
information.(382) The similarities between the contents of 
the diaries and the materials taken by Sockowitz, notably the secret 
satellite information, are striking.
    Ginsburg's 12-volume diaries, consisting of 3,600 pages, could 
prove to be the ``Rosetta stone'' of how the Clinton Commerce 
Department operated under Secretary Brown. The diaries detail John 
Huang's attempts to maintain a security clearance after leaving the 
Clinton Commerce Department,(383) and concerns about Clinton 
donor/China trade mission participant Bernard Schwartz of Loral. The 
Associated Press recently reported a key detail in the Ginsburg diaries 
concerning Schwartz's connection to the Clinton Commerce Department:

        Sometimes the relationship was a little too close for comfort.

        When Loral was in the process of buying Unisys Corp.'s defense 
        division in 1995, the Commerce Department's chief of staff 
        [William Ginsberg] wrote in his diary of concerns that a big 
        donor like Schwarz might be seeking an audience with top 
        department officials at a time when he needed to resolve a 
        federal contract dispute involving Unisys during the deal.

        ``Key: not to talk to Loral (Bernard Schwartz) re this,'' then-
        Commerce chief of staff William Ginsberg wrote.(384)

    The Ginsberg diaries are currently in limbo, as the Clinton 
Commerce Department and Ginsberg ``fight'' over whether the diaries 
belong to the government or to Ginsberg personally.(385) In 
the meantime, it is ``beyond dispute that a top Clinton Commerce 
Department official was recording top secret information into what he 
considered at the time to be his personal diaries, which he later 
removed without authorization from the Department. And as with the 
secreting of top secret data by Ginsberg's colleague Ira Sockowitz, 
this potentially serious breach of national security was uncovered only 
through Judicial Watch's refusal to be thwarted by the Clinton 
Administration's obstruction of justice in this case. It was not 
discovered by Janet Reno and her Justice Department.
            E. More Chinese Ties_Johnny Chung.
    Another Clinton donor tied to the Chinese Government is Johnny 
Chung. Chung recently admitted that he funneled at least $100,000 of 
the $300,000 he received from Chinese military intelligence to Democrat 
causes in the summer of 1996. The conduit for the money was Liu Chao-
ying, whose father was the head of China's military at the time the 
donations were made to the DNC.(386)
    Chung likely achieved his China connections through the Clinton 
Commerce Department. According to The Washington Post, investigators 
have searched through ``fragments of data gathered from U.S. 
intelligence surveillance intercepts and business records'' to trace 
the relationship between Chung and his Chinese military patrons:

        The documents also trace the history of their partnership, 
        showing how Chung's political donations--which ultimately 
        totaled $366,000 and were all eventually returned by the 
        Democratic National Committee--led directly to meetings with 
        Commerce Department officials. They suggested he attend a U.S. 
        trade mission in Beijing, where Chung was introduced to senior 
        Clinton administration officials, as well as the network of 
        Chinese executives that would eventually include Liu.
          * * * * *
        The same month as his donation to the party, Democratic 
        operatives introduced Chung to then-Deputy Assistant Commerce 
        Secretary Jude Kearney, who in turn suggested that Chung join a 
        Commerce Department trade mission to China, according to 
        Chung's proposed testimony--or proffer--to the Senate 
        investigators. (Kearney said through an attorney that he did 
        not recall making that suggestion, but did not dispute Chung's 
        account.)

        The trip was Chung's first visit to China. Indirectly, it led 
        to Chung's meeting with Liuand, in a previously unreported 
        twist on the campaign finance scandal, to his hooking up with 
        another Democratic fund-raiser, Yah Lin ``Charlie'' Trie, who 
        was indicted earlier this year on charges that he illegally 
        funneled foreign money to the Democrats.

        Chung made the trip at his own expense and was not listed as a 
        member of the official U.S. delegation, but Kearney met him at 
        the Beijing airport and escorted him to a restaurant where they 
        met Trie's wife, Chung's proffer said. Kearney then took Chung 
        to a hotel where they met then-Commerce policy official Melinda 
        Yee, the proffer said. Chung later attended functions where he 
        met with government officials and executives from the United 
        States and China, and had his picture taken with Commerce 
        Secretary Ronald H. Brown.(387)

    Clearly, the Clinton Commerce Department trade mission to China in 
1994 was a confluence of illegal fundraising and illicit deal-making--
which lead eventually to likely breaches of national security including 
a massive attempt by a foreign power to subvert the electoral process 
in the United States. At best, this is serious malfeasance by the 
Clinton Administration. At worst, and more likely, the Clinton 
Administration's disinterest in breaches of national security was 
purposeful--so as to allow the campaign fundraising operation run out 
of the Clinton White House and Commerce Department to proceed 
unchecked. It is thus clear that the campaign fundraising abuses at the 
Clinton Commerce Department, ordained and then covered-up by the 
Clinton White House, gave rise to likely breaches of national security.
            F. More Chinese Ties_Charlie Trie
    Yet another Clinton donor with links to the Clinton Commerce 
Department is Charlie ``Yah Lin'' Trie, who is under investigation for 
funneling illegal foreign donations to the DNC.(388) Trie 
also helped the Chinese communist arms dealer Wang Jun to gain access 
to a fundraising coffee with President Clinton.(389)
    Documents uncovered by congressional investigators demonstrate the 
nexus of money, access and China at the Clinton Commerce Department:

        A key ally [of Trie's], according to the documents, was Jude 
        Kearney, a deputy assistant secretary in the Commerce 
        Department's International Trade Administration.

        In October 1993, Trie helped shepherd Kearney, a fellow 
        Arkansan, around China.

        ``It was very helpful to have someone around who knew the 
        ropes,'' Kearney wrote Trie after the trip.

        In June 1994, Kearney joined Trie's business associates and 
        guests at a table at a Democratic National Committee fund-
        raising dinner while Trie sat at Clinton's table. That fall, 
        according to the documents, Kearney supported a request by Trie 
        to host a party for the participants on a U.S. trade mission to 
        China. Kearney said last year he couldn't recall whether Trie 
        actually ever hosted the party. In February 1995, Trie sat at 
        first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's table at another Democratic 
        fund-raiser.

        The documents show that in September 1995, Kearney asked the 
        U.S. Embassy in Beijing to invite Trie to events with Mrs. 
        Clinton during her trip to China. Upon Trie's return to the 
        United States, he attended a White House dinner with other 
        large Democratic givers, including postal union leader Moe 
        Biller, Miramax Films co-chairman Harvey Weinstein and oil 
        executive Roger Tamraz, who was raising money for Democrats 
        while being wanted in Lebanon on bank fraud charges.

        Later Trie joined a Commerce Department discussion of Asian 
        issues with the chief executive officers of Boeing, Lockheed 
        Martin and other companies and such federal policymakers, 
        including Deputy Commerce Secretary David Barram and Small 
        Business Administrator Philip Lader. And in January 1996, 
        Kearney and Trie both attended a meeting of the Chinese 
        Association for Science and Technology.(390)

    Judicial Watch uncovered that Trie had regular access to Deputy 
Assistant Secretary Kearney, meeting with him several 
times.(391) Kearney's secretary, Christine Sopko, testified 
that the schedule and agenda for the 1994 trade mission to China was 
faxed to Trie from Kearney's office and that Trie, who had no security 
clearance, may have had access to classified documents in Kearny's 
office.(392) Even more worrisome is that Kearney's office in 
the Clinton Commerce Department had a back door through which 
individuals could come and go unseen by the staff 
outside.(393)
    Trie is now under indictment for ``purchas[ing] access to high-
level government officials in the United States by contribution and 
soliciting contributions to the DNC.'' (394) The Clinton 
Justice Department, which issued the indictment, has yet to charge any 
of the officials who accepted or benefitted from Trie's bribes.
V. Conclusion
    Judicial Watch will continue to pursue its investigation, but 
Congress must, nonetheless, act. The Clinton Commerce Department has 
essentially pled nolo contendre to Judicial Watch concerns about the 
shredding of documents, perjury, and the outright refusal to produce 
documents in response to court orders. In an extraordinarily desperate 
legal move, the Clinton Justice Department, speaking for the Clinton 
Commerce Department, asked the Court to close the Judicial Watch case 
by entering a judgement against itself. The Clinton Commerce Department 
has offered to do a ``second search'' for trade mission documents and 
pay Judicial Watch, using taxpayer money, at least $2 million dollars 
in attorneys' fees and costs. Judicial Watch will not be bribed, 
especially with taxpayer funds, and has opposed this Clinton 
Administration ploy to make the investigation into the illegal sale of 
trade mission seats go away.
    Instead, Judicial Watch has asked the Court to begin immediate 
criminal contempt proceedings against those who have obstructed justice 
in this case--namely, Clinton agents Leon Panetta, John Podesta, 
Melissa Moss, Jude Kearney and others.
    In the meantime, more documents corroborating that illegal 
fundraising occurred at the Clinton Commerce Department emerged just 
recently. The documents, memos from Clinton Commerce official Sally 
Painter (Melissa Moss's deputy in Commerce's Office of Business 
Liaison), are more ``smoking guns.'' One memo, dated January 24, 1994, 
indicates that Painter ``will be meeting with Eric Silden of the DNC on 
1/24 to discuss key business types that we want for the database and 
other interactions that should take place.'' (395) Another 
document by Silden also confirms the DNC provided donor names to the 
Commerce Department.(396) The Associated Press reported:

        But in a Jan. 13, 1994, electronic-mail memo to his colleagues 
        at the DNC, staff member Eric Silden reported that Commerce 
        official Sally Painter had called ``to ask for a list of 
        candidates for a trade mission to Russia.''

        Silden's e-mail suggested that DNC staffers use a list of 
        suggested participants for a trade mission to Belgium as a 
        starting point for coming up with a list for the Russia 
        trip.(397)

    Based in part on these new documents, the Court authorized a 
subpoena for more Commerce records and computers, and authorized the 
depositions of key Clinton fundraisers Terry McAuliffe and Marvin 
Rosen, among other DNC officials.(398) McAuliffe and Rosen 
were two of the Clinton fundraisers implicated in wrong-doing by 
Nolanda Hill in her court testimony on the trade mission 
sales.(399) The DNC will now have to turn over more 
documents that could further expose the DNC-Commerce-White House 
illegal fundraising apparatus.
    A separate Judicial Watch case, against the Clinton-appointee-
dominated Federal Election Commission (``FEC''), could also further 
expose the scheme to sell trade mission seats for political 
contributions to the light of day. Having already uncovered the sale of 
seats on Clinton Commerce Department trade missions, Judicial Watch 
filed a complaint with the FEC on August 26, 1996, to investigate and 
take appropriate action to redress this illegal activity. Without 
taking any action for a year and a half, the FEC casually dismissed 
Judicial Watch's complaint on December 15, 1997. As a result, Judicial 
Watch filed suit.
    Ironically, while commencing controversial investigations into 
GOPAC and other alleged illegal Republican campaign finance abuses, the 
General Counsel of the FEC, Lawrence Noble--a partisan Democrat--moved 
to have Judicial Watch's complaint dismissed, claiming, with great 
bombast, that it was frivolous and, in echoes of prior acts of 
intimidation by the Clinton Administration, that Judicial Watch's 
Chairman, Larry Klayman, should be sanctioned.(400)
    The Court strenuously disagreed and found that the FEC's inaction, 
in the face of serious allegations of bribery, were ``inexplicable.'' 
The Court, in denying Mr. Noble's motion to dismiss and motion for 
sanctions, took the added step of entering judgment itself (i.e., sua 
sponte) against the FEC. In so doing, the Court gave the FEC 120 days, 
or until early November 1998, to decide how it would handle Judicial 
Watch's allegations. The Court also noted that, ``[f]or some reason 
[perhaps because its enforcement arm is run by a Democrat, General 
Counsel Lawrence Noble], the FEC is attempting to thwart a review of 
[Judicial Watch's] charges. . . .'' (401)
    Senator John McCain, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation (which has oversight 
responsibility for the Clinton Commerce Department), has also recently 
expressed concern about the evidence of the sale of the Clinton 
Commerce Department seats and its link to national security:

        When the decision makers are cloaked in the shadows of 
        impropriety, we lose confidence. When I see memos such as this 
        one (MEMO RE WHITE HOUSE ACTIVITIES), advertising how favors 
        such as inclusion in Department of Commerce trade missions can 
        be bought for a campaign contribution, I can't help but wonder 
        whether the same agency can be trusted to make responsible 
        decisions regarding national security.(402)

    A reasonable analysis of the documentary and testimonial evidence 
unearthed by Judicial Watch would indicate that President Clinton and 
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton were heavily involved in the theft of 
government resources to sell for contributions for President Clinton's 
re-election bid. This fundraising push, to the degree it involved 
individuals such as Clinton-hire John Huang and policies such Clinton-
approved hi-tech transfers to China through Commerce, compromised our 
nation's security. The President's two White House deputies, then-Chief 
of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta, ordered 
the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to cover-up these crimes. 
Clinton's agents at Commerce and the Department of Justice did their 
level best to accomplish this.
    If it were not for Judicial Watch's exposure of John Huang; if it 
were not for Judicial Watch's refusal to walk away with $2 million in 
taxpayer dollars offered by Clinton's agents; if it were not for 
Judicial Watch's investigations that have uncovered key documents and 
witnesses such as Nolanda Hill, and if it were not for a diligent and 
alert Court, then the President, his appointees, and agents might have 
gotten away with this criminal enterprise.
    The overwhelming evidence of President Clinton's illegal activities 
related to the Commerce trade mission sales are now before this 
Congress. We respectfully request, in the context of expected 
impeachment proceedings on other serious issues, that Congress consider 
whether the actions of this President and his appointees in this matter 
also warrant his impeachment and removal from office.(403)
                                part iv
            TRUST-GATE
 Crimes and Other Offenses Relating to The Presidential Legal Expense 
  Trust that Warrant Impeachment and Removal from Office of President 
                              Bill Clinton
    The Presidential Legal Expense Trust (the ``Trust'') was 
established by private trustees on behalf of Bill and Hillary Clinton 
in June 1994.(404) It was allegedly established to pay the 
President's legal fees incurred in defending against the numerous 
scandals of his Administration, as well as the private litigation 
brought against him, i.e., the Paula Jones lawsuit. In fact, the Trust 
was an illegal scheme, unlawfully soliciting and/or receiving something 
of value for the President, which violated the anti-bribery laws of the 
United States. Indeed, members of Congress have recognized the ``grave 
legal and ethical questions'' raised by the President's 
Trust.(405) In so doing, they pointed to the sweeping 
prohibition in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353(a), which states that:

        [N]o Member of Congress or officer or employee of the 
        executive, legislative, or judicial branch shall solicit or 
        accept anything of value. . . .(406)

    They also noted that the implementing regulations carrying this 
prohibition into effect make the point even clearer.(407) 
Those regulations address the standards of ethical conduct for 
employees of the Executive Branch, and state that ``an employee shall 
not, directly or indirectly, solicit or accept a gift.'' 
(408) According to Congressman Cox and Congresswoman Pryce, 
``[i]t would be difficult to draft a clearer prohibition.'' 
(409)
    It was also quite clear to most commentators at the time, including 
Paul Gigot, that influence peddlers would use the opportunity to 
effectively bribe the President and Mrs. Clinton:

        Now that President and Mrs. Clinton have established their 
        Legal Expense Trust, I'm thinking about writing a check for 
        $500. Since Mr. Clinton we will be informed of my gift, maybe 
        I'll get that interview he's somehow always resisted. Come to 
        think of it, if I doubled by gift to $1,000, maybe I'll get 
        Hillary too.
          * * * * *
        Indeed, that's why Congress passed a law (5 U.S. Code 7363) 
        that says executive branch officials can't ``solicit or 
        accept'' gifts from people whose interests they might affect. 
        In view of this ban, I asked a senior White House official for 
        the defense fund's legal rationale.
          * * * * *
        All of this goes beyond law to the power and conduct of the 
        presidency. By so blithely ignoring the law, the Clinton White 
        House has again shown how easily it will cut ethical corners. 
        And by begging for money, it undermines the president's 
        credibility and demeans his office. Which is why someone else 
        should try to restore presidential dignity. First someone could 
        sue to test the legality of the defense fund.(410)

    On August 4, 1994, Judicial Watch brought suit challenging the 
Trust, creatively alleging that the actions of the trustees, in 
providing advice to the President and Mrs. Clinton on the workings of 
the Trust, were tantamount to a federal advisory committee, and thus 
either needed to be completely open to public scrutiny, or shut 
down.(411)
    Because the trustees chose not to make the Trust's operations 
public, Judicial Watch pressed its case to a conclusion. While finding 
that the Trust was not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(412) because it was a private, not governmental, activity, 
the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia ruled that it nevertheless raised ``major public 
policy, legal and ethical questions,'' which he could not reach under 
his jurisdiction.(413)
    Ironically, by finding the Trust to be a private activity, the 
Court effectively ``indicted'' it, as his ruling thrust it into the 
realm of criminal activity. Consequently, Judicial Watch requested that 
Attorney General Reno investigate the matter and appoint an independent 
counsel. She refused to do so.(414)
    It was later discovered, as predicted, that the Trust was indeed a 
convenient conduit for attempted bribery. It eventually became known to 
the public that hundreds of thousands of dollars were being laundered 
into its accounts by Charlie Trie, money which came from foreign, 
possibly Communist Chinese sources.(415) As a result, the 
Trust was closed as of January 1, 1998.(416)
    However, a few weeks later on February 17, 1998, a new Trust was 
established, which is even more illegal than the first.(417) 
The Office of Government Ethics (an office that serves at the pleasure 
of the White House) found that the first Trust could receive but not 
solicit; the second Trust now solicits as well.(418) Indeed, 
a number of fat-cat donors, including Hollywood moguls such as Steven 
Spielberg and Barbara Streisand, have pumped huge amounts of cash into 
the operation.(419) It is undoubtedly only a matter of time 
until it is again revealed that influence peddlers, such as Charlie 
Trie and his Chinese benefactors, have found a new way to infiltrate 
the second Trust. Indeed, at the time that Charlie Trie was laundering 
Chinese money into the first Trust, he was also seeking and obtaining 
confidential communications from the President, undoubtedly for his 
Chinese benefactors, about American intentions over the then-brewing 
international crisis in the Straits of Taiwan.(420)
    That these defense funds were simply an illegal means to raise 
money through influence peddlers, and not a genuine attempt to pay the 
President's legal bills, was even conceded by presidential adviser Dick 
Morris, who correctly questioned why Bill and Hillary Clinton could not 
simply take out bank loans at market rates, and pay the loans back 
after they left office. Then, they will obviously benefit from 
multimillion dollar book deals, speaking engagements, and others 
sources of income, which will make them wealthy beyond expectations.
    Last Sunday, The Washington Post reported Clinton's chief 
fundraiser, Terrence McAuliffe (who also participated, according to 
Nolanda Hill, in the illegal sale of seats on Commerce Department trade 
missions) has been enlisted to raise more illegal funds to pay a 
possible settlement in the Paula Jones lawsuit.(421) The 
President's ``chutzpah'' and penchant for being bought by illegal 
influence peddlers apparently knows no limits.
    The legal defense funds of the Clintons are tantamount to a 
violation of the bribery provision of Section 4, Article 2 of the U.S. 
Constitution, which states:
            Section 4_All civil offices forfeited for certain crimes
        The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the 
        United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, 
        and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and 
        Misdemeanors.

    ``Bribery'' is:

        The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any thing of 
        value to influence action as official or in discharge of legal 
        or public duty.

    Black's Law Dictionary 239 (rev. 4th ed. 1968). The President has 
unlawfully solicited and received enormous sums of money and other 
things of value from persons who obviously want something in return. 
This is simply illegal.
CONCLUSION
    In the last four years, Judicial Watch has uncovered substantial 
and credible evidence that warrants an impeachment inquiry concerning 
the activities of President Clinton and his agents. The serious 
violations of personal privacy rights, witness intimidation, national 
security breaches, and bribery, graft and obstruction of justice 
perpetrated by this Administration against the American people cannot 
be addressed and rectified through censure, or even impeachment, 
however. To prevent this from ever happening again, Congress should not 
only vote articles of impeachment, and convict the President, it must 
require that criminal prosecutions follow any such removal from office.
    While Judicial Watch's cases and investigations are continuing, so 
too must the inquiries undertaken by, and in progress before, the U. S. 
Congress. Now is the time for all concerned Senators and 
Representatives to put partisan politics aside, and move aggressively 
and seriously to clean up the rampant corruption which is destroying 
the very fabric of our democratic government.

            Respectfully submitted,
                                   Larry Klayman,
                                           Chairman & General Counsel.

                                   Thomas J. Fitton,
                                           President.

                                   Allan J. Favish,
                                           Senior Attorney.
                                               Judicial Watch, Inc.
                                endnotes
    \1\ Language borrowed from Articles of Impeachment Adopted by the 
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, Summer 
1974.
    \2\ Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, public interest law firm that 
uses the courts to fight corruption in the government and legal 
profession. See Summary of Judicial Watch Cases and Lists of Judicial 
Watch Depositions, attached collectively as Appendix Exhibit 1.
    \3\ Amended Complaint, Dolly Kyle Browning, et al. v. William 
Jefferson et al., No. 98-1991 (D.D.C. filed September 14, 1998), 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 187.
    \4\ Complaint, Alexander, et al. v. Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, et al., Nos. 96-2123/97-1288 (D.D.C. filed September 12, 
1996/June 9, 1997) (``Alexander v. FBT''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 
2.
    \5\ Jonathan Broder & Harry Jaffe, ``Clinton's Sexual Scorched-
Earth Plan,'' Salon Magazine, August 5, 1998 (emphasis omitted), 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 3.
    \6\ Id. 
    \7\ Id. 
    \8\ Id. 
    \9\ Jamie Dettmer, ``A National Lampoon,'' Insight Magazine, 
September 21, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 4.
    \10\ Id. 
    \11\ Edward Walsh, ``Burton Fathered Child In Extramarital 
Affair,'' The Washington Post, September 5, 1998, at A1, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 5.
    \12\ Stephen Talbot, ``Newt's Glass House,'' Salon Magazine, August 
28, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 6.
    \13\ David Talbot, ``This Hypocrite Broke Up My Family,'' Salon 
Magazine, September 16, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 7.
    \14\ A record maintained in violation of this prohibition need not 
even be kept in a ``system of records.'' Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 
709 F.2d 684, 687 (11th Cir. 1983); Clarkson v. IRS, 678 F.2d 1368, 
1373-77 (11th Cir. 1982); Albright v. United States (I), 631 F.2d 915, 
918-20 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
    \15\ Memorandum Opinion at 3-7, Alexander v. FBI, June 12, 1997, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 8.
    \16\ Clarkson v. IRS, 678 F.2d 1368, 1372 (11th Cir. 1982); Murphy 
v. NSA, 2 Gov't Disclosure Serv. (P-H) para. 81,389, at 82,036-37 
(D.D.C. September 29, 1981); see also OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. 
56,741, 56,742 (1975).
    \17\ Secret Service WAVES Logs, attached as Appendix Exhibit 9.
    \18\ House Comm. On Gov't Reform and Oversight, Investigation into 
the White House and Dept. of Justice on Security of FBI Background 
Files, H.R. Doc. No. 862, 104th Cong., 2nd Sess. 62-65 (1996) (``House 
Report''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 10.
    \19\ House Report at 55, 59, attached as Appendix Exhibit 10.
    \20\ Defendant's Response to Request #3, Alexander v. FBI, (showing 
requests by White House personnel for access to FBI background 
investigation files or summary reports on former Reagan and Bush 
Administration appointees and employees, the dates requested and the 
dates returned), attached as Appendix Exhibit 11.
    \21\ George Lardner, Jr., ``White House Contradicted on FBI 
Files,'' The Washington Post, George Lardner, Jr., October 5, 1996, at 
A1, attached as Appendix Exhibit 12.
    \22\ Deposition of Marl Anderson at 354-360, May 7, 1998 
(``Anderson Depo.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 13.
    \23\ Id.  at 287-89.
    \24\ Office of Personnel Security Logs, attached as Exhibit 13 to 
Anderson Depo., attached as Appendix Exhibit 14.
    \25\ Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp's literary agent, confirmed 
this in part to CBS News on July 6, 1998. See CBS News Transcript, 
Monday, July 6, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 15. Ms. Goldberg 
also has routinely discussed Ms. Tripp's knowledge of ``Filegate'' on 
Fox News Channel.
    \26\ Brian Blomquist, ``Tripp: Telling the Truth's Very Easy,'' New 
York Post, July 1, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 16.
    \27\ Tony Snow, ``Tripp: `Fear is a magnificent motivator,' '' The 
Detroit News, Monday, August 3, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 17 .
    \28\ Don Van Natta, Jr. & Francis X. Clines, ``Starr Finally 
Confronts His Target,'' The New York Times, August 17, 1998, attached 
as Appendix Exhibit 18.
    \29\ Williams & Connolly Press Release, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 19.
    \30\ Deposition of Terry Lenzner at 90-91, March 13, 1998 
(``Lenzner Depo.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 20.
    \31\ Id.  at 85-90.
    \32\ Timothy J. Burger, ``Freeh to FBI: Beware of Active Alumni,'' 
Legal Times, attached as Appendix Exhibit 21.
    \33\ Lenzner Depo. at 70-78, 284-85, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
20. Among members of the judiciary Lenzner has apparently investigated 
are Justice Clarence Thomas, Judge Robert Bork and other judges who 
work in the District of Columbia. Id.  at 284-86.
    \34\ Id.  at 67-85, 231-244.
    \35\ Id.  at 362; see also id. at 364 (Lenzner admitting, however 
disingenuously, that he had not been retained to investigate Judicial 
Watch, but refusing to answer whether he had been retained to 
investigate Landmark Legal Foundation).
    \36\ Matt Beer, ``As GOP Calls for Probes, Hyde Scoop Source 
Exposed,'' San Francisco Examiner, September 18, 1998, at A6, attached 
as Appendix Exhibit 22.
    \37\ Motion of President Clinton to Intervene, Alexander v. FBI, 
August 31, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 23.
    \38\ Transcript of Weekly Roundtable at 2-3, February 8, 1998, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 24.
    \39\ See excerpt from Seymour M. Hersch, The Dark Side of Camelot, 
at 387-411, attached as Appendix Exhibit 25.
    \40\ The Court sharply rebuked Stephanopoulos after he obviously 
failed to search for documents responsive to the subpoena duces tecum 
Judicial Watch served on him, but falsely testified at deposition that 
he had. ``This leads the court to conclude that Stephanopoulos failed 
to conduct any search for responsive documents and did so without 
explanation, and that some of his deposition testimony on this point is 
not truthful.'' Order at 25 n.4, Alexander v. FBI, May 28, 1998, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 26. In addition to having been found to 
have lied to the Court, Stephanopoulos was also ordered to be 
redeposed, and to pay Judicial Watch's attorneys' fees and costs. Id.  
at 26.
    \41\ Stephanopoulos still maintains close contact with officials of 
the White House and allies such as James Carville, with whom he speaks 
at least several times a day. Deposition of George Stephanopoulos at 
43-44, March 9, 1998 (``Steph. Depo.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 
27. He appears to be a conduit of information from the White House to 
the public, using his mantle at ABC and Newsweek in part to broadcast 
White House threats.
    \42\ Jane Mayer, ``Portrait of a Whistleblower,'' The New Yorker, 
at 34, March 23, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 28.
    \43\ Dick Morris, ``Bill's Secret Police Strike Again,'' New York 
Post, March 17, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 29.
    \44\ Deposition of Clifford Bernath at 270:9-10, 319:19-320:16, 
April 30, 1998 (``Bernath Depo.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 30.
    \45\ Id.  at 319:19-320:16.
    \46\ Id.  at 321:2-7.
    \47\ Transcript of Motions Hearing at 43-45, Alexander v. FBI, 
April 30, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 31.
    \48\ Deposition of Kenneth Bacon at 195:4-196:12, May 15, 1998 
(``Bacon Depo.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 32.
    \49\ Id. at 211:4-22.
    \50\ Id.  at 236:6-8.
    \51\ See transcript of Fox News Sunday at 9, April 26, 1998, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 33.
    \52\ Id. 
    \53\ Id. 
    \54\ Id. 
    \55\ Bacon Depo. at 354:14-20.
    \56\ Id.  at 362:20-363:15.
    \57\ Id.  at 364:02-367:09.
    \58\ Id. at 301:1-20.
    \59\ Id.  at 296:20-298:7.
    \60\ Deborah Orin & Brian Blomquist, ``Pentagon Admits Leaking 
Tripp's Personnel Files,'' New York Post, March 18, 1998, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 34.
    \61\ Memorandum Opinion at 38, Alexander v. FBI, July 10, 1998, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 35.
    \62\ Id. 
    \63\ Bacon Depo. at 388:2-3, attached as Appendix Exhibit 32.
    \64\ Id.  at 385:6-388:3.
    \65\ Bill Sammon, ``Tripp Leak Violated Policy at Pentagon,'' The 
Washington Times, June 8, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 36.
    \66\ Bacon Depo. at 387:7-9, attached as Appendix Exhibit 32.
    \67\ Defendant's Response to Request #3, Alexander v. FBI (showing 
requests by White House personnel for access to FBI background 
investigation files or summary reports on former Reagan and Bush 
Administration appointees and employees, the dates requested and the 
dates returned), attached as Appendix Exhibit 11.
    \68\ ``Text of Linda Tripp's Remarks,'' The Washington Post, July 
29, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 37.
    \69\ Deposition of Terry Good at 226-27, 257, 273-74, 277, 279, 
282-85, June 30, 1998 (``Good Depo.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 
38.
    \70\ Id.  at 273:22-274:13.
    \71\ Bill Sammon, ``White House Combed Tripp File as Scandal was 
Breaking,'' The Washington Times, July 17, 1998, at A10, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 39.
    \72\ Id. 
    \73\ Good Depo. at 189, 226-27, 257, 265-66, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 38.
    \74\ Id.  at 257, 273-74, 277-81, 284-85.
    \75\ Peter Baker, ``Clinton Told Jones Team He Had No Willey 
Notes,'' The Washington Post, March 29, 1998, at A1, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 40.
    \76\ Press Briefing of Mike McCurry at 6, March 17, 1998, attached 
as Appendix Exhibit 41.
    \77\ Deposition of James Carville at 239:10-240: 17, March 16, 1998 
(``Carville Depo.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 42.
    \78\ Deposition of Thomas F. McLarty, III at 261:6-262: 17, August 
5, 1998 (``McLarty Depo.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 43.
    \79\ Excerpt from President Clinton's Grand Jury Testimony at 8, 
August 17, 1998, as published by The Washington Post, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 44.
    \80\ Id. at 9 (``But, now when `60 Minutes' came with the story and 
everybody blew it up, I thought we would release it.'').
    \81\ Id. at 8.
    \82\ In January, 1998, Carville publicly ``declared war``on 
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. See Transcript of Meet the Press at 
16, January 25, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 45.
    \83\ The Court strongly rebuked Carville and his counsel for their 
efforts to delay Carville's deposition, finding that they had tried to 
mislead the Court: ``In light of the entire panoply of facts currently 
before the court, the only logical conclusion this court can reach is 
that [Carville's counsel] and Carville sought to mislead this court 
from the outset and to delay this deposition. There is simply no other 
explanation as to why Marsh [of the law firm of McDaniel and Marsh] and 
Carville have not been completely forthcoming with the court from the 
outset of this unnecessary travail.'' Memorandum and Order at 12-13, 
Alexander v. FBI, March 13, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 46.
    \84\ Documents from the files of Carville's EIP on Starr, Aldrich, 
Scaife and Sipple, attached collectively as Appendix Exhibit 47.
    \85\ Id. 
    \86\ Proposal Outline and EIP's Next Target: Dan Burton, EIP Memos 
to Carville, attached as Appendix Exhibit 47.
    \87\ Carville Depo. at 194:20-195:14, 256:5-15, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 42.
    \88\ Deposition of Thomas P. Janenda at 9:10-10:14, 19:14-20:1, 
55:21-57:15, 147:6-148:17, 261:16-262:2, April 16, 1998 (``Janenda 
Depo.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 48.
    \89\ Deposition of Lanny Davis at 28:20-78:8, July 30, 1998 
(``Davis Depo.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 49. Contrary to 
impressions he provides on television, Mr. Davis remains a close 
Clinton adviser to this day. Robert G. Kaiser & John F. Harris, ``White 
House Gets Outsiders' Advice,'' The Washington Post, September 26, 
1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 50.
    \90\ Id. at 195:6-197-15.
    \91\ Id. at 197:16-200:2.
    \92\ Id. at 200:5-7.
    \93\ Id. at 216:16-217:8.
    \94\ Id. at 221:14-16.
    \95\ Id. at 224:17-225:1.
    \96\ Id. at 233:19-234:3. Davis later acquired the help of interns 
to help maintain these files, which were kept in a file drawer and in a 
gray filing cabinet in his office. Id. at 201:22-202:21, 207:19.
    \97\ Id. at 219:13-221:8-13, 236:2-12, 239:5-11.
    \98\ Id. at 195:14-16, 221:18-21, 224:20-225:1, 236:5-6.
    \99\ Id. at 196:7-197:15.
    \100\ Id. at 196:14-19.
    \101\ Id. at 256:14-20.
    \102\ Id. at 204:17-206:1, 237:10-238:22. Davis also admitted to 
disclosing information from Starr's file to persons inside the Clinton 
White House. Id. at 207:1-9.
    \103\ Id. at 241:15-242:3.
    \104\ Robert G. Kaiser & John F. Harris, ``White House Gets 
Outsiders' Advice,'' The Washington Post, September 26, 1998, attached 
as Appendix Exhibit 50.
    \105\ Deposition of Harold Ickes at 386-436, May 21, 1998 (``Ickes 
Depo.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 51; Id. at Exhibit 11.
    \106\ William Safire, ``Unclosed Filegate, On a Burner Too Far 
Back,'' The New York Times, July 23, 1998 (``Starr has never come to 
closure. Years passed. . . . Fortunately for the public interest in 
privacy, an organization called Judicial Watch launched a class-action 
suit in behalf of people whose files had been unlawfully examined.''), 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 52.
    \107\ McLarty Depo. at 47:15-19, attached as Appendix Exhibit 43.
    \108\ Good Depo. at 296-301, 344, attached as Appendix Exhibit 38.
    \109\ Deposition of Mandy Grunwald at 138, April 23, 1998 
(``Grunwald Depo.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 53.
    \110\ Geraldo Rivera routinely boasts about his ``Presidential 
sources.''
    \111\ The above substantial and credible evidence shows the likely 
violation of the following federal laws: 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a (the 
Privacy Act), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1503 (obstruction of justice), 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1505 (obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and 
committees), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1510 (obstruction of criminal 
investigation), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512 (tampering with a witness, victim, 
or an informant), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513 (retaliating against a witness, 
victim, or an informant), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621 (perjury), 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1622 (subornation of perjury), and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2071(b) 
(concealment, removal, or mutilation of public records).
    \112\ WJC publishes news at its sophisticated Internet site (http:/
/www.WorldNetDaily.com).
    \113\ ``Scandals: Misusing the IRS . . .,'' New York Post, February 
2, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 54.
    \114\ ``IRS Clears WJC in `Political' Audit,'' WorldNetDaily.com, 
June 16, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 55.
    \115\ Western Center for Journalism, d.b.a. Western Journalism 
Center v. Thomas Cederquist, et al., No. S-98-0872 (E.D. Cal. filed May 
13, 1998), attached as Appendix Exhibit 56. The lawsuit is before the 
United States District Court in Sacramento, California, near WJC's 
headquarters in Fair Oaks, California.
    \116\ Joseph Farah and Sarah Foster, ``Just How Political Has IRS 
Become? At Least 20 Groups Critical of Clinton Targeted,'' 
WorldNetDaily.com, June 24, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 57.
    \117\ ``Organizations Targeted by IRS,'' WorldNetDaily.com, June 
24, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 58.
    \118\ Rowan Scarborough, ``PBS Story on IRS Audits Joins Media 
Called Not `Credible,' '' The Washington Times, January 25, 1997, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 59.
    \119\ Investigation of the White House Travel Office firings and 
Related Matters, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, H.R. 
Rep. No. 104-849, 104th Cong., 2d. Sess. 102-108 (1996) (``H.R. Travel 
Office Report''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 60.
    \120\ Id. at 28-29, 102-108, attached as Appendix Exhibit 61.
    \121\ Id. 
    \122\ Id.
    \123\ Information Document Request, U.S. Department of the 
Treasury--IRS, August 16, 1996, attached as Appendix Exhibit 62.
    \124\ Joseph Farah, ``The White House Plays Politics With the 
IRS,'' The Wall Street Journal, October 22, 1996, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 63.
    \125\ Jane Sherburne, ``Task List,'' December 13, 1994, republished 
in H.R. Travel Office Report at 759-71, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
64.
    \126\ Id. at 765.
    \127\ John F. Harris & Peter Baker, ``White House Memo Asserts a 
Scandal Theory,'' The Washington Post, January 10, 1997, at A1, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 65.
    \128\ Overview, attached as Appendix Exhibit 66.
    \129\ Sarah Foster, ``IRS `Political' Audit Kills Journal,'' 
WorldNetDaily.com, July 21, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 67.
    \130\ The above substantial and credible evidence shows the likely 
violation of the following federal laws: 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7212 (attempts 
to interfere with administration of internal revenue laws), 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1512 (tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), and 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 1513 (retaliating against a witness, victim, or an 
informant).
    \131\ Affidavit of Nolanda Butler Hill (``Hill Affidavit'') at 
para. 7, January 17, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 68.
    \132\ Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing at 66-67, 76, Judicial 
Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 95-0133 (D.D.C. March 
23, 1998) (``March 23, 1998 Hearing''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 
69.
    \133\ Commerce trade missions and so-called ``business development 
conferences'' included trips in 1993 to Tokyo, Saudi Arabia, France, 
Venezuela, South Africa, Mexico, and Russia. In 1994, they included 
trips to the Middle East, Russia (two trips), Poland, South Africa, 
Latin America, China, Indonesia, Northern Ireland and Ireland, and 
Belgium. In 1995, they included trips to India, the Middle East, 
Belgium, Spain, China, Latin America, Senegal, France (two trips), 
Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, the Middle East, Spain, Ireland, 
South Africa, Bosnia and Croatia, and Brazil, Argentina, and Chile.
    \134\ Susan B. Garland, ``Clinton Cozies Up to Business--Corporate 
Gifts to the DNC Have Reached Unprecedented Levels,'' Business Week, 
September 12, 1994; Helene Cooper & Rick Wartzman, ``Traveling Pals--
How Ron Brown Picks Who Joins His Trips Abroad Raises Doubts--Commerce 
Chief Takes Along Many Big Contributors to Democratic Groups,'' The 
Wall Street Journal, September 9, 1994, attached collectively as 
Appendix Exhibit 70.
    \135\ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Judicial 
Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 95-0133 (D.D.C. filed 
January 19, 1995) (``Judicial Watch v. Commerce''), attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 85.
    \136\ Chronology: A History of Clinton Administration Obstruction 
in the Continuing Suit Which Uncovered John Huang, the Unauthorized 
Removal of Classified Satellite Encryptions and CIA Reports from the 
Commerce Department, and Caused the Chinagate Scandal at 23-24, 
Judicial Watch v. Commerce, May 26, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
71.
    \137\ ``The Managing Trustee Program'' and ``Memorandum from Martha 
Phipps to Ann Cahill Re: White House Activities,'' May 5, 1994, 
collectively attached as Appendix Exhibit 72.
    \138\ ``DNC Managing Trustee Events & Member Requirements,'' 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 73, see also Byron York, ``The Alexis 
Nexis,'' The American Spectator, March 1997, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 74.
    \139\ DNC ``Minority Donors List,'' attached as Appendix Exhibit 
75.
    \140\ Clinton Commerce Department Office of Business Liaison Memos 
(from Sally Painter to Melissa Moss), attached collectively as Appendix 
Exhibit 76.
    \141\ ``Memorandum from Eric Silden Re: Trade Mission to Russia,'' 
January 13, 1994, attached as Appendix Exhibit 77.
    \142\ On Friday, September 25, 1998, the Court ordered that motions 
for orders to show cause be issued and served on Leon Panetta, John 
Podesta, and others. Recently, on September 11, 1998, the Court also 
ordered discovery of the DNC and Messrs. Rosen and McAuliffe, among 
others.
    \143\ Defendant's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support 
of Motion for a Protective Order at 2-3, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, 
April 9, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 78.
    \144\ Huang lied about most of these issues in his Judicial Watch 
deposition and would normally have faced prosecution for perjury, but 
for Janet Reno's Justice Department. The Clinton Justice Department has 
not even questioned Huang. Judicial Watch will seek accountability for 
perjury by Huang in its lawsuit. See ``John Huang: In His Own Words,'' 
Fox News, October 24, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 79.
    \145\ Nolanda Hill would later tell reporter and Judicial Watch 
adviser Andy Thibault that ``[t]he waiver signature and the [Wang Jun] 
meeting with Ron [Brown] happening the same day was significant--it was 
no coincidence. Ron [Brown] assured Clinton he had taken care of 
Charlie Trie's people. That is the real story.'' See Andy Thibault, 
``What Ron Brown Said About the Chinese'' at 2, NewsMax.com, September 
23, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 80.
    \146\ Secretary Brown himself was scheduled to testify in the 
Judicial Watch lawsuit but was killed in Croatia April 3, 1996, before 
he could do so.
    \147\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 55-56, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
69.
    \148\ Hill Affidavit at para. 7, attached as Appendix Exhibit 68.
    \149\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 58, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
69.
    \150\ Id. 
    \151\ Id. at 60-61.
    \152\ Id. at 76.
    \153\ Id. at 63.
    \154\ Id. at 66-67.
    \155\ Id. at 68-69.
    \156\ Id. at 99-100.
    \157\ Hill Affidavit at para. 11, attached as Appendix Exhibit 68.
    \158\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 61, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
69.
    \159\ Id. 
    \160\ ``DNC Managing Trustee Events & Member Requirements,'' 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 73; see also Byron York, ``The Alexis 
Nexis,'' The American Spectator, March 1997, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 74.
    \161\ ``The Managing Trustee Program'' and ``Memorandum from Martha 
Phipps to Ann Cahill Re: White House Activities,'' May 5, 1994, 
attached collectively as Appendix Exhibit 72.
    \162\ Id. 
    \163\ DNC ``Minority Donors List,'' attached as Appendix Exhibit 
75.
    \164\ ``Memorandum from Eric Silden Re: Trade Mission to Russia,'' 
January 13, 1994, attached as Appendix Exhibit 77.
    \165\ ``Tripping With the Secretary: Ron Brown's Foreign Trade 
Missions,'' The Center for Public Integrity Web Site, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 81.
    \166\ Judicial Watch filed a third FOIA request on October 19, 
1994, attached as Appendix Exhibit 82.
    \167\ Judicial Watch letter to Melissa Moss, October 19, 1994, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 83.
    \168\ Id. 
    \169\ Id.; Melissa Moss letter to Judicial Watch, October 19, 1994, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 84.
    \170\ Judicial Watch letter to Melissa Moss, October 19, 1994, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 83.
    \171\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 114, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
69.
    \172\ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Judicial 
Watch v. Commerce, January 19, 1995, attached as Appendix Exhibit 85.
    \173\ Department of Commerce letter to Judicial Watch, April 4, 
1995, attached as Appendix Exhibit 86.
    \174\ Order, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, May 16, 1995, attached as 
Exhibit 87.
    \175\ Communications from the Clinton White House to the DNC 
concerning the sale of seats on trades missions were later found in the 
files of former White House Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, as well as in 
the files of Alexis Herman, now the Secretary of Labor. See ``The 
Managing Trustee Program'' and ``Memorandum from Martha Phipps to Ann 
Cahill Re: White House Activities,'' May 5, 1994, attached collectively 
as Appendix Exhibit 72.
    \176\ A Vaughn index essentially is an inventory of documents that 
the government has identified as being responsive to a FOIA request, 
but which the government claims are exempt from production under FOIA. 
In a proper Vaughn index, the government should provide the author, 
date and subject of an exempt document, along with other identifying 
information, and the reason why the document is being withheld. The 
purpose of a Vaughn index is to provide a Court with enough information 
about a document to determine whether it is properly being withheld.
    \177\ Memorandum and Order at 2, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, 
February 1, 1996, attached as Appendix Exhibit 88.
    \178\ Id. at 6, 8-9.
    \179\ Memorandum Opinion at 39, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, 
September 5, 1996, attached as Appendix Exhibit 89.
    \180\ Id. at 2-3.
    \181\ Hill Affidavit at paras. 8, 10, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
68.
    \182\ Complaint at para. 9, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, January 19, 
1995, attached as Appendix Exhibit 85.
    \183\ Excerpts of Weekly Reports from Commerce Secretary Ron Brown 
to White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 90; see also March 23, 1998 Hearing at 78-79, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 69.
    \184\ Hill Affidavit at para. 9, attached as Appendix Exhibit 68.
    \185\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 88, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
69.
    \186\ Excerpts of Weekly Reports from Commerce Secretary Ron Brown 
to White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 90; see also March 23, 1998 Hearing at 78-79, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 69.
    \187\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 85-86, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
69.
    \188\ Ironically, Judicial Watch had been scheduled to depose 
Secretary Brown the week of his Croatia trip. It was postponed at his 
request.
    \189\ Id. at 100-101.
    \190\ Declaration of Ronald H. Brown, March 14, 1996, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 91.
    \191\ Transcript of Motions Hearing at 40-41, August 7, 1996, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 92.
    \192\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 38, 41, 61, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 69; Hill Affidavit at para. 11, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
68.
    \193\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 41, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
69.
    \194\ Judicial Watch depositions confirmed that documents from 
Secretary Brown's office were shredded by his assistants after his 
death. Videotaped Deposition of Barbara Schmitz at 11:02-11:03 a.m., 
October 9, 1996 (``Schmitz Depo.''); Videotaped Deposition of Melanie 
Long at 3:54 p.m., October 10, 1996 (``Long Depo.''); see also 
``Shredding Tears,'' The American Spectator, June 1996, attached as 
Appendix
    \195\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 93-94, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
69.
    \196\ Id. at 38-41, 61; Hill Affidavit at para. 11, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 68.
    \197\ Declaration of Anthony Das at para. 3, March 10, 1995, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 94.
    \198\ Deposition of Anthony A. Das at 17-19, March 27, 1996 (``Des 
Depo. I''), attached as Appendix
    \199\ Id. at 31-32, attached as Appendix Exhibit 96; Deposition of 
Anthony A. Das at 41, 43, 46-47, October 9, 1996 (``Des Depo. II''), 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 97.
    \200\ Das Depo. II. at 43, attached as Appendix Exhibit 98.
    \201\ Transcript of Motions Hearing at 38-39, Judicial Watch v. 
Commerce, August 7, 1996, attached as Appendix Exhibit 99.
    \202\ Declarations of Mary Ann McFate, April 6, 1995, June 6, 1995, 
June 7, 1995, July 17, 1995, March 29, 1996, August 23, 1996, October 
17, 1996, November 13, 1996, March 5, 1997, and July 23, 1998, attached 
collectively as Appendix Exhibit 100.
    \203\ Deposition of Mary Ann McFate at 52, 59-60, October 15, 1996 
(``McFate Depo.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 101.
    \204\ Id. 
    \205\ Some of the persons, such as Ms. McFate, participating in the 
false declarations and other obstruction, recently received $10,000 
cash awards from the Clinton Administration. Plaintiff's Praecipe, 
Judicial Watch v. Commerce, March 23, 1998, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 102.
    \206\ Hill Affidavit at para. 11, attached as Appendix Exhibit 68.
    \207\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 36, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
69.
    \208\ Affidavit of Robert G. Adkins at para. 3, January 28, 1997, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 103.
    \209\ Schmitz Depo. at 11:02-11:03 a.m.; Long Depo. at 3:54 p.m.; 
see also ``Shredding Tears,'' The American Spectator, June 1996, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 93.
    \210\ Videotaped Deposition of Dalia Traynham at 3:01-3:07 p.m., 
November 26, 1996 (``Traynham Depo.'').
    \211\ Transcript of Status Call at 38-39, Judicial Watch v. 
Commerce, October 18, 1996, attached as Appendix Exhibit 104.
    \212\ See, e.g., Videotaped Deposition of Laurie Fitz-Pegado at 
16:11 p.m., July 18, 1997 (``Fitz-Pegado Depo.''); Videotaped 
Deposition of James Hackney at 11:18-11:19 a.m., January 21, 1997 
(``Hackney Depo.''); Deposition of John Huang at 199-200, October 29, 
1996 (``Huang Depo.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 105; Videotaped 
Deposition of Melissa Moss at 4:59 p.m., October 10, 1996 (``Moss 
Depo.''); Deposition of Melinda Yee at 289-91, December 2, 1996 (``Yee 
Depo.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 106.
    \213\ Yee Depo. at 144-46, attached as Appendix Exhibit 106.
    \214\ Id. at 154-55, 58.
    \215\ Id. at 108-12.
    \216\ See Videotaped Deposition of David Rothkopf at 3:57-4:01 
p.m., April 1, 1997 (``Rothkopf Depo.'').
    \217\ Yee Depo. at 154-55, attached as Appendix Exhibit 106.
    \218\ Id. at 206-11, 225-26.
    \219\ Id. at 144-46, 154-55, 160, 208-12.
    \220\ George Archibald, Id. at 160-61, 168-71, 208-09, 212, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 106; see also ``Papers on Fund Raising 
Trashed, Note Taker Says,'' The Washington Times, December 6, 1996; 
``The Tangled Web, Continued,'' The Washington Times, December 17, 
1996; and ``Brown's Papers: The Chase Goes On,'' Investor's Business 
Daily, January 30, 1997, attached collectively as Appendix Exhibit 107.
    \221\ Memorandum and Order at 2, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, August 
30, 1996, attached as Appendix Exhibit 108.
    \222\ Yee Depo. at 84-95, 141-44, 160-61, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 106.
    \223\ Id. at 305-07; see also George Archibald, ``Papers on Fund 
Raising Trashed, Note Taker says,'' The Washington Times, December 6, 
1996, attached as Appendix Exhibit 107.
    \224\ Yee Depo. at 307-10, attached as Appendix Exhibit 106.
    \225\ Lesia Thornton's ``Notes to File,'' attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 109.
    \226\ Id. at entry dated 10/20/94, 2:15 p.m.
    \227\ Id. 
    \228\ Videotaped Deposition of John Ost :08-11:10 a.m., May 30, 
1997 (``Ost Depo.''); see also Brian Blomquist, ``DNC Sought Trips for 
Big Donors: Ex-Commerce Aide,'' New York Post, June 28, 1997; and Jerry 
Seper ,``Ex-Commerce Official Testifies DNC Sent Trip-for-Donations 
List--Backs Key Part of Public Interest Firm Judicial Watch's Suit,'' 
The Washington Times, July 1, 1997, attached collectively as Appendix 
Exhibit 110.
    \229\ Ost Depo. at 11:08-11:10 a.m.
    \230\ DNC ``Minority Donors List,'' attached as Appendix Exhibit 
75.
    \231\ Jerry Seper, ``Commerce Kept List of DNC Donors--Aide 
Backtracks on Department's Denials,'' The Washington Times, May 31, 
1997; Associated Press, ``Donors List at Commerce Called `Personal 
Document','' The Washington Post, June 1, 1997; Jerry Seper, ``Commerce 
Admits Keeping List of Donors,'' The Washington Times, June 15, 1997, 
attached collectively as Appendix Exhibit 111.
    \232\ Whatley Depo. at 11:36 a.m.; Kearny Depo. at 1:36-1:46 p.m.
    \233\ Associated Press, ``Commerce Says List of Donors a Mystery,'' 
The Times-Picayune, June 1, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 112.
    \234\ Traynham Depo. at 2:30-2:31, 2:36-2:37, 2:50-2:52 p.m.
    \235\ Transcript of Status Call at 27, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, 
June 27, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 113.
    \236\ Rothkopf Depo. at 11:06-11:13 a.m.
    \237\ Moss Depo. at 2:41-2:52 p.m.
    \238\ Hill Affidavit at para. 13, attached as Appendix Exhibit 68.
    \239\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 40-42, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
69.
    \240\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 108-09, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 69.
    \241\ Ms. Hill confirmed the familiarity of Ms. Moss to the 
President. Id. at 113. She was also photographed by the press hugging 
the President at Secretary Brown's funeral.
    \242\ Letters and Memoranda from Clinton Commerce Department files, 
attached collectively as Appendix Exhibit 114.
    \243\ Id. 
    \244\ Bob Woodward, ``Findings Link Clinton Allies to Chinese 
Intelligence,'' The Washington Post, February 10, 1998 (Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee ``has `unverified information' that 
Huang, the former Lippo [Group] executive and Democratic fund-raiser, 
may have a direct financial relationship with the Chinese 
[G]overnment.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 115.
    \245\ Huang Depo. at 163-64, 172-73, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
105.
    \246\ Id. at 177-79, 194-99, 209-19.
    \247\ Huang Chronology at 3-10, attached as Appendix Exhibit 116; 
Associated Press, ``Huang's Access to Secrets Was Underestimated--
Actions at Commerce, Calls to Lippo Compared,'' The Washington Post, 
April 30, 1997; see also James Bennet, ``For Democrats, All Kinds of 
Answers,'' The New York Times, December 30, 1996, attached collectively 
as Appendix Exhibit 117.
    \248\ Huang Depo. at 177-78, attached as Appendix Exhibit 105.
    \249\ Associated Press, ``Huang's Access to Secrets Was 
Underestimated--Actions at Commerce, Calls to Lippo Compared,'' The 
Washington Post, April 30, 1997 (``The [Clinton Commerce] [D]epartment 
has identified 109 meetings in 1994 and 1995 attended by Huang and at 
which classified information `might have been discussed. . . .' ''), 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 117.
    \250\ Huang Depo. at 182-92, attached as Appendix Exhibit 105.
    \251\ Id. at 182-83, 190-92.
    \252\ Id. 
    \253\ James Bennet, ``For Democrats, All Kinds of Answers,'' The 
New York Times, December 30, 1996, attached as Appendix Exhibit 117.
    \254\ Videotaped Deposition of Janice Stewart at 10:59-11:00 a.m., 
March 19, 1997, (``Stewart Depo.'').
    \255\ Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Attorney General Janet Reno to 
Obey a Subpoena for the Diaries of John Huang, Motion to Shorten Time 
to Respond, and Request for a Status Conference, Judicial Watch v. 
Commerce, July 21, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 118; see also 
Plaintiffs Reply to Opposition of Department of Justice to Plaintiffs 
Motion to Compel and Request for Expedited Oral Argument, Judicial 
Watch v. Commerce, August 5, 1997, attached collectively as Appendix 
Exhibit 119.
    \256\ Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman 
accused the Justice Department of leaking Hill's sealed affidavit and 
then retaliating against her. Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Heygi has 
yet to deny leaking the Hill affidavit to ``Main'' Justice. See 
Judicial Watch's Request, Memorandum, and Rule 108 Certification 
Concerning Expedited In Camera Conference on Newly Discovered Documents 
Bearing on Obstruction of Justice, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, 
September 9, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 120.
    \257\ Hill Affidavit at para. 14, attached as Appendix Exhibit 68.
    \258\ Chronology: A History of Clinton Administration Obstruction 
in the Continuing Suit which Uncovered John Huang, the Unauthorized 
Removal of Classified Satellite Encryptions and CIA Reports from the 
Commerce Department, and Caused the Chinagate Scandal at 23-24, 
Judicial Watch v. Commerce, May 26, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
71.
    \259\ Id. 
    \260\ Id. 
    \261\ Id.
    \262\ Id.
    \263\ Transcript of Arraignment at 7-8, March 20, 1998, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 121.
    \264\ Videotaped Deposition of Christine Sopko at 10:20 a.m., July 
2, 1997 (``Sopko Depo.'').
    \265\ Sopko Depo. at 10:20 a.m.; see also Supplemental Notice to 
the Court, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, July 3, 1997 (noting that Sopko 
advised the Clinton Justice Department of the minority donors list as 
early as April 1, 1997), attached as Appendix Exhibit 122.
    \266\ Id. 
    \267\ Transcript of Hearing at 8, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, April 
4, 1997.
    \268\ Id. at 8.
    \269\ Id. at 8-9.
    \270\ Id. at 11-14.
    \271\ [Un]Sealed Praecipe Concerning Events Immediately Following 
Sealed Court Session of Evening of April4, 1997, Judicial Watch v. 
Commerce, April7, 1997.
    \272\ Id.; see also D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.4(g) 
(November 1996) (``It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . 
seek or threaten to seek criminal charges or disciplinary charges 
solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.''); Plaintiffs 
Opposition to Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Judicial Watch, Inc. 
and Larry Klayman Should Not Be Held in Contempt and Cross-motion for 
Attorneys Fees, Costs, and Other Such Relief the Court Deems 
Appropriate, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, June 17, 1997.
    \273\ Order, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, June 27, 1997, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 123.
    \274\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 84-85, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
69.
    \275\ Id. at 100-01.
    \276\ Deposition of Barbara Fredericks at 143-44, 165-66, January 
3, 1997 (``Fredericks Depo.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 124; 
Videotaped Deposition of Gordon Fields at 1:44-1:47 p.m., April 2, 1997 
(``Fields Depo.''); Videotaped Deposition of Judith Means at 10:35 
a.m., 10:41-10:42 a.m., January 6, 1997 (``Means Depo.''); Videotaped 
Deposition of Elise Packard at 10:38 a.m., January 9, 1997 (``Packard 
Depo.'').
    \277\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 93-94, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
69; Declaration of Ronald H. Brown, March 14, 1996, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 91.
    \278\ Id. 
    \279\ Declaration of Ronald H. Brown, March 14, 1996, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 91.
    \280\ Hill Affidavit at para. 11, attached as Appendix Exhibit 68; 
March 23, 1998 Hearing at 38-41, 61, attached as Appendix Exhibit 69.
    \281\ Lesia Thornton Memo, attached as Appendix Exhibit 109.
    \282\ Means Depo. at 2:13 p.m.
    \283\ Ost Depo. at 11:07-11:17 a.m.
    \284\ Means Depo. at 11:28 a.m.
    \285\ Id. 
    \286\ Plaintiff's Request for a Status Conference During Week of 
June 9, 1997 or as Soon Thereafter as Possible, Judicial Watch v. 
Commerce, June 4, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 125.
    \287\ Sopko Depo. at 10:20-21 a.m.
    \288\ Id. 
    \289\ Fredericks Depo. at 108, 188-98, 204-07, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 124; Means Depo. at 12:10 p.m.
    \290\ Schmitz Depo. at 3:01-3:07 p.m.
    \291\ Yee Depo. at 160, attached as Appendix Exhibit 106.
    \292\ Videotaped Deposition of Ira Sockowitz at 5:01-5:14 p.m., 
October 28, 1996 (``Sockowitz Depo.''); Fields Depo. at 2:31-32 p.m.
    \293\ Videotaped Deposition of Andrea Torczon at 11:33 a.m., July 
1, 1997 (``Torczon Depo.'').
    \294\ Id. at 11:01 a.m.
    \295\ Videotaped Deposition of Ginger Lew at 4:08-4:09 p.m., March 
12, 1998 (``Lew Depo.'').
    \296\ Transcript of Status Call at 108, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, 
June 27, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 126.
    \297\ Id. at 86.
    \298\ Indeed, while at a previous post at the Carter State 
Department, Ms. Lew, who was born in China, recommended the removal of 
diplomatic recognition for Taiwan, a position that President Carter 
later embraced. This provoked the ire of Senator Jesse Helms and 
others.
    \299\ Memorandum and Order at 2, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, 
February 1, 1996, attached as Appendix Exhibit 88.
    \300\ Fields Depo. at 2:14 p.m.
    \301\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 8, attached as Appendix Exhibit 69.
    \302\ Paul Sperry, ``How Honest is Justice's Probe?--DOJ Lawyers 
Have Ties to Fund-Raiser Huang,'' Investor's Business Daily, February 
24, 1997; see also Paul Sperry, ``Is Fund-Raising Probe Tainted--Reno's 
Tactics Look Suspicious: Ex-Prosecutors,'' Investor's Business Daily, 
April 15, 1997; ``Vacuum at Justice,'' The Wall Street Journal, April 
30, 1997; and ``The Holder Hearing,'' The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 
1997, attached collectively as Appendix Exhibit 127.
    \303\ Holder admitted that Secretary Brown recommended him for U.S. 
Attorney. ``Vacuum at Justice,'' The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 
1997, attached as part of collective Appendix Exhibit 127.
    \304\ Holder reportedly also has been offered a federal judgeship, 
perhaps even the next Supreme Court appointment.
    \305\ Transcript from NBC's ``Meet the Press'' Interview with 
Deputy Attorney General Holder at 4, May 24, 1998, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 128.
    \306\ Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's 
Motion for Referral of Cause to a District Judge or Magistrate Judge 
for Mediation at 4, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, April 28, 1997, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 129.
    \307\ ``The 99% Cover-Up,'' Investor's Business Daily, August 24, 
1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 130.
    \308\ Roberto Suro, ``Reno Concedes Problems in Funds Probe,'' The 
Washington Post, October 16, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 131.
    \309\ Stewart Depo. at 2:25 p.m.
    \310\ Lew Depo. at 4:29-4:32.
    \311\ Judicial Watch Deponents Questioned by FBI or Department of 
Justice, attached as Appendix Exhibit 132.
    \312\ Memorandum and Order, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, February 1, 
1996; Order, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, March 21, 1996, attached 
collectively as Appendix Exhibit 133.
    \313\ Das Depo. I at 49-54, attached as Appendix Exhibit 96.
    \314\ Transcript of Motions Hearing at 54-57, Judicial Watch v. 
Commerce, August 7, 1996, attached as Appendix Exhibit 134.
    \315\ Toni Locy, ``Commerce Penalized for Lawyer's Actions,'' The 
Washington Post, August 8, 1996, attached as Appendix Exhibit 135.
    \316\ Das Depo. I at 40-41, attached as Appendix Exhibit 96.
    \317\ Transcript of Status Call at 38, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, 
June 27, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 136.
    \318\ Memorandum and Order at 3, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, 
February 13, 1997; see also George Archibald, ``Judge Rebukes 
Government Lawyer--Blasts Effort to Prevent Questioning of Commerce 
Official,'' The Washington Times, February 4, 1997, attached 
collectively as Appendix Exhibit 137.
    \319\ Associated Press, ``Huang's Access to Secrets Was 
Underestimated--Actions at Commerce, Calls to Lippo Compared,'' The 
Washington Post, April 30, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 117.
    \320\ Defendant's Notice of Discharge of Obligation Pursuant to Its 
Representation at December 6, 1996 Status Conference, Judicial Watch v. 
Commerce, December 8, 1996, attached as Appendix Exhibit 138.
    \321\ Videotaped Deposition of Dawn Evans Cromer at 11:36-11:40 
a.m., June 20, 1997 (``Cromer Depo.''); Videotaped Deposition of Carola 
McGiffert at 2:58-3:05 p.m., April 3, 1997 (``McGiffert Depo.'').
    \322\ DNC ``Minority Donors List,'' attached as Appendix Exhibit 
75. See also Jerry Seper, ``Commerce Kept List of DNC Donors--Aide 
Backtracks on Department's Denials,'' The Washington Times, May 31, 
1997; Associated Press, ``Donors List at Commerce Called `Personal 
Document','' The Washington Post, June 1, 1997; and Jerry Seper, 
``Commerce Admits Keeping List of Donors,'' The Washington Times, June 
15, 1997, attached collectively as Appendix Exhibit 111.
    \323\ ``Orrin Hatch's Matador D,'' The Wall Street Journal, June 
18, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 139.
    \324\ Donald Fowler Memorandum to Members of the Cabinet (with 
handwritten note ``Janet, Happy New Year'') from the files of Attorney 
General Reno, December 31, 1995, attached as Appendix Exhibit 140.
    \325\ See, e.g., Bob Woodward, ``Findings Link Clinton Allies to 
Chinese Intelligence,'' The Washington Post, February 10, 1998 (Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee ``has `unverified information' that 
Huang, the former Lippo [Group] executive and Democratic fund-raiser, 
may have a direct financial relationship with the Chinese 
[G]overnment.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 115; see also ``Campaign 
Finance Key Player: John Huang,'' The Washington Post (http://
www.washingtonpost.com) (``Investigators are also exploring whether 
Huang may have served as an `agent of influence' of the People's 
Republic of China, perhaps funneling money from Beijing into American 
political campaigns.''), attached collectively as Appendix Exhibit 141.
    \326\ Huang has been described as ``the star witness [the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee] ha[s] been looking for.'' See Judi 
Hasson & Judy Keen, ``China Meddling, Panel Told,'' USA Today, July 9, 
1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 142.
    \327\ See John Fund, ``The Department of Political Favors,'' The 
Wall Street Journal, October 29, 1996. As previously discussed, the 
Clinton Commerce Department has consistently attempted to thwart 
Judicial Watch's efforts to conduct discovery on these matters. 
Consistent with its ``scorched earth'' policy against all who confront 
the Administration with its unlawful and/or unethical conduct, the 
Commerce Department went so far as to issue a false, misleading, and 
defamatory press release on November 1, 1996, just days after the 
October 29, 1996 deposition of John Huang. It was also the eve of the 
1996 presidential election. The official press release claimed that 
John Huang ``had absolutely nothing to do with the [Judicial Watch] 
FOIA matter,'' and denounced Judicial Watch's lawsuit as ``reckless'' 
and ``unsubstantiated.''(328)
    \328\ Transcript of Status Call at 25-31, Judicial Watch v. 
Commerce, October 25, 1996, attached as Appendix Exhibit 144.
    \329\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 70, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
69.
    \330\ See, e.g., Alan Miller & Glen Bunting, ``Huang Said `Top 
Priority' for Cabinet Job,'' Los Angeles Times, July 15, 1997; Robert 
D. Novak, ``John Huang Delivers,'' The Washington Post, October 31, 
1996 (``A clue to why Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party received 
heavy contributions from Indonesia's billionaire Ready family: its 
successful campaign in 1993 to block the presidential appointment of an 
unfriendly banking regulator.''); attached collectively as Appendix 
Exhibit 145.
    \331\ Bob Woodward, ``Findings Link Clinton Allies to Chinese 
Intelligence,'' The Washington Post, February 10, 1998, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 115.
    \332\ Alan Miller & Glenn Bunting, ``Huang Said `Top Priority' for 
Cabinet Job,'' Los Angeles Times, July 15, 1997, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 145.
    \333\ Huang Depo. at 177-79, 194-99, 209-19, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 105; 1995 Calendar of John Huang, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
146.
    \334\ Huang Chronology at 3-10, attached as Appendix Exhibit 116; 
``Huang's Access to Secrets Was Underestimated--Actions at Commerce, 
Calls to Lippo Compared,'' The Washington Post, April 30, 1997; ``For 
Democrats, All Kinds of Answers,'' The New York Times, December 30, 
1996, attached collectively as Appendix Exhibit 117.
    \335\ Jerry Seper, ``Huang Given Top-Secret Clearance After Move to 
DNC,'' The Washington Times, February 9, 1997, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 147.
    \336\ Huang Depo. at 177-78, attached as Appendix Exhibit 105.
    \337\ Associated Press, ``Huang's Access to Secrets Was 
Underestimated--Actions at Commerce, Calls to Lippo Compared,'' The 
Washington Post, April 30, 1997 (``The [Clinton Commerce] Department 
has identified 109 meetings in 1994 and 1995 attended by Huang and at 
which classified information `might have been discussed.''), attached 
as Appendix Exhibit 117.
    \338\ ``Huang Used Office Across Street,'' USA Today, July 18, 
1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 148.
    \339\ Id.; see also Edward Walsh & Anne Farns, ``Panel Hears of 
Huang's Frequent Visits to Firm,'' The Washington Post, July, 18, 1997 
(``[Huang] also sometimes picked up letter-sized `packages' that were 
delivered to him there, [Greene] said''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 
149.
    \340\ Jerry Seper, ``Huang Given Top-Secret Clearance After Move to 
DNC,'' The Washington Times, February 9, 1997, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 147.
    \341\ Id. (emphasis added.)
    \342\ John Solomon, ``Congressman Accuses Huang of Passing Secrets 
to Ex-employer,'' USA Today, June 13-15, 1997, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 150.
    \343\ See, e.g., Brian Blomquist, ``Spies Tell Panel Huang May Have 
Risked Lives,'' New York Post, July 17, 1997; Jerry Seper, ``Did Huang 
Briefings Put Lives at Risk?,'' The Washington Times, July 1, 1997, 
attached collectively as Appendix Exhibit 151.
    \344\ Bob Woodward, ``FBI Had Overlooked Key Files In Probe of 
Chinese Influence,'' The Washington Post, November 14, 1997, attached 
as Appendix Exhibit 152.
    \345\ Huang Depo. at 164-66, attached as Appendix Exhibit 105.
    \346\ See, e.g. Phil Kuntz, ``Huang, While at Commerce Department, 
Talked to Democratic Fund-Raisers,'' The Wall Street Journal, November 
13, 1996; David Willman and Alan C. Miller, ``Records Show Visits to 
Eximbank Director,'' Los Angeles Times, January 29, 1997, attached 
collectively as Appendix Exhibit 153.
    \347\ Edward Walsh & Anne Farns, ``Panel Hears of Huang's Frequent 
Visits to Firm,'' The Washington Post, July 18, 1997 (``. . . the DNC 
credited Huang for soliciting two contributions totaling $ 17,000 from 
[Lippo executive Kenneth] Wynn while Huang was working at Commerce.''), 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 149.
    \348\ Susan Schmidt & Charles Babcock, ``DNC Fund-Raiser Huang 
Visited White House Often,'' The Washington Post, October 31, 1996, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 154.
    \349\ See, e.g. Phil Kuntz,``Huang, While at Commerce Department, 
Talked to Democratic Fund-Raisers,'' The Wall Street Journal, November 
13, 1996, attached as Appendix Exhibit 153.
    \350\ See Huang Chronology at 3-10, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
116; Judy Keen & Judy Hasson, ``Sullivan Says Huang Unusual Hire,'' USA 
Today, July 10, 1997 (``When Huang came to the DNC in November 1995 . . 
. [h]e had no professional fund-raising experience . . . [b]ut Huang 
had powerful, insistent patrons who really wanted him to get the job. 
One of them was the [P]resident of the United States. So Huang became 
the third-ranking fund-raiser at the DNC.''), attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 155.
    \351\ See, e.g. Brian Blomquist, ``DNC Sought Trips for Big Donors: 
Ex-Commerce Aide,'' The New York Post, June 28, 1997 (``The DNC agreed 
to return much of the money raised by Huang after that money was found 
to be foreign and illegal.''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 110; Bob 
Woodward, ``Findings Link Clinton Allies to Chinese Intelligence,'' The 
Washington Post, February 10, 1998 (``Huang, the former Lippo executive 
and Democratic fund-raiser, may have a direct financial relationship 
with Chinese government. Last year, the DNC returned more than half of 
some $3 million Huang collected for the party, saying its origins could 
not be established''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 115.
    \352\ Huang Depo. at 2, attached as Appendix Exhibit 105; see also 
Paul Sperry, ``How Honest is Justice Probe? DOJ Lawyers Have Ties to 
Fund-Raiser Huang,'' Investors Business Daily, February 24, 1997 (``The 
Justice Department is defending some of the same Commerce Department 
officials it's investigating for illegal fundraising''), attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 127.
    \353\ John Fund, ``The Department of Political Favors,'' The Wall 
Street Journal, October 29, 1996, attached as Appendix Exhibit 143.
    \354\ Michael Chapman, ``An Inside Job at Commerce?--Satellite 
Secrets Left Department With Official,'' Investors Business Daily, June 
19, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 156.
    \355\ See, e.g. Terence P. Jeffrey, ``The Mysterious Actions of Ira 
Sockowitz,'' Human Events, February 28, 1997 (``On Aug. 2, 1996, Ira 
Sockowitz formally left his job as a Commerce Department lawyer. . . . 
When [he] walked out of the Commerce Department building he carried a 
box containing 136 documents, many of them classified.''), attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 157.
    \356\ Videotaped Deposition of Jeffrey May at 11:31-11:37 a.m., 
June 10, 1997 (``May Depo.'').
    \357\ See, e.g., Michael Chapman, ``An Inside Job at Commerce?--
Satellite Secrets Left Department With Official,'' Investors Business 
Daily, June 19, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 156; Timothy Maier, 
`` `Commerce-ial' Espionage?,'' Insight, September 1, 1997 (``The 
classified information Sockowitz took was so sensitive it threatened to 
put the National Security Agency, or NSA, out of business. . . .''), 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 158.
    \358\ Michael Chapman, ``An Inside Job at Commerce?--Satellite 
Secrets Left Department With Official,'' Investors Business Daily, June 
19, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 156.
    \359\ Sockowitz Depo. at 3:37-3:38, 5:01-5:08 p.m.
    \360\ Sockowitz Depo. at 4:50 p.m.
    \361\ Id. at 5:01 p.m.
    \362\ Lew Depo. at 4:25-4:26 p.m.
    \363\ Notice of Filing of Declaration by Non-Party SBA-IG Pursuant 
to November 5, 1996 Order, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, November 13, 
1996; see also Declaration of James F. Hoobler, Inspector General for 
the SBA at 1-2, November 13, 1996, attached collectively as Appendix 
Exhibit 159.
    \364\ Notice of Filing of SBA's (Redacted) Document Inventory; 
Notice of Filing of Declaration by Non-Party SBA-IG Pursuant to 
November 5, 1996 Order, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, November 13, 1996; 
see also Jerry Seper, ``Secret Papers' Move Probed for DNC Links,'' The 
Washington Times, February 14, 1997 (`` `The documents are so 
classified that we were not allowed to look at them,' a congressional 
source said. . . . FBI and congressional investigators, the sources 
said, are trying to determine if the documents were being stored for 
Mr. Huang. . . .'') attached collectively as Appendix Exhibit 160.
    \365\ Terrence P. Jeffrey, ``The Mysterious Actions of Ira 
Sockowitz,'' Human Events, February 28, 1997, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 157.
    \366\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 97, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
69.
    \367\ Id.
    \368\ Fitz-Pegado Depo. at 11:02-11:08 a.m.
    \369\ ``FAQ'' and ``Investor Relations'' pages from Iridium's 
Internet site, attached as Appendix Exhibit 161.
    \370\ Id.
    \371\ Notice of Filing of SBA's (Redacted) Document Inventory, 
Judicial Watch v. Commerce, November 1, 1996, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 160; Notice of Filing of Declaration by Non-Party SBA-IG 
Pursuant to Nov. 5, 1996 Order, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, November 
13, 1996, attached as Appendix Exhibit 159.
    \372\ Fitz-Pegado Depo. at 10:15-10:36 a.m., 10:42-11:23 a.m., and 
2:22 p.m.; see also Timothy Maier, `` `Commerce-ial' Espionage?'' 
Insight, September 1, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 158.
    \373\ Michael Chapman, ``An Inside Job at Commerce?--Satellite 
Secrets Left Department With Official,'' Investors Business Daily, June 
19, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 156.
    \374\ Id.
    \375\ Id.
    \376\ Id.
    \377\ Id.
    \378\ Ruth Marcus & John Mintz, ``Big Donors Calls Favorable 
Treatment a `Coincidence','' The Washington Post, May 25, 1998, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 162.
    \379\ Id.
    \380\ ``Loral CEO Frequent Administration Guest,'' The Associated 
Press, May 21, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 163.
    \381\ The satellite encryptions were likely provided to Sockowitz 
by Hoyt Zia, Chief Counsel for the Commerce Department's Bureau of 
Export Controls. During his deposition, Huang admitted that Zia, who he 
was in contact with during his flight from U.S. marshals prior to his 
deposition, is a close friend.
    Chronology: A History of Clinton Administration Obstruction in the 
Continuing Suit Which Uncovered John Huang, the Unauthorized Removal of 
Classified Satellite Encryptions and CIA Reports from the Commerce 
Department, and Caused the Chinagate Scandal at 20, Judicial Watch v. 
Commerce, May 26, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 116. After Huang 
left the Commerce Department to work for the DISC, Zia, who was also 
deposed, admitted that he and other Asian Americans in the Clinton 
Administration would meet with Huang during the evenings to help with 
DNC fundraising. Id.; see also Kenneth R. Timmerman, ``Loral Exams,'' 
The American Spectator, July 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 163.
    \382\ Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order, Judicial Watch v. 
Commerce, April 9, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 164.
    \383\ Id.; Defendant's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 
Support of Motion for a Protective Order at 1, Judicial Watch v. 
Commerce, April 9, 1997, attached as Appendix Exhibit 164.
    \384\ ``Loral CEO Frequent Administration Guest,'' The Associated 
Press, May 21, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 163.
    \385\ Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order, Defendant's 
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for a 
Protective Order at 5-6, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, April 9, 1997, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 164.
    \386\ Jeff Gerth, ``Democrat Fund-Raiser Said to Name China Tie,'' 
The New York Times, May 15, 1998 (``At one fund-raiser to which Chung 
gained admission for her, she was photographed with President 
Clinton''), attached as Appendix Exhibit 165.
    \387\ David Jackson & Leena H. Sun, ``Liu Deals With Chung: An 
Intercontinental Pole,'' The Washington Post, May 24, 1998, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 166.
    \388\ Bob Woodward, ``Findings Link Clinton Allies to Chinese 
Intelligence,'' The Washington Post, February 10, 1998, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 115.
    \389\ ``Campaign Finance Key Player: Yah Lin `Charlie' Trie,'' The 
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com), September 26, 1998, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 167.
    \390\ Jonathan D. Salant, ``Panel Looks at Fund-Raiser's Access,'' 
The Associated Press, February 26, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 
168.
    \391\ Sopko Depo. at 11:25 a.m.
    \392\ Id. at 11:57 a.m
    \393\ Id. at 2:06 p.m.
    \394\ Roberto Suro, ``Trie Enters Plea of Not Guilty,'' The 
Washington Post, February 6, 1998, attached as Appendix Exhibit 169.
    \395\ Clinton Commerce Department Office of Business Liaison Memos 
(from Sally Painter to Melissa Moss), attached collectively as Appendix 
Exhibit 76.
    \396\ ``Memorandum from Eric Silden Re: Trade Mission to Russia,'' 
January 13, 1994, attached as Appendix Exhibit 77.
    \397\ Kevin Galvin, ``Probe Looks at Trips, Fund Raising,'' The 
Associated Press, September 17, 1998 attached as Appendix Exhibit 170.
    \398\ Order, Judicial Watch v. Commerce, September 11, 1998, 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 171.
    \399\ March 23, 1998 Hearing at 99-100, attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 69.
    \400\ Defendant Federal Election Commission's Motion for Sanctions 
Under Rule 11, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission, No. 
1:98CV00386 (D.D.C. June 8, 1998), attached as Appendix Exhibit 172.
    \401\ Memorandum Opinion at 6, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Federal 
Election Commission, No. 1:98CV00386 (D.D.C. July 6, 1998), attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 173.
    \402\ Statement of Senator John McCain, Chairman, Senate Committee 
on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Full Committee Hearing on the 
Transfer of Satellite Technology to China, September 17, 1998, attached 
as Appendix Exhibit 174.
    \403\ The above substantial and credible evidence shows the likely 
violation of the following federal laws: 18 U.S.C.Sec. 201 (bribery of 
public officials end witnesses), 18U.S.C. Sec. 211 (acceptance or 
solicitation to obtain appointive public office), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 
(conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States), 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 372 (conspiracy to impede or injure officer), 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 402 (contempts constituting crimes), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 494 (uttering 
or publishing a false public record), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 600 (promise of 
employment or other benefit for political activity); 18 U.S.C. Sec. 601 
(deprivation of employment or other benefit for political 
contribution); 18 U.S.C. Sec. 607 (use of a public building to solicit 
political funds), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 792 (harboring or concealing persons 
involved in espionage), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 793 (gathering, transmitting or 
losing defense information), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 794 (gathering or 
delivering defense information to aid foreign government), 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 798 (disclosure of classified information), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1016 
(making a false acknowledgment), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1503 (obstruction of 
justice), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 (obstruction of proceedings before 
departments, agencies, and committees), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1509 
(obstruction of court orders), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1510 (obstruction of 
criminal investigation), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512 (tampering with a witness, 
victim, or an informant), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513 (retaliating against a 
witness, victim, or an informant), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621 (perjury), 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 1622 (subornation of perjury), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1623 (false 
declarations before grand jury or court), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1924 
(unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or 
material), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2071(b) (concealment, removal, or mutilation 
of public records), and 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441e (contributions by foreign 
nationals).
    \404\ Presidential Legal Expense Trust, June 28, 1994, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 175.
    \405\ See Correspondence of Congressman Christopher Cox and 
Congresswoman Deborah Pryce to the Office of Government Ethics at 1, 
August 3, 1994 (``Congressional Correspondence''), attached as Appendix 
Exhibit 176.
    \406\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353(a) (emphasis added); Congressional 
Correspondence at 2.
    \407\ Congressional Correspondence at 2 (quoting 5 C.F.R. 
Sec. 2635.202(a)).
    \408\ 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2635.202(a) (1998) (emphasis added).
    \409\ Congressional Correspondence at 2.
    \410\ See, e.g. Paul A. Gigot, ``Why a President Shouldn't Have to 
Go Begging,'' The Wall Street Journal, July 1, 1994, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 177.
    \411\ See Complaint at para. 21, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Hillary 
Rodham Clinton, et al., No. 94-1688 (D.D.C. filed August 4, 1994), 
attached as Appendix Exhibit 178; see also Presidential Legal Expense 
Trust, June 28, 1994, attached as Appendix Exhibit 175.
    \412\ 5 U.S.C. App. 2, attached as Appendix Exhibit 179.
    \413\ Memorandum Opinion at 6, 11, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Hillary 
Rodham Clinton, et al., No. 94-1688 (February 21, 1995), attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 180. The court also noted that `` [t]o the court's 
knowledge, there have been no other funds established by a sitting 
president to offset his personal legal fees and costs. Id. at 6.
    \414\ See Letter to Judicial Watch, Inc. from John C. Keeney, 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department 
of Justice, August 30, 1994, attached as Appendix Exhibit 181. It is 
interesting to note that Keeney's son is one of John Huang's personal 
lawyers, and represented Huang during his Judicial Watch deposition.
    \415\ See, e.g. Peter Baker, ``Clinton Defense Fund Gave Back 
$640,000,'' The Washington Post, December 17, 1996 (``When Trie 
arrived, he told [the Executive Director of the Trust] he had heard 
about the Clintons' financial troubles and wanted to help. He then 
produced two large manila envelopes filled with hundreds of checks and 
money orders, most for $1,000 or less. . . .''); Stephen Labaton, 
``White House Reports Many Visits by Fund-Raiser,'' The New York Times, 
December 19, 1996; Associated Press, ``Donations Raiser Often at White 
House,'' The Washington Times, December 19, 1996; ``Trie Often Paid 
Visits to the White House,'' The Wall Street Journal, December 19, 
1996; Ruth Marcus, ``Businessman Trie Has Visited White House At Least 
23 Times,'' The Washington Post, December 19, 1996; Peter Baker & Ruth 
Marcus ``Clinton Kept Ties to Key Supporter Despite Doubts,'' The 
Washington Post, December 18, 1996, attached collectively as Appendix 
Exhibit 182.
    \416\ See, e.g. Jeanne Cummings, ``Clinton Closes Fund for His 
Legal Fees After Steep Drop in Contributions in 1997,'' The Wall Street 
Journal, December 31, 1997; John F. Harris, ``President Decides to 
Close Money-Losing Defense Fund,'' The Washington Post, December 31, 
1997; Neil A. Lewis, ``Clinton Legal Fund Proves Inadequate; New Effort 
Sought,'' The New York Times, December 31, 1997, attached collectively 
as Appendix Exhibit 183. To this day, the Clintons have never returned 
the interest accrued on the illegal Communist Chinese monies laundered 
into the Trust by Charlie Trie.
    \417\ See, e.g. The Clinton Legal Expense Trust (``the second 
Trust''), February 17, 1998; Letter from Judicial Watch, Inc. to 
Anthony F. Essaye, Esq., September 1, 1998; attached collectively as 
Appendix Exhibit 184.
    \418\ Id. see also Peter Baker, ``President Testified to Late Gifts 
to Lewinsky,'' The Washington Post, August 22, 1998 (``The newly 
reconstituted defense fund, operat[es] with looser rules governing 
solicitations and large donations. . . .''); Don Van Natta, Jr., 
``Clinton Defense Fund Nets More Than $2 Million in 6 Months,'' The New 
York Times, August 13, 1998 (``The new trust is free of some of the 
restrictions that had been on the original fund prohibiting 
solicitations and limiting annual contributions to $1,000 per 
individual.''), attached collectively as Appendix Exhibit 185.
    \419\ Id.
    \420\ This was disclosed during Senator Fred Thompson's campaign 
finance hearings before the Governmental Affairs Committee.
    \421\ Peter Baker, ``Clinton Consults Former Fund-Raiser About 
Jones Deal,'' The Washington Post, September 27, 1998, attached as 
Appendix Exhibit 186.

    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. The gentlewoman from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me inquire--and I appreciate Mr. 
Barr's courtesy to Mr. Schippers--if any of us wanted to extend 
such a courtesy to Mr. Lowell for any personal comments he 
might desire to make, could we do so within the record?
    Mr. Hyde. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Will Mr. 
Schippers appear in the record as a statement of Mr. Schippers 
or Mr. Barr?
    Mr. Barr. Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Schippers' statement will appear as Mr. 
Barr's statement?
    Mr. Barr. Yes.
    Mr. Frank. Have we passed the copyright legislation yet, 
Mr. Chairman?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I have not finished my 
inquiry. The other inquiry was just an additional question on 
the Constitutional Subcommittee and the joining of other 
members, the meeting of the Constitutional Subcommittee and 
other members being----
    Mr. Hyde. All members may attend the meeting of the 
Constitutional Subcommittee, and it will be up to the Chairman 
of the Constitutional Subcommittee to determine their 
participation in the proceeding.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. I would like to finish my business, if I may, 
just for one moment.
    The members will be given 2 days, as provided by the House 
rules, in which to submit additional dissenting or minority 
views. Without objection, the staff is directed to make 
technical and conforming changes.
    Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you. I am hoping that the Constitutional 
Subcommittee will never schedule meetings that conflict with 
the full committee's meetings on this same subject. I urge the 
chairman of the subcommittee to please keep that in the front 
of his mind.
    Mr. Hyde. I think that is an excellent suggestion.
    I move that the committee adopt the rules of procedure for 
the impeachment inquiry which the members have before them and 
which the clerk will designate.
    The Clerk. House Committee on the Judiciary Impeachment 
Inquiry Procedures.
    Mr. Hyde. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of 
the rules be dispensed with.
    house committee on the judiciary impeachment inquiry procedures
    The Committee on the Judiciary states the following procedures 
applicable to the presentation of evidence in the impeachment inquiry 
pursuant to H.Res. XX, subject to modification by the 
Committee as it deems proper as the inquiry proceeds.
    1A. The Committee shall conduct an investigation pursuant to H.Res. 
XX

          1. Any Committee Member may bring additional evidence to the 
        Committee's attention.
          2. The President's counsel shall be invited to respond to 
        evidence received and testimony adduced by the Committee, 
        orally or in writing as shall be determined by the Committee.
          3. Should the President's counsel wish the Committee to 
        receive additional testimony or other evidence, he shall be 
        invited to submit written requests and precise summaries of 
        what he would propose to show, and in the case of a witness, 
        precisely and in detail what it is expected the testimony of 
        the witness would be, if called. On the basis of such requests 
        and summaries and of the record then before it, the Committee 
        shall determine whether the suggested evidence is necessary or 
        desirable to a full and fair record in the inquiry, and, if so, 
        whether the summaries shall be accepted as part of the record 
        or additional testimony or evidence in some other form shall be 
        received.

    B. If and when witnesses are to be called, the following additional 
procedures shall be applicable to hearings held for that purpose:

          1. The President and his counsel shall be invited to attend 
        all hearings, including any held in executive session.
          2. Objections relating to the examination of witnesses, or to 
        the admissibility of testimony and evidence may be raised only 
        by a witness or his counsel, a Member of the Committee, 
        Committee counsel or the President's counsel and shall be ruled 
        upon by the Chairman or presiding Member. Such rulings shall be 
        final, unless overruled by a vote of a majority of the Members 
        present.
          3. Committee counsel shall commence the questioning of each 
        witness and may also be permitted by the Chairman or presiding 
        Member to question a witness at any point during the appearance 
        of the witness.
          4. The President's counsel may question any witness called 
        before the Committee, subject to instructions from the Chairman 
        or presiding Member respecting the time, scope and duration of 
        the examination.

    C. The Committee shall determine, pursuant to the Rules of the 
House, whether and to what extent the evidence to be presented shall be 
received in executive session.
    D. The Chairman is authorized to promulgate additional procedures 
as he deems necessary for the fair and efficient conduct of Committee 
hearings held pursuant to H.Res. XX, provided that the 
additional procedures are not inconsistent with these Procedures, the 
Rules of the Committee, and the Rules of the House. Such procedures 
shall govern the conduct of the hearings, unless overruled by a vote of 
a majority of the Members present.
    E. For purposes of hearings held pursuant to these rules, a quorum 
shall consist of ten Members of the Committee.
    F. Information obtained by the Committee pursuant to letter 
request, subpoena, deposition, or interrogatory shall be considered as 
taken in executive session unless it is received in an open session of 
the Committee. The Chairman is authorized to determine whether other 
materials received by the Committee shall be deemed executive session 
material.
    I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman and members, I have reviewed the 
rules and the procedures that are involved, and if there are 
any of them to be passed out, maybe some of our members would 
like them. We have had them already.
    Mr. Hyde. They were before.
    Mr. Conyers. Let us say that it is critical that the 
subpoena power is shared between the chairman and the ranking 
member, that the rules track the Watergate provisions; and on 
this score, we are quite satisfied with the procedures.
    I would urge that the members join in support.
    I would like to particularly thank the chairman and his 
chief of staff, Tom Mooney, for the cooperation that they gave 
to our staff in crafting this important set of rules.
    Mr. Hyde. I want to thank the ranking member and thank his 
staff for their cooperation, as well.
    The question occurs on the motion to adopt the committee 
rules.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hyde. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Very briefly, I will vote for these rules. But 
I would like to note that how we will operate is not just the 
rules we adopt, but how we act. These are the same rules that 
were in use in 1974.
    I would note that in 1974 that never once was a subpoena 
requested by either side appealed to the full committee. I am 
hopeful that that cooperation would again be the pattern of 
this proceeding.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Hyde. I thank the gentlewoman.
    The question occurs on the motion to adopt the committee 
rules of procedure.
    All those in favor vote aye.
    Opposed, no.
    Without objection----
    Ms. Waters. No.
    Mr. Hyde. One no. The ayes have it.
    Without objection, the staff is directed to make technical 
and conforming changes.
    The committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 7:58 p.m., the committee adjourned.]