pothetical 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 events to which those facts relate." Just as a court cannot define the principles of due process of law or equal protection of the laws without a case or controversy before it, the House cannot define impeachment without a complete examination of the facts.

The Constitution describes impeachment in terms of "Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." However, the Constitution does not define the meaning of those terms. For guidance we must look to historical precedents and the statements of our Founding Fathers, but as the Watergate inquiry report found, "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."

While the framers did not set a fixed standard, we are not completely without guidance in understanding the purpose and scope of impeachment. Throughout the impeachment debates at the Constitutional Convention and later at the State ratifying conventions, one theme is clear: The framers intended impeachment to be a constitutional safeguard of the public trust. From North and South Carolina to New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia, all understood that impeachment was designed as a remedy against Presidents who violate the public trust.

Nowhere in the law is there a code of impeachable offenses. As Members of Congress, our allegiance is to the Constitution of the United States, and our responsibility is to follow the truth wherever it leads. So even if this subcommittee devised a standard for impeachable offenses, as some have called for, it would not be binding on the conscience of any Member of the House who disagreed with that definition. This committee simply cannot tell the House what is or is not an impeachable offense.

In determining whether particular actions should lead to impeachment, they should be examined upon the principles of public policy and duty. This is the model that has been followed throughout our Nation's history, including the judicial impeachments of the 1980s. And it is the model that we should follow to determine whether, in light of the documented allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, the President has violated his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The President has denied those allegations, and he has the opportunity to present evidence to the contrary.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to close with an admonition from former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis which is particularly appropriate in light of the task before us: "In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. If government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself."

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses before us today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CANADY. Thank you, Mr. Goodlatte.

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, is now recognized.

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief and not use the entire 5 minutes because I would like to hear the witnesses at some point today.

I am just delighted that we have finally arrived at this point. Many of us on the committee and outside the committee have been saying that this should have been the starting point for this process, and I have firmly believed that from the very beginning, that if we were truly going to undertake a bipartisan process and if we were truly going to take this out of a political realm and put it into a constitutional realm, we needed to define for our committee and for the American people the constitutional standard that is applicable to what we are going to do. And so it has been my firm belief from day one that we couldn't advance this process in a bipartisan way without having a hearing of this type.

Now, I would have to say that I am disappointed that before we even had the hearing today, several days ago I received a memorandum from the Chairman of the committee which is printed here as if we were all parties to it, and as if it were a bipartisan product with all of the names of the committee members and the official stamp and status of the committee on it, a report by the "Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry" on the "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment," that is the Majority staff, which was published before we even had any hearings of this kind; a further indication, I would submit to my colleagues and to the American people, that we are engaged here and have been engaged in a partisan witch hunt rather than in an effort to pursue a bipartisan resolution and determination of this issue.

So I am so overjoyed that we are finally here today. I wish I had some confidence that what we were doing today in listening to these witnesses was more than an academic exercise, that it was really going to have some impact on this partisan process and the level of partisanship that exists in this committee. But if nothing else, we hope that the American people will finally have a standard other than their personal opinion or their political opinion about the President against which to evaluate any conduct that the President engaged in.

So I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for finally having this hearing, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANADY. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr, is now recognized.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before I go into my opening comments, I would like to let everybody know here at least in the Supreme Court the rule of law still prevails. The court has ruled this morning that presidential confidant Bruce Lindsey and other White House lawyers cannot refuse to answer a Federal Grand Jury's questions about possible criminal conduct by government officials.

Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, many of our decisions we face are relatively easy: balancing the Federal budgets, requiring welfare recipients to work if they are able. However, many of our other choices are not quite so easy. The process we are discussing today is the most serious constitutional action a Congress can

take short of declaring war, and none of us should take this process lightly.

All but the President's ardent apologists agree that he lied to the American people, lied to the court in the Paula Jones case, and lied to a Federal Grand Jury probing his conduct. It is just as evident that he worked to obstruct judicial proceedings by tampering with key witnesses and evidence.

No amount of willful ignorance or rationalization will make these facts go away. We may not like these facts. They may make us sick to our stomachs. They may cause us to question some of our basic presumptions about the President and the presidency, but we must confront them. To do otherwise would be to knowingly treat the President different from the rest of us.

Many of my colleagues on this committee have devoted their lives to fighting inequality and insuring equal justice for all. This is one of the highest causes a Member of Congress can champion. For this reason, I am saddened to see these same members of our committee working tirelessly to return inequality and special treatment to our law in order to protect a President they favor.

Make no mistake about it, the precedents we set in this matter will remain part and parcel of our legal system for years to come, damaging or benefiting us regardless of the political party to which we belong.

All of us who attended church growing up are familiar with the story of Abraham and Isaac. When God demanded that Abraham sacrifice his only son, Abraham was willing to do so because he realized there are truly principles that rise above the life of any one person, no matter how great a love we have for that individual. This is the highest form of devotion, and it is exactly the choice we face today.

If impeaching Bill Clinton is necessary to protect our Constitution and preserve the rule of law, do we have the courage to do it? I hope and pray that the answer is yes. If any other citizen, for example, one Kenneth Starr had perjured himself, even for the best of reasons, I have no doubt that all of us, especially those on the other side of the aisle, would urge his prosecution.

Indeed, the President's own Department of Justice has prosecuted and does prosecute numerous cases of perjury, including one recent case in which a Federal employee lied about sex in a civil suit. As a Federal prosecutor appointed by President Reagan, I convicted and jailed a sitting Republican Member of Congress, of this committee, for perjury. Perjury and obstruction of justice are not partisan issues. They are grave offenses that strike at the heart of our legal system. The principle that all who participate in our court proceedings must tell the truth is the most fundamental underpinning of our society.

At best, today's hearing will cast a dim light around the edges of a term the Founding Fathers intentionally left up to future Congresses to define. Trying to arrive in advance of the evidence at a precise definition of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is the intellectual equivalent of debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, or whether a tree falling in the forest with nobody present makes noise. It may be interesting to engage in such talk around

a coffee table or in an Ivy League ivory tower, but it bears no relationship to the real world of legal or governmental proceedings.

Ultimately the choice of whether or not to vote articles of impeachment rests not with legal scholars or historians, no matter how distinguished their pedigrees or how many ads they take out. The choice is ours, and sooner or later we are going to have to make it or else future generations, families, teachers and prosecutors, will have to pay the price over and over as they cope with generations of liars and perjurers.

In the final analysis, I don't think there are many Members of Congress who can say directly with a straight face that a President can commit numerous felonies and stay in office. Either all the lofty phrases we eagerly repeat mean something or they don't. Either all Americans are equal under the law or some, a new royalty, deserve special treatment.

Let us take this unique opportunity to shape this debate, define the issues and lead the process, rather than continue as so many have to react, respond, pontificate and run out the clock. Our constitutional clock, now a mere 211 years old, must be kept running. You cannot restart it once it dies. Our colleagues 25 years ago and their impeachment staff, including Hillary Rodham, recognized the importance of this and so must we.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CANADY. Thank you.

The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, is recognized.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Any impeachment inquiry is difficult, as it should be, but it is particularly challenging when an election intervenes, resulting in attempts to spin the facts and to treat lightly the serious responsibilities upon us. For that reason this hearing is extraordinarily important to sharpen our focus and to remind us of the principles of our Founding Fathers and of the unavoidable judgment of history.

Let me express my personal concerns about the present difficulty for our Nation.

One of my distinguished Democratic colleagues said on the House floor, "The President's acts, if proven true, may be crimes calling for prosecution or other punishment, but not impeachment." Others have already indicated they believe that the President lied under oath but that, even so, such action does not rise to an impeachable offense.

That simple but traumatic conclusion would have a profound and long-reaching impact on our country.

If this committee ignores an act of perjury by the President, what impact will that have on the next generation, on our rule of law and our justice system? I would not be on this committee if I did not have a love for the law and a belief that any citizen can seek justice with complete confidence that intentional falsehoods under oath are not acceptable. If we conclude that perjury was committed but we take no action, what will a future jury do when asked to uphold the law and find someone guilty of lying under oath?

My second concern is that some of those who say "Do not impeach even if the facts show perjury," are also calling for the President to be punished. This is wrong. My reading of the Constitution

tells me this process is not about punishment, but rather protecting the public trust.

There are some who say that alternative punishments, such as censure or fine have public appeal as a way out, but there is a growing consensus of scholars who agree that such alternatives have no constitutional basis and would violate the separation of powers, setting a dangerous precedent for future proceedings. For those on the other side of the aisle who call for punishment, I would ask, how and under what authority?

A third concern is on the question of what constitutes an impeachable offense. For those who call for a definition, I would ask, what specific definition would you propose as an improvement upon that of our Founding Fathers? And going beyond the abstract, what definition are you willing to set as a precedent for future unknown cases?

As I have received my education in public service, I have always been instructed by the people that there should be a higher standard for those in public office. In fact, our Federal sentencing guidelines impose additional penalties for those who abuse a position of public trust.

Some conclude that perjury is an impeachable offense for a Federal judge but not a President because there should be a higher standard for impeaching the President of the United States. If that reasoning were adopted, we would in effect be setting a lower standard for the President than any other office in the land. Is that the right policy? Is that the right message for our country?

In addition, for those who advance the argument that perjury is not an impeachable offense, how do they address the tougher question on obstruction of justice? If one witness is to believed, the President of the United States orchestrated his White House staff to conceal evidence pursuant to a lawful subpoena. Now this may seem a trivial matter to some, but as an attorney who has represented plaintiffs in a civil rights litigation, I am concerned about tipping the scales of justice in favor of the wealthy and the powerful.

My final concern deals with the question of punishment. There are some who concede that alternative punishments are not within the power of the legislative branch. They then argue that impeachment should not be pursued because the President can be held accountable for any criminal offenses after he leaves office. That would mean that if this committee finds criminal conduct, we would simply refer it back to the Independent Counsel for prosecution in the year 2001. Is that really getting this ordeal behind us? Is that really moving on? It would appear that such a delay would be harmful to our nation and harmful to the office of the presidency.

I hope that the witnesses today will address the concerns I have expressed. Please be assured that though I view these charges as profoundly serious, I have not concluded the outcome of this endeavor. I do not believe that the unpleasantness of the present circumstances justifies playing fast and loose with the Constitution for the sake of expediency. To do so would be to imperil the very system of justice upon which our great Nation was built.

I thank the Chair.