STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN E. BUYER

THE OFFENSES CHARGED IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

ATTACK THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

RE IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION AND REMOVAL OF

PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE ON

SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 1999

Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, Counsel for the President:

I am Steve Buyer a representative from the 5th District in the State of Indiana. This morning the managers on the part of the House are going to present why the offenses you have been hearing about over the course of the last two days require the President's removal from office. I will discuss why the offenses attack the judicial system, which is a core function of the government and how perjury and obstruction of justice are not private acts, these are public crimes, and therefore are quintessential impeachable offenses. For the President's premeditated assault on the administration of justice must be interpreted as a threat to our system of government. I will be followed by Mr. Manager Graham, who will discuss the precedents in impeachment cases and by Mr. Manager Canady on how these felonies rise to the level of a "high crime and misdemeanor" as envisioned by the Founding Fathers and why they warrant his removal from office.

While this is Day Three of our presentation, it is important for the Senate to be fully informed as to the facts, the law, and the consequences.

For a reiteration of the facts, on May 27, 1997, the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that Mrs. Jones could pursue her federal civil rights actions against William Jefferson Clinton. On December 11, 1997, United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright ordered President Clinton to provide Mrs. Jones with answers to certain routine questions relevant to the lawsuit. Acting under the authority of these court orders, Mrs. Jones exercised her rights--rights that every litigant has under our system of justice. She sought answers from President Clinton to help her prove her case against him--just as President Clinton sought and received answers from her. President Clinton used numerous means to prevent her from getting truthful answers.

On December 17, 1997, he encouraged a witness to file a false affidavit in the case and to testify falsely if she were called to testify in this case...because truthful testimony would have helped Mrs. Jones. On December 23, 1997, he provided, under oath, false written answers to Mrs. Jones' questions. On December 18, 1997, President Clinton began an effort to get the witness to conceal evidence that would have helped Mrs. Jones. Throughout this period, he intensified efforts to provide the witness with help in getting a job to ensure that she carried out his designs.

On January 17, 1998, President Clinton provided, under oath, numerous false answers to Mrs. Jones' questions during his deposition. In the days immediately following the deposition, President Clinton provided a false and misleading account to another witness, his secretary, Betty Currie, in hopes that she would substantiate the false testimony he gave in the deposition. These actions denied Mrs. Jones her rights as a litigant, subverted the fundamental truth seeking function of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and violated President Clinton's constitutional oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and his constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Beginning shortly after his deposition, President Clinton became aware that a federal grand jury empaneled by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was investigating his actions before and during his civil deposition. President Clinton made numerous false statements to potential grand jury witnesses in hopes that they would repeat these statements to the grand jury. On August 17, 1998, President Clinton appeared before the grand jury by video and, under oath, provided numerous false answers to the questions asked. These actions impeded the grand jury's investigation, subverted the fundamental truth seeking function of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and they also violated President Clinton's constitutional oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and his constitutional duty as the Chief Executive Officer to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

[PAUSE]

Now, you will hear next week from the President's lawyers that the offenses charged by the House are not impeachable. In other words: even if the allegations are true, so what? [I call this the so-what defense....I find this offensive, and the Senate should, too.] Well, it is the position of the House that what the President did -- does matter--that by his actions the President did commit "high crimes and misdemeanors." The House is prepared to establish that President William Jefferson Clinton willfully and repeatedly violated the rule of law and abused the trust placed upon him by the American people.

[PAUSE]

Now let me address how the offenses charged in the Articles of Impeachment attack the judicial system.

The offenses as charged in the Articles of Impeachment against our system of government are at the core of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors. Perjury and obstruction of justice are, therefore, quintessential impeachable offenses. Indeed, it is precisely their public nature that makes them offenses -- acts that are not crimes when committed outside the judicial realm become crimes when they enter that judicial realm.

Lying to one's spouse about an extramarital affair is not a crime. But, telling that same lie under oath before a federal judge as a defendant in a civil rights sexual harrasment lawsuit is a crime.

Hiding gifts given to conceal the affair is not a crime. But when those gifts are part of a subpoena in a judicial proceeding, the act of hiding the gifts becomes a crime.

Our law has consistently recognized that perjury subverts the judicial process. It strikes at our nation's most fundamental value--the rule of law. In Commentaries on the Laws of England, Sir William Blackstone differentiated between crimes that [quote] "more directly infringe the rights of the public or commonwealth, taken in its collective capacity," and "those which in a more peculiar manner injure individuals or private subjects."[end quote] This book was widely recognized by the Founding Fathers such that James Madison described Blackstone's work as [quote] "a book which is in every man's hand."[end quote]

Blackstone's private category contained crimes such as murder, burglary, and arson. The public category, however, catalogued crimes that could only be understood as an assault upon the state. Within a subcategory denominated [quote] "offenses against the public justice,"[end quote] Blackstone included the crimes of perjury and bribery. In fact, in his catalogue of "public justice" offenses, Blackstone places perjury and bribery side-by-side.

The Constitution recognizes that truth-telling under oath is central to the maintenance of our republic. Oaths are mentioned in the Constitution on at least five separate occasions, not the least of which is the President's own oath to defend the Constitution. Article I, Section 3 sets forth the requirement that the Senate be under oath when trying cases of impeachment. Article 2, Section 1 specifically prescribes the oath which must be taken before our president enter on the Execution of his office.

The right against self-incrimination under the Constitution derives in some measure from the republic's interest in preserving truth-telling under oath. Forced testimony is forbidden because it might lead many to violate their most solemn obligations and over time weaken the essential civic norm of the fidelity to that oath. The Framers took the significance of the oath very seriously.

The crime of perjury was among the few offenses that the First Congress outlawed by statute, and that affirms the Framers' view of its seriousness. In 1790, in a statute entitled "An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," Congress made the crime of perjury punishable by imprisonment of up to three years, a fine of up to $800, disqualification from giving future testimony, and "stand[ing] in the pillory for one hour." Today perjury is punishable by up to five years imprisonment in a federal penitentiary.

Likewise, the Supreme Court has repeatedly noted the extent to which perjury subverts the judicial process, and thus the rule of law. For example, in the 1976 case of United States v. Mandujano (MAN-DO-HAN-O), the Supreme Court emphasized:

Perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restraints against this type of egregious offense are therefore imperative. . . . Hence, Congress has made the giving of false answers a criminal act punishable by severe penalties; in no other way can criminal conduct be flushed into the open where the law can deal with it.

Moreover, it is obvious that any testimony given to a grand jury must be truthful. As the Supreme Court stated in 1911 in the case of Glickstein v. United States: "it cannot be conceived that there is power to compel the giving of testimony where no right exists to require that the testimony shall be given under such circumstances and safeguards as to compel it to be truthful." Indeed, giving false material testimony to a grand jury -- perjuring oneself -- totally destroys the value of one's testimony and interferes with the ability of a grand jury to accomplish its mission, which is to find the truth. Perjury before a grand jury is a crime against our system of government and the American people. And in the case before us it is perjury upon perjury.

[PAUSE]

You will no doubt hear from the defense that this is just about an illicit affair. In the Preamble of the President's answer to the Articles of Impeachment it states: [quote] "The charges in the two Articles of Impeachment do not permit the conviction and removal from office of a duly elected President. The President has acknowledged conduct with Ms. Lewinsky that was improper."[end quote] This is an attempt to trivalize the facts in this case. You will hear the President's lawyers remark that the view of the Founders is quaint, but really not applicable to these settings today.

This case is about an unanimous Supreme Court decision to allow an American citizen to pursue a lawsuit against the President, to seek the truth and a fair trial in a court of law.

[PAUSE]

Let's look at a few very recent examples, to see if the view of the seriousness of telling the truth under oath as envisioned by the Founding Fathers has changed.

United States v Landi, Eastern District of Virginia, 1997. The defendant was convicted on 2 counts of perjury, one for lying in a declaration she made during a civil forfeiture case and the other for lying to a grand jury in a related criminal investigation. Here is what the judge said:

...the defendant committed perjury on two separate occasions. There can be no question of it being done by mistake, and perjury is perhaps one of the most serious offenses that can be committed against the court itself. And the court does not believe that it's appropriate to consider probation in the case of somebody who's been convicted of perjury.

United States v. Vincent Bono, District of New Hampshire, 1998

The defendant was found guilty of lying before a grand jury in trying to cover his stepson's involvement in a robbery the grand jury was investigating. Here is what the judge had to say about lying before a grand jury:

As a policy matter, they (Congress) don't want people lying to grand juries. They particularly don't want people lying to grand juries about criminal offenses. They particularly don't want people lying to grand juries about criminal offenses that are being investigated. They don't like that. And Congress has said we as a people are going to tell you if you do that, you're going to jail, and you're going to jail for a long time. And if you don't get the message, we'll send you to jail again. May be others will. But we're not going to have people coming to grand juries and telling lies because of their children or their mothers or fathers or themselves. It's just not acceptable. The system can't work that way.

United States v. Ronald Blackley [BLACK - LEY], District of Columbia, 1998

The defendant, the former Chief of Staff to the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, was found guilty at trial of three counts of making false statements to the government in connection with his official duties. Here is what the judge had to say:

In my view providing a false statement under oath is a serious offense. The fact that the proceeding is civil or administrative does not make the crime less serious. We cannot fairly administer any kind of system of justice in this country if we do not penalize those who lie under oath.

The defendant stands before me as a high ranking government official convicted of making false statements under oath. This is such a serious crime that it demands an even longer term of imprisonment in this Court's view. This Court has a duty to send a message to other high level government officials, that there is a severe penalty to be paid for providing false information under oath. There is a strong reason to deter such conduct, and to dispel all the nonsense that's being publicly discussed and debated about the seriousness of lying under oath by government officials. A democracy like ours depends on people having trust in our government and its officials.

These three cases make very clear that lying under oath is as serious today in the 106th Congress as it was in 1790, in the First Congress when it enacted the perjury statute. The First Congress recognized the seriousness of perjury and its attack on the judicial system.

[PAUSE]

Now I want to discuss Article II, obstruction of justice, and how it is an attack on our judicial system. In either a criminal or a civil case, obstruction undermines the judicial system's ability to vindicate legal rights. If it is allowed to go unchecked, then the system will become a farce and ultimately a test of which side is better at using underhanded methods. Accordingly, federal courts have called the federal obstruction of justice statute "one of the most important laws ever adopted" in that it prevents the "miscarriage of Justice."

Black's Law Dictionary defines obstruction of justice as "[i]mpeading or obstructing those who seek justice in a court, or those who have duties or powers of administering justice therein." Not only is obstruction of justice its own crime in the federal criminal code, but in addition, the Federal Sentencing guidelines increase the sentence of a convicted defendant who has "willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing" of his offense. The commentary to the Guidelines specifically list as examples of obstruction actions the House alleges that President Clinton has committed, including "committing, suborning, or attempting to suborn perjury" and "destroying or concealing or directing or procuring another person to destroy or conceal evidence that is material to an official investigation or judicial proceeding..."

At a hearing on the Background and History of Impeachment as part of the House impeachment inquiry, Judge Griffin Bell, who was appointed to the Federal bench by President John Kennedy, and served as the United States Attorney General under President Carter, said that [quote] "I have thought about this a great deal. This is a serious matter. Trifling with the Federal courts is serious, and I guess I am biased because I used to be a Federal judge. But I cannot imagine that it wouldn't be a serious crime to lie in a Federal grand jury or to lie before a Federal judge, and that is where I come down." [end quote]

Judge Bell went on to say that [quote]"...And all the civil rights cases that I was in in the South depended on the integrity of the Federal court and the Federal court orders and people telling the truth and fairness. Truth and fairness are the two essential elements in a justice system, and all of these statutes I mentioned, perjury, tampering with a witness, obstruction of justice, all deal in the interests of truth. If we don't have truth in the judicial process and in the court system in our country, we don't have anything. We don't have a system." [end quote]

[PAUSE]

As you can see according to Judge Bell, "truth and fairness" are the two cornerstones of our judicial system....President Clinton violated both of these bedrock principles.

[PAUSE]

Finally, Judge Bell spoke to the issue if a President ever was convicted of a felony: [quote]"If the President were indicted and convicted of a felony, such as perjury or obstruction of justice or witness tampering, before impeachment proceedings began, would anyone argue that he should continue to be President? I don't think so. If the President were subsequently indicted and convicted of a felony, which the Constitution clearly allows, would anyone argue that he should continue to be President? I don't think so. [add emphasis -- chart] A President cannot faithfully execute the laws if he himself is breaking them. The statutes against perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering rest on vouchsafing the element of truth in judicial proceedings -- civil and criminal -- and particularly in the grand jury. Allegations of this kind are grave indeed." [end quote]

[ chart] To borrow the words of Constitutional scholar Charles J. Cooper, the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, like the crimes of treason and bribery, are quintessentially offenses against our system of government, visiting injury immediately on society itself, whether or not committed in connection with the exercise of official government powers. In a society governed by the rule of law, perjury and obstruction of justice simply cannot be tolerated because these crimes subvert the very judicial processes on which the rule of law so vitally depends.

It is no exaggeration to say that our Constitution, and the American people, entrust to the President singular responsibility for enforcing the rule of law. Perjury and obstruction of justice strike at the heart of the rule of law. A President who has committed these crimes has plainly and directly violated his most important executive duty. The core of the President's constitutional responsibilities is his duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' And because perjury and obstruction of justice strike at the rule of law itself, it is difficult to imagine crimes that more clearly or directly violate this core presidential constitutional duty. When President Clinton had the opportunity to personally uphold the rule of law, to uphold the truth seeking function of the courts, to uphold fairness in judicial proceedings, he failed. Far from taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, if a President is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, he has himself faithlessly subverted the very law that the rest of us are called upon to obey.

[PAUSE]

You will hear arguments that perjury and obstruction don't really have much consequence in this case, that these are not impeachable offenses because it was a private matter. I would like to arm you with the facts. According to the United States Sentencing Commission, in 1997, 182 Americans were sentenced in federal court for committing perjury. Also, in 1997, 144 Americans were sentenced in federal court for obstruction and witness tampering. In the same year, the state of California brought 4,318 perjury prosecutions. There are now at least 115 persons serving sentences for perjury in federal prisons. Where is the fairness to these Americans if they stay in jail and President stays in the Oval Office?

If the allegations in the Independent Counsel's referral were made against a sitting federal judge, would not the Senate convict? If William Jefferson Clinton were a sitting federal judge, would not the Senate convict? While my colleague, Mr. Manager Graham will look into this further, let's look briefly at precedent. When we bring up the issues regarding the impeachment of former Federal judges Mr. Claiborne and Mr. Nixon,, and one standard was used: high crimes and misdemeanors. The Senate said the one standard that applies to the President and Vice President will also apply to these Federal judges and other civil officers.

You see, in the defense of Judges Claiborne and Nixon, the defense lawyers in the trial in the Senate argued that the Federal judges should be treated differently from the President, that they could not be impeached for private misbehavior, because it is extrajudicial. The Senate rejected that proposition as incompatible with common sense and the orderly conduct of government. And I believe this Senate will do the very same thing to the President's defense. Federal judges and the President should be treated by the same standard: impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.

[PAUSE]

Don't be tempted to believe the defense argument that lying under oath about sex doesn't matter. Consider this.... American law makes rape a crime, domestic violence a crime, sexual harassment a civil rights violation, and libel a compensable offense. Without the protections of the perjury and obstruction statutes, none of these rights can be vindicated.

When the President's lawyers try to tell you this case is simply about an illicit affair, that demeans our civil rights laws. If indeed the President is successful in trying to make everyone believe that this case is only about sex, what will the message be from those in this hallowed body who have in the past been passionate advocates of our civil rights laws, whether they be race, gender, religion, or disability? If the evidence gathering process is unimportant in a federal civil rights sexual harassment lawsuit -- remember, that is what is directly at issue in this case -- what message does that send to the women of America?

There are some important questions we need to ask. Are sexual harassment lawsuits, which were designed to vindicate legitimate and serious civil rights grievances of women across America, now somewhat less important than our other civil rights laws? Which of our civil rights laws will fall next? Will we soon decide that the evidence gathering process is unimportant with respect to vindicating the rights of the disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act? Will the evidence gathering process become unimportant with respect to vindicating the voting rights of those discriminated against based on race and national origin? Who will tell the hundreds of federal judges across the nation that the evidence gathering process in these cases is now unimportant?

Consider postal worker Diane Parker who was convicted of perjury and sentenced to 13 months in prison for making a false material declaration during a discovery deposition in a sexual harassment lawsuit. [chart] Judge Lacey Collier said, "one of the most troubling things in our society today is people who raise their hand, take the oath to tell the truth and then fail to do that....This, I hope, is sufficient punishment for you. But more importantly, I hope that it is a deterrence to others. So your story can be taken far and wide to demonstrate to others the seriousness of the responsibility of telling the truth in court proceedings."

The Senate must now determine whether it is acceptable and whether it is appropriate to set a precedent to have an individual serve as President of the United States, when that individual has committed serious felonies against our system of government while holding that office.

[PAUSE]

While we have been discussing how perjury and obstruction of justice are attacks on our judicial system, we must recognize how the judicial system is a core function of the government. When Mr. Manager Henry Hyde speaks of the rule of law protecting us from that knock on the door at 3:00 a.m., what exactly is he referring to? Well, in totalitarian societies, the rulers may drag the ruled off to prison at any time for any reason. Our system differs because we require our rulers to go through a judicial procedure before they put someone in prison or otherwise violate their rights. The President's offenses assault the administration of this judicial procedure. As such, they constitute an assault on a core function of the government and repudiate our most basic social contract. A core function of the government derives its role from the social contract that our civilized society has under which a fundamental exchange of rights takes place.

We give up the right to exercise brute force to settle disputes, a situation where chaos reigns and the strongest most often prevail. Instead, we submit to the power delegated to the state under which an individual then submits, to the governmental processes as part of the social contract. Indeed, when conflict arises in our society, we as individuals are compelled via the social contract to take disputes to our third branch of government, the courts. The judicial branch of government then peacefully decides which party is entitled to judgement in their favor after a full presentation of truthful evidence.

Implicit in the social contract that we enter into as a civilized society is the principle that the weak are equally entitled as the strong to equal justice under law. Despite the tumbling tides of politics, ours is a government of laws and not men. It was the inspired vision of our Founding Fathers that the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches of government would work together to preserve the rule of law. The United States Constitution requires the judicial branch to apply the law equally and fairly to both the weak and the strong.

Once we as a society -- and particularly our leaders -- no longer submit to the social contract, and no longer pay deference to our third branch of government -- which is equally as important as the legislative and executive branches of the government - we begin to erode the rule of law and begin to erode the social contract of the great American experiment.

[chart] That's why Judge Bell stated: [quote] "A President cannot faithfully execute the laws if he himself is breaking them." [end quote]

The administration of justice is a core function of the government precisely because of the importance we place on the fair resolution of disputes and on whom and for how long a person will be denied liberty for violating our criminal laws. Any assault on the administration of justice must be interpreted as a threat to our system of government. Our President, who is our chief executive and chief law enforcement officer and who alone is delegated the task under our Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," cannot and must not be permitted to engage in such an assault on the administration of justice. The Articles of Impeachment adopted by the House of Representatives establish an abuse of the public trust and betrayal of the social contract in that the President is alleged to have repeatedly placed his personal interests above the public interest and violated his Constitutional duty. For if he is allowed to escape conviction by the Senate, we would allow our President to set the example for lawlessness. We would allow our President to serve as an example of the erosion of the concept of the social contract embraced and embodied by our Constitution. I don't believe this Senate will allow that to happen.

[PAUSE]

As you undertake your examination of the facts, the law, and your precedents, the Senate must weigh carefully its judgement, for the consequences are profound: Should the Senate choose to acquit it must be prepared to accept a lower standard, a bad precedent, and a double standard. However, should the Senate choose to convict, it will be reinforcing high standards for high office, maintaining existing precedents, and upholding the principle of equal justice under law?

[PAUSE]

I think it is important to pause and look at the Constitutional duties of the President of the United States. The President is reposed with a special trust by the American people. The President is a physical embodiment of America and the hope and freedom for which she stands. When the President goes abroad, he is honored as the head of a sovereign nation...the nation is acknowledged, not just the individual who occupies the Office of the President.

As Commander in Chief, the President plays a unique and indispensable role in the chain of command. In Federalist 74, Alexander Hamilton stated that [quote] "of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities, which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand."[quote]

It is universally agreed that the President, in his role as Commander -in-Chief, is not an actual member of the military. However, as the "single hand" that guides the actions of the Armed Services, it is incumbent that the President exhibit sound, responsible leadership and set a proper example when acting as the Commander-in Chief.

That leadership is at the core of the issue before us today. In order to be an effective leader, an effective military leader, the President must exhibit the traits that inspire those who must risk their lives at his command. These traits include honor, integrity and accountability.

Admiral Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his submitted testimony in the impeachment inquiry stated it this way: [quote]"Military leaders also serve as role models for honorable and virtuous conduct."[end quote]

Veracity and truthfulness are important components of a leader's character. In order to have the trust of their subordinates, military leaders must have honor and be truthful in all things. That trust, that bond between the leaders and the led, is an essential element of any successful military organization.

The President' s own self-inflicted wounds have called his credibility into question. While a President's decisions are always critiqued, he receives the benefit of the doubt in the decision making process that he was placing the interests of the country above his own. Through his actions, the President has forfeited that benefit.

The lack of trust in the President's motives, his veracity and his judgement is inherently corrosive and can only have a detrimental effect on our military and our credibility overseas. This corrosion is difficult to measure, for it cannot be quantified easily in a readiness report or training exercise. But in squadbays and wardrooms around the world, there can be heard whispers and conversations of those who know that if they had been merely accused of the same offenses, their careers would have ended long ago.

This is the intangible effect that the President's actions have had on our military. We cannot ignore the fact that the Commander-in-chief's conduct sets a poor example to the men and women of the U.S. military. Worse, we cannot ignore the idea that to acquit the President would create a double standard.

The Constitution directs this body to provide advice and consent to the President's nominations for military officers. As is your responsibility, the Senate has set high standards of conduct for these officers. The Senate has in the past, and likely will again, reject those whose moral and legal misconduct make them unsuitable to be officers in the United States military.

Let me indulge in a hypothetical example. An officer is nominated by the President for promotion to the rank of Major. After the list is submitted, but before confirmation, an investigation of the individual's background results in a report that mirrors the allegations in the Office of Independent Counsel referral. [prop] Under a careful review of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that officer would be charged with the following offenses:

Article 105 -- False Swearing -- 3 years

Article 107 -- False Official Statement -- 5 years

Article 131 -- Perjury -- 5 years

Article 133 -- Conduct unbecoming an Officer

Article 134 -- Obstructing justice -- 5 years

Article 134 -- Subornation of perjury -- 5 years

Article 134 -- Prevent seizure of property -- 1 year

Article 134 -- Soliciting another to commit an offense -- 5 years

Needless to say, the Senate would insist on this hypothetical officer's removal from the promotion list. The service would certainly relieve him of his duties.

In every warship, every squadbay, every headquarters building through out the United States military, the picture of the Commander-in-Chief hangs at the apex of the pyramid that is the military chain of Command. All over the world, military personnel look at the current picture and know that, if accused of the same offenses as their Commander in chief, they would no longer be deserving of the privilege to serve in the military..

Some would say that this does not matter -- that words like duty, honor, and veracity are just words -- they do not matter -- that nobody lives their lives that way -- that these actions do not rise to the level needed to remove a president from office. In his farewell speech to the cadets at West Point, General Douglas McArthur stated that [quote]"The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase. Every pendant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every troublemaker, and I am sorry to say, some others of an entirely different character, will try to downgrade them to the extent of mockery and ridicule."[end quote]

The ideal object must be held high, even though we recognize humans are not perfect. No matter how great we aspire, we will occasionally fail. But there must be the pursuit of such ideals. We cannot degrade our standards. By a conviction the Senate will be upholding a high and lofty standard for our military leaders, rather than a lower standard for the President, the Commander in Chief.

[PAUSE]

Let me turn to the President's responsibility to see that "the laws are faithfully executed." According to scholar Philip B. Kurland, it was probably George Washington, rather than the Constitution, that is responsible for our hierarchy of cabinet offices that have been taken for granted since the early days of the Republic. By the Constitution's charge and by custom and legislation, it is accepted practice that the executive branch is an entity for which the President is responsible both to Congress and to the public. [quote] "The whole of the executive branch acts subordinately to the command of the President in the administration of federal laws, so long as they act within the terms of those laws. Their offices confer no right to violate the laws, whether they take the form of constitution, statute, or treaty."[end quote]

The President's Departments of Treasury and Justice seek to bring to account those who disturb our "domestic tranquility." Whether drug pushers or unabombers, gangsters or mobsters, church arsonists or violators of constitutional rights, the dedicated men and women of the FBI, DEA, Customs, Secret Service, BATF, INS , the U.S. Marshals Office; they all pursue them, methodically, thoughtfully, firmly, doggedly, applying the law while risking their lives to uphold the rule of law for our peace and security. They seek to ensure equal justice under law.

In The Imperial Presidency, Professor Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. states: [quote] "The continuation of a lawbreaker as chief magistrate would be a strange way to exemplify law and order at home or to demonstrate American probity before the world." [end quote] By a conviction, the Senate will be upholding the high calling of law enforcement in protecting the rule of law and equal justice under the law.

Equal Justice Under Law....that principle so embodies the American constitutional order that we have carved it in stone on the front of our Supreme Court. The carving shines like a beacon from the highest sanctum of the Judicial Branch across to the Capitol, the home of the Legislative Branch, and down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, the home of the Executive Branch. It illuminates our national life and reminds those other branches that despite the tumbling tides of politics, ours is a government of laws and not of men. It was the inspired vision of our founders and framers that the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches would work together to preserve the rule of law.

But "Equal Justice Under Law" amounts to much more than a stone carving. Although we cannot see or hear it, this living, breathing force has real consequences in the lives of average citizens every day. It allows us to claim the assistance of the government when someone has wronged us--even if that person is stronger or wealthier or more popular than we are. In America, unlike other countries, when the average citizen sues the Chief Executive of our nation, they stand equal before the bar of justice. The Constitution requires the judicial branch of our government to apply the law equally to both. That is the living consequence of "Equal Justice Under Law."

The President of the United States must work with the Judicial and Legislative branches to sustain that force. The temporary trustee of that office, William Jefferson Clinton, worked to defeat it. When he stood before the bar of justice, he acted without authority to award himself the special privileges of lying and obstructing to gain an advantage in a federal civil rights action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and in a federal grand jury investigation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. His resistance brings us to this most unfortunate juncture.

So "Equal Justice Under Law" lies at the heart of this matter. It rests on three essential pillars: an impartial judiciary, an ethical bar, and a sacred oath. If litigants profane the sanctity of the oath, "Equal Justice Under Law" loses its protective force.

[PAUSE]

The House, as does the Senate, has a responsibility to uphold the Constitution. We have all taken oaths to defend the Constitution. The Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances, a system of accountability between the functions of government. The Founding Fathers knew the nature of the human heart....that it struggles between good and evil. We recognize that no person has perfect virtue. We each have our human failings. The Founders could foresee a time when corruption could invade the institutions of government, and provided a means to address it. The impeachment proceeding is one such means.

We are seeking to defend the rule of law. America is a "government of laws, and not of men." What protects us from the knock on the door in the middle of the night? The law. What ensures the rights of the weak and the powerless against the powerful? The law. What provides rights to the poor against the rich? The law. What upholds the rightness of the minority view against the popular, but wrong? The law.

As Andrew Jackson wrote, "the great can protect themselves, but the poor and humble require the arm and shield of the law."

[PAUSE]

When our nation began its journey in history over 200 years ago, the United States was nearly unique in depending on the rule of law, as opposed to the rule by kings, or czars, or chieftains. Now that our unique experiment has been proved, the rest of the world seeks to follow our lead...government by the rule of law.

For the sake of ourselves and for the sake of generations yet unborn, we must preserve the rule of law.

I will leave you with the words of the First President of the Senate, and the Second President of our nation, John Adams:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

[PAUSE -- relax]

The facts are stubborn. President Clinton lied, under oath.

President Clinton committed perjury, repeatedly, willfully, premediatedly.

President Clinton obstructed justice, by tampering with evidence and witnesses.

These are offenses against our judicial branch of government. They are an affront to the rule of law.

Historically, and in keeping with the precedents of the Senate in impeachment cases, perjury and obstruction of justice are impeachable offenses.

I urge the Senate, for the sake of generations yet unborn, to follow the facts, follow the law and follow the precedents, and convict and remove President William Jefferson Clinton from the Office of the President of the United States.

I now turn to my colleague, Mr. Manager Graham.