REMARKS BY REPRESENTATIVE JIM LEACH (R-IA)

UPCOMING HOUSE IMPEACHMENT VOTE ON PRESIDENT CLINTON

RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING CAPITOL HILL WASHINGTON, D.C.

3:05 P.M. EST WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1998

TRANSCRIPT BY: FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE 620 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20045

FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE IS A PRIVATE FIRM AND IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Well, my view is that this should not be thought of in the context of moderates versus conservatives within the Republican Party. What's at issue is the rule of law and the place of morality in American society. And everyone as an individual must reach that decision....

COPYRIGHT 1998 BY FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC., WASHINGTON, DC, 20045, USA. NO PORTION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT MAY BE COPIED, SOLD, OR RETRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC....

TO RECEIVE STATE, WHITE HOUSE, DEFENSE, BACKGROUND AND OTHER BRIEFINGS AND SPEECHES BY WIRE SOON AFTER THEY END, PLEASE CALL CORTES RANDELL AT 202-347-1400.

I have placed probably more emphasis on the moral absolutism and the morality underlying the law than some others. But that has nothing to do with the fact that I am a moderate in a political sense. I also acknowledge that the President of the United States stands with the vast majority of the American people on the vast majority of public policy issues. I believe he does. I believe he is a talented man of great political sensibility. But I think sensitivity to the law overwhelms the circumstance....

COPYRIGHT IS NOT CLAIMED AS TO ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL WORK PREPARED BY A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS A PART OF THAT PERSON'S OFFICIAL DUTIES....

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. -------------------------

Well, thank you all for coming.

For a long time, I have thought that the character issue surrounding this president deserved political and legal accountability but assumed it fell short of requiring a constitutional remedy. I have concluded, however, that I have no choice but to vote for two of the four articles of impeachment; specifically, articles one and two, those dealing with perjury....

Congressman, (earlier ?) you had the censure option, would the rule of law -- (off mike) ?

Let me -- with regard to the censure option, it is my view that it should properly be placed before the Congress. I would expect to vote against it. But I believe that the minority party deserves the option that it be placed on the table and that members that prefer it should have the option to vote for it. Having said that, I believe that can only occur under a rule framework, and that I will be obligated to uphold the rules of the House on a procedural vote on that issue. But I have suggested strongly to my leadership that the censure option should be provided. And I believe that on process grounds every benefit of the doubt should be given to the president. And on process grounds there should be no seeking of political advantage, that process grounds require every benefit of the doubt....

The president has committed "crimes and misdemeanors." The question that perplexes each of us as members, and the public at large, is whether these "crimes and...

misdemeanors" are high enough to meet the standard required by the Constitution.

The defenders of the president have suggested a fundamental privacy issue -- sex and the issue of sexual harassment -- do not rise to a constitutional level. While I respect this argumentation, I do not find it compelling....

Perjury in this instance, has been committed, not only to protect the president from embarrassment, but to deny an American citizen due process under the law. It must be considered a "high crime," one against the State, one for which the president should be impeached....

Now, I do respect those in my party who believe that it's constitutionally unseemly.

The fundamental issue is that no individual is above the law and that democratic governance depends on trust, which is turn depends upon truth-saying. Leadership is a conjunction of good ideas and good character; one without the other is unsustainable....

MORE

x x x unseemly.

I think it's constitutionally acceptable, but that's a matter of individual judgment, because --

A follow-up, sir --

Yes?

-- because you support having the option, does that mean you'll support a vote to recommit on the matter?

In her philosophical treatise "Lying," Sissela Bok, the Harvard ethicist, notes that, and I quote: "Veracity functions as the foundation of relations among human beings. When this trust shatters or wears away, institutions collapse." Bok goes on to note that, and I quote, "Truthfulness has always been seen as an essential to human society, no matter how deficient the observance of other moral principles," unquote....

No, I will vote against impeach -- excuse me, against censure and -- and --

(Off mike) --

-- which would be -- which would be the motion to recommit.

But if you say you'd like that option to be available to the House members or maybe just the minority, in order to get that, you need a vote of --

I would prefer it to come out as a rule, generously provided by the majority party.

You spoke about jeopardizing -- this vote might jeopardize your career. Would you say why you believe that, given that a number of Republican leaders believe the public will not give great weight to this in a few years?...

This is why lying under oath is so serious and why the president's refusal to acknowledge truthfully the factual circumstances that have been established so shatters the moral underpinnings of government. The fact that the president may face liabilities after he leaves office if he states the truth now, is no excuse for continued obfuscation....

Well, I have a -- I mean, each of us individually represent different constituencies. I have a constituency that holds the president in higher favor than almost any constituency held by a Republican in the Congress. And I recognize that very profoundly....

The independent counsel's probe has been too long, too expensive and too intrusive. I have great qualms about the seemliness (sic) and precedent of some of the tactics of the Independent Counsel's Office, particularly the use of, and potential resort to, further surreptitious tape recordings to gather additional evidence against the president....

Congressman?

Yes?

Have you heard whether or not the vote will be cancelled in the event of an attack on Iraq --

(Off mike) --

Have you heard whether or the vote will move forward in the event of attack on Iraq? And can you tell us what you personal views are on that?

I have with some reluctance, but with nonetheless steadfastedness (sic), refused to imply or suggest that any decisions of any president at any time were based on anything except the national interest....

Nonetheless, the results of the counsel's probe cannot be dismissed. The underlying acts under review have demeaned the Office of the President, debased the public dialogue, and eroded the president's moral authority to govern. Impeachment should neither be used to punish the president nor to settle political scores. Indeed, its consideration should only proceed with the goal of protecting the office by replacing a sullied occupant with an individual of unsullied character. This is the case today....

In terms of the national interest, if there is an act of -- against Iraq, I think quite properly a vote should be postponed. And that, I think, would be the full course of what I would suggest....

Mr. Chairman?

Yes?

You had mentioned your concern about the tapes, and I presume you mean the Tripp tapes that were made in the state of Maryland. If you have a problem with the legality of those tapes -- and we're also talking about the use of word "perjury," where, in a fair process, there are no rules, according to Mr. Porter -- a little bit earlier, he said there are no rules; there are no firm rules of evidence in the House dealing with perjury or anything else -- how is this all going on, in your mind, in the spirit of fair play and the Constitution?...

Impeachment at this time in this circumstance would represent less an overturning of a democratic election than a reaffirmation of the strength of the processes of governance, the putting in place of a new leader of the same party and philosophical bent as the president....

While the lines between the political parties may become accentuated in an impeachment vote, the end result of a successful impeachment would almost certainly redound to the political advantage of the president's party and, more importantly, to the country....

Yeah --

How do you balance it?

Fair enough. Well, I find the Tripp tapes to be unseemly.

But I will say my larger concern relates to an event that didn't occur; that is, it is quite clear, based upon not only what Ms. Lewinsky said, but on the response in writing of the independent counsel to the committee, that the suggestion was made to Ms. Lewinsky that she consider surreptitiously taping conversations....

In fulfilling his constitutional obligation to lead the United States government, the president has an implicit obligation to stand as the apotheosis of American values. While ethics are an integral of the human condition and at bottom line a matter of individual responsibility, an American president must be above demeaning behavior and free of any shadow concerning allegiance to the law and to the truth. Told otherwise is to assume we are neither a nation of laws nor of moral values....

MORE

x x x conversations.

Ms. Lewinsky inferred from that that that might imply the president, who had been mentioned, Vernon Jordan and Betty Currie. The independent counsel affirmed in his response to the committee that Vernon Jordan and the president were not part of the plan. But it's not unrealistic for Ms. Lewinsky to have reached that inference, and it also implies from the counsel's response that Betty Currie was part of a plan. Betty Currie goes to the Office of the Presidency....

In the final measure, what is at issue regarding possible impeachment of the president is the question of relativism versus absolutism. Relatively speaking, there is little doubt that other presidents have had inappropriate relationships, including one with an individual who, as a slave, not only worked for but was owned by the president. There is also no doubt that other presidents have lied about public matters, perhaps more seriously than adultery; the U.S. role in the Bay of Pigs invasion, the true nature of Gary Powers' mission to Russia in a U-2 spy plane, and the details of the arms-for- hostage transaction that was at the heart of the Iran-Contra Affair, to name a few....

And the notion that an arm of the United States government should taping the Office of the Presidency is philosophically very grave as well as, in my view, given the subject matter, somewhat unseemly. And in my view, ironically, Ms. Lewinsky may have reflected greater honor than the Office of the Independent -- in turning down the request of the Office of Independent Counsel than the Office of Independent Counsel exercised in putting that suggestion the table....

On the other hand, none of these circumstances involved presidential fabrications made under oath. Since the country's founding, oaths have implied a moral and constitutional affirmation; moral in the sense that our Founders justified the American Revolution with an appeal to a higher authority than British civil law, establishing a republic under, not above, God; and constitutional in the sense that oaths of office were premised in the notion that truth- telling was critical to the functioning of our judicial and political processes....

You used the words "unseemly" dealing with those tapes. So far as we know, in Maryland those were illegal. How could you say "unseemly" rather than "illegal"?...

Well, first, I find the tape issue to be an uncomfortable one, but as I've indicated in my statement, nonetheless we have to deal with the events on the table....

Well, thank you very much.

What distinguishes President Clinton from his predecessors in this regard is that relatively speaking, the acts under review may not represent as great umbrages to our system as certain others, but lying under oath amounts to an absolute breach of an absolute standard. It makes it impossible to justify a vote against impeachment....

I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Yes, sir?

When exactly did you make your decision? And can you describe the last 48 hours in terms of any events or people you have talked to or any circumstances which may have contributed to your decision?...

MORE

x x x decision?

I have felt obligated as a representative of the public, in this case the citizens of the First District of Iowa, to listen as carefully as I can to the views expressed, and yet at the same time obligated to reach a decision based on individual conscience....

I will tell you that in public life, I have never known an issue in which the entirety of the public has been better informed or or in which all judgments are more equal. From close of business Friday to the opening of my office this Monday morning, I received 3,500 e- mails. I will tell you each one was individually written; each one had very profound observations. They were divided. The public is divided. Anyone who thinks about this issue from an open perspective has to have conflicting senses. I have a conflicted sense. But on the other hand, I believe that when you come right down to the basics, what has occurred is a truthlessness situation and what has occurred is a moral umbrage unbefitting the Office of the President....

Congressman, what pressures have you felt from any sources, the White House, the Republican leadership, other groups?

I have felt no pressure from any source. Very appropriately, I have been contacted by lawyers at the White House; very appropriately, I've been contacted by elected and party officials of the Democratic side in my state of Iowa. I respect very much the perspectives that they have relayed. Within the Republican Party, the leadership has made it abundantly clear on an individual basis and public basis that they will respect this vote of all individual members as an issue of conscience....

The only pressure that comes to bear is one that will be of a nature, I think, for each of us that is self-generated. We all as members of Congress recognize the gravity of the moment. We all look at this with a great deal of reluctance. And that reluctance is based upon an unfortunate series of events that has, unfortunately, developed in ways that might well have been avoided. But, given the fact that they might have been avoided has little to do with the end result that has been reached. And so, based on the information on the table, I have reluctantly arrived at a conclusion that I wish to God that I had not had to make....

(Off mike) -- Articles III and IV?

are maddening and they are scrupulously legalistic, and, to some degree, perhaps misleading, but they do not amount to a constitutional offense. With regard to the issue which is number III, which is obstruction of justice, I believe a case has been laid before the Congress which is not a light case at all, but I think the evidentiary basis that has been presented does not quite reach a compelling enough circumstance to warrant impeachment....

MORE

x x x impeachment.

And so my view is that the issue of impeachment rests exclusively on the issue of lying under oath.

Congressman, back in your district when you are walking the streets or at town hall meetings, what are people tell you?

Well, first, let me say everyone has an opinion. And everybody has an educated opinion and a thoughtful opinion. Whether I talk to high schools, whether I'm walking at a mall, whether I'm in a setting at a farm or at a schoolyard, everybody has extremely thoughtful observations. And I will say that there's virtual unanimity that a public embarrassment has occurred. Where there is a tremendous understandable division of judgment is how to proceed. And a large number of Americans have reached the conclusion that impeachment is merited. Perhaps a larger number have reached the conclusion that impeachment is not. And this is a circumstance of fundamental American division which makes this particular issue at this particular time particularly bedeviling....

Do you feel the president should now leave office, or do you still think there's a possibility that once it goes to the Senate that you could accept some kind of a censure?...

Well, first, I have never called on the president to resign. I believe that is for his determination. I will observe that, I'm confident that most Iowans would resign under this circumstance, most people I represent would -- I believe an ethical man should give that serious consideration....

In terms of the future, that is a process that will obviously involve the United States Senate. And I am open to various possible resolutions of the issue. And I do not foreclose any....

MORE

x x x any.

I will say I am of a mind that if one votes in the House of Representatives for impeachment, one cannot make that a polite decision and simply be prepared to say it's a passing-the-buck transfer of obligation. I think to reach a decision in the House for impeachment must imply that one has concluded that impeachment is warranted....

Congressman, I think where -- you've said that you do not agree with some of the tactics used in the investigation. Don't you worry that this voting for impeachment sort of sets a precedent where a party that's a majority in the Congress but is not in the administration can do unscrupulous investigations of the president in order to overturn an election?...

Well, I think that in the wake of this particular investigation, it is the obligation of the United States Congress to reassess what has gone right and what may have gone imperfectly. And it's my own view that an assessment of the issue of, for example, civil litigation being brought to a president, whether it should go during the presidency or after, should come under review....

I would say, in this regard, there are a couple of aspects of this that I find imperfect. One is that I think the United States Supreme Court has brought into process circumstance -- something that is unfortunate, and that is the court ruled unanimously that the civil litigation could go on during the presidency. Many observers on Capitol Hill, including myself, had assumed the court would reach another judgment. And I think the court felt that it would take a law to reach that other judgment, and I think a law should be considered....

Secondly, I think the attorney general made an error in giving the independent counsel, which was established to investigate certain economic crimes, authority to review the Paula Jones litigation. In my view, either the Justice Department itself or another counsel should have been established for that....

But I do think that it's incumbent, whatever the results of the impeachment process, on everyone in Congress to think through the implications for the future. And the implications of -- some of them psychological -- of counsels established that may prefer to go to the nth degree to prevail rather than recognize that there are certain cases that can be -- one can use different kinds of discretions....

MORE

x x x discretions.

And I will tell you as pointedly as I can, the suggestion of the possible wiretapping involving the Office of the Presidency is a suggestion that I think is fraught with difficulty. And I'm very pleased that the witness that was asked -- the individual asked to be employed in that circumstance turned down the independent counsel's suggestion....

(Off mike.) I mean, here's a president who was elected twice. Twice the American people decided they want this president, and now the majority of the Americans appear to not want him impeached. You spoke of breach of trust. Isn't the Congress breaching the trust of the American people by not doing what they want? You're representatives of the American people....

There is no doubt we have an imperfect circumstance, with the majority of the American public at this point disinclined to impeachment. That does not mean, however, that the United States Congress isn't obligated to fulfill its constitutional obligations. This is, after all, a republic. And I personally believe that the fundamental irony is that if impeachment goes to its logical conclusion, the party of the president will be most benefited. And I accept that. I also accept that I, as an individual representative, will be severely jeopardized by the vote I have announced that I will cast. But nonetheless, I feel this is an obligation for I as an individual and for the Congress as a whole to address....

I'm not talking about the politicians, I'm talking about the American people. Some party will succeed, some party won't succeed; it's the American people that won't get what they want, not individual politicians....

The American public is clearly divided on this issue, and it's my view -- and this is a fundamental issue -- that what is legitimizing -- is the country going to be, A, more legitimized without an impeachment, with a president that put himself above the law, or is the American government going to be legitimized by a transfer of governance under the constitutional system? And I believe impeachment will relegitimize and reinvigorate the government of the United States, and that this is a legitimizing step to take that will strengthen the presidency rather than undercut it....

Would you talk about the role of the moderates?

MORE

x x x moderates?

A couple of weeks ago most people thought that this wasn't going to pass the House, that there were 30 or 40 members, many of them moderates such as yourself, tend to be more cautious in such a grave constitutional question. But now it seems that they're all breaking against the president. I mean, can you give us a reason why no members are standing up to say that, you know, as Democrats do, that these crimes that you allege do not rise to the level of impeachment?...

END