Chairman Henry Hyde's Statement (Nov. 19, 1998)

Text of opening statement made Thursday by the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. Henry Hyde, as transcribed by Federal Document Clearing House:

This morning, we commence our second public hearing in fulfillment of the mandate imposed on us in House Resolution 581. While the business of impeachment is rare, and happily so, it becomes necessary from time to time when circumstances require that it be exercised as a constitutional counterbalance to allegations of serious abuse of presidential power.

It is part of the series of checks and balances that exemplify the genius of our founding fathers. Throughout our history, we've had a number of impeachment inquiries, but this one represents a historical first. Never before has an impeachment inquiry arisen because of a referral from an independent counsel under Section 595(C) of the statute.

For that reason, we have no precedent to follow on the involvement of the independent counsel in our proceedings. However, it seems both useful and instructive that we should hear from him since he is the person most familiar with the complicated matters the House has directed us to review.

We're holding this hearing to learn the facts surrounding this situation, including those in the referral that Judge Starr sent us Sept. 9, 1998, and to determine whether those facts justify our voting on articles of impeachment.

Everyone should understand how this process works. Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the sole power to make accusations known as articles of impeachment. They may do so by a majority vote.

If the House makes such accusations, they are then sent to the Senate for trial. The Senate may convict by a two-thirds vote.

Our founding fathers wisely determined that one chamber should accuse and the other should judge.

We began our work on Nov. 9 at the hearing when we were enlightened by the testimony of two panels of outstanding academics about the history and nature of the impeachment process. Today the search for the truth continues as we turn to the underlying facts.

And as we begin that search, we turn to one person, Judge Starr, who has a comprehensive overview of the complex issues we face. I thought we should have that overview before we hear from other witnesses.

As we announced earlier this week, we will hear from other witnesses in live hearings and in depositions as we move toward a final resolution.

In addition, we have yet to hear from the president. And I can assure my colleagues, if and when the president would want to testify, he may have unlimited time to do so.

In any event, we are hopeful that the pledge of cooperation we received from his attorneys will soon be fulfilled.

Let me repeat my New Year's resolution. It's my fervent hope we will be able to conclude this inquiry before the new year turns. I'm hopeful that all members will bear this in mind as we conduct this search for truth with all deliberate speed.

There are many voices telling us to halt this debate, that the people are weary of it all. There are other voices suggesting we have a duty to debate the many questions raised by the circumstances in which we find ourselves, questions of high consequence for constitutional government.

David Broder, writing in The Washington Post yesterday, suggested that in our hearings, ''We will define as a nation the standard of honesty we're going to impose on our president.''

What is the significance of a false statement under oath? Is it essentially different from a garden-variety lie? A mental reservation? A fib? An evasion? A little white lie? Hyperbole?

In a court proceeding, do you assume some trivial responsibility when you raise your right hand, and swear to God to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

And what of the rule of law - that unique aspect of a free society that protects you from the fire on your roof or the knock on your door at 3 a.m.? What does lying under oath do to the rule of law?

Do we still have a government of laws and not of men? Does the law apply to some people with force and ferocity while the powerful are immune? Do we have one set of laws for the officers and another for the enlisted? Should we?

These are but a few questions these hearings are intended to explore. And just perhaps, when the debate is over, the rationalizations and the distinctions and the semantic gymnastics are put to rest, we may be closer to answering for our generation the haunting question asked 139 years ago in a small military cemetery in Pennsylvania - whether a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal can long endure.

---