Maybe we will hear about bribery, not in the context of receiving, but in giving; why the public policy against the bribing of a witness is any less important than when one tampers with that witness.

Or perhaps we will hear, would the President, if he were to have to give sworn impeachment testimony before the Senate, would he be obligated to tell the truth there?

Or maybe we will today find somewhere in our great Constitution the congressional power we have been missing over the past two centuries to reprimand or censure the President. Now, that will come in handy the next time he vetoes the partial-birth abortion ban.

But at the end of the day, Congress will stand alone in its duty to uphold the Constitution and judge whether, if proven, the President of the United States, the chief law enforcement officer of the land, who appoints the Attorney General of the United States and her 93 United States Attorneys who enforce the Federal law across this country, the President who himself has a constitutional duty under Article II, section 3, to see that our laws are faithfully executed, and the President who himself takes an oath to faithfully execute this office and defend the Constitution, we have that decision alone to judge whether he has committed several Federal criminal law violations with the effect of abusing the office of the presidency and working grave injury to the entire government, and specifically the judicial branch of the government.

I will close, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening these hearings, and remind all here, as Edmund Burke said in 1795, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." And I thank the Chair.

Mr. CANADY. Thank you.

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, is now recognized.

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member.

Last month the Judiciary Committee decided to proceed with an inquiry to impeach the President of the United States without ever holding a single hearing to determine what may or may not constitute an impeachable offense. At that time, I warned this body that increasingly Americans were becoming more suspicious of their government and our ability to be fair. Confirming my warning, last Tuesday the voters sent us a clear message: Americans want fairness first.

For months, Democrats asked Republicans to hold hearings to discuss the constitutional standards for impeachment. We argued that the power to impeach a President should not be casually used to remove a President or overturn an election simply because we don't like him or his policies. Indeed, Alexander Hamilton warned, quote, "There will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstration of innocence or guilt."

Impeachment is a constitutional matter of the highest importance and should be addressed with the utmost care and deliberations. Today's long-awaited hearing is more than a platform for learned scholars to pontificate about the Constitution. It is the Ju

diciary Committee's first real discussion about the history of impeachment and the standard for impeaching Presidents.

Had my colleagues on the other side of the aisle adopted the Democratic fairness plan, this committee would have already discussed the constitutional standards for impeaching a President. We would have already heard from our distinguished panelists, assessed the standards for high crimes and misdemeanors, and analyzed the allegations raised by the Independent Counsel under these standards. The entire impeachment process could have already been completed if this committee had listened to the wisdom of over 400 historians, over 400 legal scholars, 10 out of 12 of the Nation's most respected legal minds, and the American people.

Our constitutional history and common sense tells us that in order for a President to be impeached, there must be a nexus between the office of the presidency and the abuse of power. Reasonable minds agree that looking at the Constitution should have been our first priority. As Members of Congress, we have the responsibility to determine what constitutes impeachable offenses. We cannot rely on an Independent Counsel who failed to identify what standard of impeachment be applied in his 445 page referral, even after spending over $118,000 in fees for a constitutional expert and over $40 million of the taxpayers' dollars, $118,400 in fees for a constitutional expert and over $40 million of the taxpayers' dollars. I am happy that today's panel of scholars are providing their services for free.

The Democratic witnesses before us today were chosen not because of their ideology but because they are among the most respected in their fields. I am pleased to point out that all of our witnesses are constitutional experts. We have two Pulitzer prize winners and a legal scholar who has argued 28 cases before the Supreme Court. I highlight their credentials because it is important that the public understands that we have summoned the Nation's most respected minds to participate in our crucial decision.

The outcome of today's hearings will have great impact on future impeachment proceedings. We must remember that the standard for impeachment was set sufficiently high because the framers did not want the legislative branch to remove a President on a whim. Today's scholars will debate many issues, among which is whether the standard to impeach a Federal judge is the same for a presidential impeachment.

Let me say, in the words of George Mason, the man who proposed the high crimes and misdemeanors language adopted by the framers, Impeachment should be reserved for actions that are "great and dangerous offenses," "attempts to subvert the Constitution," and for only "the most extensive injustice."

In the final analysis, the real question is whether or not the American Constitution will be upheld. Is this remarkable document strong enough to survive a highly charged, politically partisan environment where the passions run high and the hatred is evident? Will we be able to put aside partisan politics in the interest of honoring the true meaning and intent of the Constitution?

Reasonable minded voters and esteemed scholars agree, a lie about a consensual sexual affair does not constitute an impeachable offense. As Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I have

insisted on making fairness our top priority. From the moment the Office of the Independent Counsel delivered the referral to this committee, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus have assigned ourselves the role of fairness cop because our history demands we ensure that this process recognizes the rights of everyone involved.

The American people are indeed watching us. They sent us a clear and simple message last Tuesday: Move on with the people's business. Let us not step on our constitutional legacy or violate fundamental fairness to appease the appetites of extremists.

I look forward to hearing the views of the panelists on the constitutional standard for impeachment, and to what I hope will be the first true bipartisan effort of this committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CANADY. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Jenkins, is recognized.

Mr. JENKINS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the committee for holding this hearing and for bringing this distinguished panel of witnesses here to help us in doing the duty that has been thrust upon us, and thanks to all of the witnesses for devoting your valuable time and talents to helping us fulfill our responsibilities here today.

It is apparent from studying all of the material that has been made available to us that opinions have varied. Opinions varied among the Founding Fathers, and opinions have varied among all of those who have considered the subject of impeachment, about what acts constitute an impeachable offense. And I suspect that at the end of this day, that those opinions will still be varied.

Well, what is coming in clear focus as we progress in this process is that each impeachment case is pretty much like a fingerprint, it has its own unique characteristics; and that every citizen must have some private life that is not open to constant scrutiny, and that includes the President of the United States; that we cannot turn our heads from serious offenses of the law by any citizen, and that giving false testimony under oath, whether it be in a deposition or whether it be before a grand jury, is so detrimental to our system of justice that it absolutely cannot be ignored.

I will listen carefully and respectfully to what every participant has to say here today, and I will give every witness's testimony earnest consideration. The opinions we hear today will be important, but in the end the committee will be left with the responsibility to apply the Constitution, the laws, in light of all of the precedents and opinions that we have in a fair, impartial and nonpartisan manner.

If we do this, we will be fulfilling our responsibility and obligations to do what is best for this Nation and for all of its citizens. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CANADY. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, is recognized.

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today, after months grandstanding and accusations, this committee will finally get around to examining what is, and has been, the mandate of the Constitution on the question of presidential impeachment.

I assume that my colleagues in the majority who pride themselves on being strict constructionists will agree that a standard of impeachment is not something that we can just pull out of the air to seize the political moment. The standard is embodied in the language of the Constitution and in centuries of precedent, up to and including the vote of this committee in 1974 to report articles of impeachment against President Nixon.

We have an obligation to the Constitution and to the American people to be fair and to accord due process to every individual involved in this matter, including the President. I would remind my colleagues that while the President is not above the law, neither is he below the law. He is entitled to the same fairness and due process as every other citizen.

What does due process mean? It means, among other things, the right to be informed of the law, of the charges against you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel.

The purpose of today's hearing is to help define the law. What is an impeachable offense? How do the accusations against the President, if proven, compare with that standard?

After we conclude this hearing, what will this committee do? Will we consider the allegations against the President to determine whether any of them, if proven true, meet the standard of an impeachment offense?

Clearly, if we determine that none of the allegations, if proven, are impeachable offenses, that would be the end of the matter and no evidentiary hearing would be necessary. And if we determine that some of the allegations, if proven, would be impeachable offenses, then we could narrow the scope and length of the evidentiary hearing.

In a criminal trial, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a crime is considered first before the evidence is presented. This is the only way we can deal with this matter both expeditiously and fairly.

Unfortunately, the unilateral approach being pursued by the Republican leadership does not follow such a procedure. Instead of providing due process, we are presented with a procedure more fitting to the 17th century Court of Star Chamber or to a Moscow show trial of the 1930s. The Chairman has asked the President to answer yes or no to a set of 81 questions. The President is being asked to do what no American should ever have to do, to prove his innocence without ever even knowing what charges he will ultimately face.

In America everyone, even the President, is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and everyone, even the President, has the right to know the precise charges against him and to have the opportunity to confront his accusers.

The Chairman has suggested that we should simply accept the testimony of the Grand Jury witnesses because they were, after all, under oath. If we follow the Chairman's advice, we will conclude the inquiry expeditiously, but not fairly, and not without trashing the Constitution and every principle of due process and fundamental fairness that we have held sacred since the Magna Carta.

If the Majority really wants to pursue some or all of the accusations which have emerged from the Starr Chamber, then the Majority will have to drag before us the many private individuals whose lives and privacy have already been invaded and subject them to questioning and cross-examination to determine the truth. There is really no other way to find out the truth, unless the Majority expects this committee to act as a rubber stamp to Mr. Starr's jihad.

I do not believe that the American people want to see private citizens have their privacy invaded even more than it already has been by being dragged before a congressional committee and interrogated in a partisan witch hunt. If the majority is determined to move forward with this inquest, it will ultimately have to choose between rubber stamping Ken Starr's findings or moving forward with the inquisition and calling all of the relevant witnesses for examination and cross-examination.

We do have an alternative which would be both fair and reasonable, which would reflect the finest values embodied in our Constitution, and which I believe would spare us and the Nation the necessity of a lengthy evidentiary hearing. We could decide not to place the cart before the horse. We could make this hearing something more than an academic seminar. We could review the constitutional standard of impeachment, determine whether any of the charges, if proven, would actually meet that standard, and vote on them, up or down.

I do not personally believe any of the allegations meet the standard. I believe if we followed up the hearing with votes on whether the allegations define impeachable offenses, we would avoid the necessity of a further inquisition. That would be both expeditious and fair.

I urge my colleagues to weigh this issue carefully, keeping in mind that what we do today will effect not just this President, not just the private lives of people invaded by this matter, but future Presidents of both parties. We are deciding these issues for future generations as well as for the present, and we need to move with caution and with care.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CANADY. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, is recognized.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing to study the background and history of impeachment. And that is precisely what this hearing is about, an examination of previous impeachment cases and other historical precedents, including the statements of our Founding Fathers.

As we hear from and question the witnesses before us today, I would like to caution my colleagues that the purpose of this hearing is not to determine the standard for impeachment. It would be truly ironic for this subcommittee to use a hearing on the historical impeachment precedents as a means of setting a fixed standard for impeachment, since there is no historical precedent for setting a fixed standard.

The Watergate inquiry staff was exactly right when they wrote in their work, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, that "The House does not engage in abstract, advisory or hy