- - - - - - - - - -
HYDE: And the motion is not agreed to. The
chair recognizes himself for five minutes for purposes of making an opening statement.
This morning, we commence our second public hearing in fulfillment of the mandate imposed
on us in House Resolution 581. While the business of impeachment is rare, and happily so,
it becomes necessary from time to time when circumstances require that it be exercised as
a constitutional counter balance to allegations of serious abuse of presidential power.
It is part of the series of checks and balances that exemplify the genius of our
founding fathers. Throughout our history, we've had a number of impeachment inquiries, but
this one represents a historical first. Never before has an impeachment inquiry arisen
because of a referral from an independent counsel under Section 595(C) of the statute.
For that reason, we have no precedent to follow on the involvement of the independent
counsel in our proceedings. However, it seems both useful and instructive that we should
hear from him since he is the person most familiar with the complicated matters the House
has directed us to review.
We're holding this hearing to learn the facts surrounding this situation, including
those in the referral that Judge Starr sent us September 9, 1998, and to determine whether
those facts justify our voting on articles of impeachment.
Everyone should understand how this process works. Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the sole
power to make accusations known as articles of impeachment. They may do so by a majority
vote.
If the House makes such accusations, they are then sent to the Senate for trial. The
Senate may convict by a two-thirds vote.
Our Founding Fathers wisely determined that one chamber should accuse and the other
should judge.
We began our work on November 9 at the hearing when we were enlightened by the
testimony of two panels of outstanding academics about the history and nature of the
impeachment process. Today the search for the truth continues as we turn to the underlying
facts.
And as we begin that search, we turn to one person, Judge Starr, who has a
comprehensive overview of the complex issues we face. I thought we should have that
overview before we hear from other witnesses.
As we announced earlier this week, we will hear from other witnesses in live hearings
and in depositions as we move towards a final resolution.
In addition, we have yet to hear from the president. And I can assure my
colleagues, if and when the president would want to testify, he may have unlimited time to
do so.
In any event, we are hopeful that the pledge of cooperation we received from his
attorneys will soon be fulfilled.
Let me repeat my New Year's resolution. It's my fervent hope we will be able to
conclude this inquiry before the New Year turns. I'm hopeful that all members will bear
this in mind as we conduct this search for truth will all deliberate speed.
There are many voices telling us to halt this debate, that the people are weary of it
all. There are other voices suggesting we have a duty to debate the many questions raised
by the circumstances in which we find ourselves, questions of high consequence for
constitutional government.
David Broder, writing in The Washington Post yesterday,
suggested that in our hearings, quote, "we will define as a nation the standard of
honesty we're going to impose on our president." Close quote.
What is the significance of a false statement under oath? Is it essentially different
from a garden variety lie? A mental reservation? A fib? An evasion? A little white lie?
Hyperbole?
In a court proceeding, do you assume some trivial responsibility when you raise your
right hand, and swear to God to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth?
And what of the rule of law? -- that unique aspect of a
free society that protects you from the fire on your roof or the knock on your door at
3:00 a.m.? What does lying under oath do to the rule of law?
Do we still have a government of laws and not
of men? Does the law apply to some people with force and ferocity while the powerful
are immune? Do we have one set of laws for the officers and another for the enlisted?
Should we?
These are but a few questions these hearings are intended to explore. And just perhaps,
when the debate is over, the rationalizations and the distinctions and the semantic
gymnastics are put to rest, we may be closer to answering for our generation the haunting question asked 139 years ago in a small
military cemetery in Pennsylvania -- whether a nation
conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal
can long endure.
The chair now recognizes
the minority leader, the ranking member of this committee, Mr. Conyers, for five minutes
for his opening statement.
N E X T+P A G E+| "It is fundamental to the
integrity of this inquiry to examine whether the independent counsel's evidence is
tainted"
CONYERS: Mr. Chairman and my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, we
meet today for only the third time in the history of our nation to take evidence in an
inquiry of impeachment against a president of the United States.
Today's witness, Kenneth W. Starr, wrote the tawdry, salacious and
unnecessarily graphic referral that he delivered to us in September with so much drama and
fanfare. And now the majority members of this committee have called that same prosecutor
forward to testify in an unprecedented desperation effort to breathe new life into a dying
inquiry.
It is fundamental to the integrity of this inquiry to examine whether the independent
counsel's evidence is tainted, whether conclusions are colored by improper motive.
In short, it is relevant to exam the conduct of the independent counsel his staff, for
their behavior impacts directly on the credibility of the evidence in the referral.
For example, the committee must understand whether Mr. Starr
improperly threatened witnesses if they did not provide incriminating evidence against the
president of the United States, whether material to humiliate
the president.
Mr. Chairman and members, contrary to the views that have been expressed by Chairman
Hyde that you expressed in letters to me this week as well, these are not collateral
issues at all. They go to the very heart of Mr. Starr's referral. To turn a blind eye to
these is to continue an unfair and partisan process.
Now no one defends the president's conduct, but even Republican witnesses at our
hearing only last week testified that even if the alleged facts are proven true, they
simply do not amount to impeachable offenses.
The idea of a federally paid sex policeman spending millions of dollars to trap
an unfaithful spouse or the police civil -- or the police civil litigation would have been
unthinkable prior to the Starr investigation.
Let there be no mistake -- it is not now acceptable in
America to investigate a person's private sexual activity. It is not acceptable to force
mothers to testify against their daughters; to make lawyers testify against their clients;
to require Secret Service agents to testify against the people they protect; or to make
book stores tell what books people read.
It is not acceptable for rogue attorneys and investigators to trap a young woman in a
hotel room, discourage her from calling her lawyer, ridicule her when she asked to call
her mother. But the record suggests, I'm sorry to say, that is precisely how Kenneth W.
Starr has conducted this investigation.
An independent counsel must do justice both in the specific matter he's investigating
and through the system of justice as a whole. While an independent counsel can and should
pursue a case with vigor, I and many others believe that Mr. Starr has crossed that line
into obsession.
And when I talk about obsession, sir, I wonder why Mr. Starr encouraged Linda
Tripp to continue to betray and entrap her young, unsuspecting friend and to allow her to
continue her illegal tape recordings without court approval.
And when I talk about obsession, I wonder why Mr. Starr ignored his ethical obligations
and failed to disclose his involvement in the Paula Jones' case which could have
disqualified him from this point of the investigation.
Is it just coincidence that even before he was appointed independent counsel Mr. Starr
was already in contact with lawyers for Paula Jones? Is it just coincidental that Mr.
Starr, until recently, drew $1 million a year salary from his law firm that represents the
tobacco industry, which is fighting President Clinton's effort to deter teen smoking? Is
it just a coincidence that this independent counsel accepted a prestigious job at a
university funded by one of the president's most persistent and vocal critic, Richard
Mellon Scaife?
Is it just a coincidence that the independent counsel failed to provide this committee
with important exculpatory evidence in his referral, casually glossing over the central
part of Monica Lewinksy's testimony when she clearly stated that -- quote -- "No one
promised me a job; no one asked me to lie" -- unquote -- about her relationship.
Perhaps Mr. Starr will persuade us not to be concerned about these matters. But he
surely carries the burden of showing us and the American people that these things did not
affect his fairness nor his impartiality.
Nor do I understand why Mr. Starr declined to provide the Democratic members of
the committee with copies of documents that we've repeatedly requested. Mr. Starr even
says that the president should be impeached because he invokes privilege. But he is quick
to raise the privilege argument when questioned about his own conduct. And did so this
week when Democrats sought documents concerning his conduct.
Over the course of this investigation the independent counsel complained publicly and
still does that a lack of cooperation was impeding his investigation. And yet he has now
afforded members of the committee the same treatment about which he has complained. This
causes us to question Mr. Starr's motives and to lack confidence in his referral.
His conduct over the past week has only reinforced my doubts. On Friday, Mr.
Starr shipped two new boxes of documents to us and announced an indictment dating back to
events occurring before Bill Clinton was even president -- pre-1992.
On Tuesday, the same day that our Republican colleagues suggested that they might want
to expand this impeachment inquiry, contrary to the chairman's stated desire to close it
down, Mr. Starr shipped four new boxes of documents to us.
And last night, we learned that Mr. Starr's now sees it fit for this committee
to consider Whitewater or other alleged improprieties that he didn't see fit to mention in
his referral.
The sense of desperation in the face of a failed impeachment inquiry is palpable.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss in my duties if I did
not observe that to date our committee process has not been bipartisan nor fair. All this
committee has done since September 9th is to in a partisan manner dump salacious grand
jury material on a public that doesn't want it. It was you, Mr. Chairman Hyde, who said
this process could not proceed unless it was bipartisan.
We need to do better than 11th-hour unilateral decisions to subpoena witnesses having
little to do with the underlying referral. We need to do better in offering the president
a full and fair opportunity to participate in these hearings.
We have many questions about the way you conducted your investigation, Mr. Starr.
Fairness dictates that the committee and the American people learn whether you have
created a climate for the purpose of driving a president from office who has twice been
elected by the people of this great nation.
HYDE: I thank the gentleman. Today, our witness is Judge Kenneth W. Starr.
On August 5th, 1994, the Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit appointed Judge Starr to investigate what has become known as
the Whitewater matter. Since that time, Attorney General Reno and the Special Division
added several other matters, including the White House Travel Office and the FBI files
matters to Judge Starr's jurisdiction.
After his submission of evidence, they further added what has become known as the
Lewinsky matter. Judge Starr has a bachelor's degree from the George Washington
University, a master's degree from Brown University and a juris doctor degree from Duke
University.
He then clerked for Judge David Dyer (ph) of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit and Chief Justice Warren Burger of the Supreme Court of the United States.
After serving on President Reagan's transition team, Judge Starr served as counselor to
Attorney General William French Smith from 1981 to 1983. In 1983, President Reagan
nominated him tneral of the United States. As solicitor general, Judge Starr was
responsible for representing the United States before the Supreme Court.
In November 1993, Democrats on the Senate Ethics Committee chose him to serve as a
hearing examiner to review Senator Packwood's diaries for relevant information.
Since August 1994, Judge Starr has conducted the investigation of Whitewater and the
other matters that have been assigned to him by Attorney General Reno and the Special
Division.
That investigation has led to the conviction of 14 persons, including a sitting
governor of Arkansas, in two separate cases; the former No. 3 person in the United States
Department of Justice; and two former business partners of the president. Six other
indictments are currently pending in the courts.
HYDE: More pertinent to today's hearing, Judge Starr's investigation has led to the
first-ever impeachment referral under section 595(c) of the independent counsel statute.
That referral has given rise to the impeachment inquiry we are now conducting.
N E X T+P A G E+| "Is your mike on?"
