THE TAPED TESTIMONY September 15, 1998 The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript

---

As the nation continues to digest the contents of the Starr report, members of the House Judiciary Committee debate whether the videotape of President Clinton's grand jury testimony should also be released. Two members of the committee discuss the issue.

---

A RealAudio version of this segment is available. NEWSHOUR LINKS September 14, 1998: A discussion on the media's coverage of the Starr report. September 11, 1998: The Starr report and White House rebuttal. September 11, 1998: Mark Shields and Paul Gigot debate the potential impact of Kenneth Starr's referral to Congress. September 11, 1998: Two former federal prosecutors examine the legal issues presented in the Starr report. September 10, 1998: What is the constitutional basis for impeaching a president? September 9, 1998: Kenneth Starr drops off his case to the House. September 3, 1998: Four former senators discuss whether the president should step down. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of Starr investigation, the White House and Congress. OUTSIDE LINKS: White House The House Judiciary Committee. Yahoo!'s collection of links regarding the Starr Report.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Since late last week, House Judiciary Committee members have been reviewing not only Kenneth Starr's report on the Monica Lewinsky case, but also 18 boxes of supplementary evidence provided along with the report. The committee must now decide how much of the supplementary material should be released to the public, and, specifically, should the videotape of the President's August 17th grand jury testimony be released? We hear from two members of the committee now, Republican Charles Canady of Florida, and Democrat Zoe Lofgren of California.

Thanks for being with us. Congressman Canady, what's the procedure you're following to make the decision about whether to release the videotape?

REP. CHARLES CANADY: Well, let me say, I'm not going to comment on the contents of any of the executive session material. That's prohibited by the rules of the House, but we have been given a responsibility under the resolution passed by the House last week to make a determination if any of the materials accompanying the report of the independent counsel should not be released, we've got to make that judgment by the 28th of this month. So it's important for us to carry on that work. The resolution that was passed by the House I believe essentially sets up a presumption in favor of full release, and we should only withhold that information which is needlessly embarrassing to third parties or for some other compelling reason is not relevant and should not be released for that reason.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congressman, the wires have been discussing the fact that Judiciary Committee members are debating the videotape. Could you just tell us what arguments are being made by your colleagues in favor of releasing it?

REP. CHARLES CANADY: Well, let me say this. The resolution says a presumption of releasing information. I think the American people are entitled to full disclosure of what's going on here, and the American people need to understand the basis on which any judgment we ultimately make will be based. That's very important if this process is going to have credibility. But, again, I'm not going to comment on whether there is a tape or isn't a tape in any executive session or material. That's inappropriate under the rules. I will say that in judging the credibility of a witness, it can be very valuable to observe the demeanor of that witness while the witness is testifying.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congresswoman Lofgren, what do you think about this, about the videotape?

Too much, too quickly?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN: Well, I'm a little troubled by the process. We had a vote just Friday to really take our time till the 28th to decide about the 2600 pages of attachments and the 18 boxes full of stuff. And I understand that we're going to hurry up and have a vote on this tomorrow. And I don't see what the rush is. I think we have a constitutional job before us. Step one is to outline what the constitutional standard for impeachment is -- and I can tell you what it is because I have researched it – as they did in 1974. It is conduct so seriously wrong that it threatens our constitutional form of government. Then I think we have an obligation to take a look at the allegations in the Starr referral and say, okay, if all these things were true, would they constitute a threat to our constitutional form of government? Only if the answer to that question is yes do we need to proceed further into the evidence contained in all of these referrals.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congresswoman, when you say that you understand there's to be a vote tomorrow, you mean you understand there's to be a vote on whether to release the videotape of the August 17th grand jury testimony?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN: That is my understanding. Now I do think that we need to stop, get a grip, take a deep breath, and be very deliberate and orderly. There ought to be a lot more talk about the Constitution than there has been and a lot less talk about smutty stuff.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congressman, I understand you can't talk about specifics, but tell us how you're proceeding. All of this material is in a room outside the Capitol, do all 37 members of the committee go over and read it? How are you proceeding to make the decisions you have to make?

A need to handle the matter expeditiously.

REP. CHARLES CANADY: All the members of the Judiciary Committee have access to the executive session materials. Designated staff members also have access to that material, so that the work of the Judiciary Committee is carried on both by the members and designated staff. And some of the work that would need to be done to identify sensitive material can be carried out by staff. But there are certain things obviously that members are going to ultimately have to make a judgment on. And let me say, I agree with Rep. Lofgren. We need to conduct this in a very thoughtful, deliberative manner. I do think we need to be mindful of the need to handle this expeditiously also. The American people don't want this to drag on for month after month after month, after month. It's dragged on too long already, in my opinion, and in the view of the vast majority of Americans. So we need to handle this as expeditiously as we can consistent with having a process that is thoughtful, deliberative, and fair. And if we should move to the conclusion that an impeachment inquiry is justified on the basis of the evidence that's available, it would be very important for the President to have an opportunity to put on his defense before we make any final judgment about whether an impeachment is warranted in these circumstances.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congressman, but just specifically, if there were a videotape, when you would go look at it, have you gone over to the room to read through some of the materials?

REP. CHARLES CANADY: I have spent some time over in the Ford building carrying on my work as a member of the Judiciary Committee. And, again, the presumption here that the House, as established, is in favor of releasing material. Now one thing that's mentioned in the independent counsel's report is that there is a videotape of the deposition that the President gave in the Jones case. That's in the report that's been published. I would think that it would be important for us to obtain that. The report indicates that it's not provided but is in the custody of the district court here in Washington, with the district court in Arkansas. I think at the appropriate time if we proceed with an inquiry, it would be important for us to obtain access to that. Again, if the essential issue here is whether the President committed perjury, being able to observe his demeanor – and that's a central issue raised by the independent counsel's report -- being able to judge the President's demeanor while he was testifying I think would help us understand whether he was – whether he was being truthful or not in giving that testimony.

What are the constitutional grounds for impeachment?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN: We've put the cart before the horse here though, Charles, because the first question we have to answer is the constitutional question. We do know from our – I hope we know from our research and our rich history that the standard for impeachment of a President -- and it was reviewed in the '74 document Grounds for Impeachment of a President -- is conduct that threatens our constitutional form of government. And we need to have a discussion about the type of conduct that could threaten or destroy our constitutional form of government before we take any other steps. That hasn't occurred yet.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congresswoman Lofgren, let met come back a minute to these specific issues. Do I understand, from what you're saying, that you don't think many of the supplementary – much of the supplementary evidence should be released?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN: I can't say that yet. I mean, for one thing, I haven't seen it.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: But you also are going over to look at it, right?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN: I haven't done that yet. But I think --

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Why haven't you, just so I understand.

REP. ZOE LOFGREN: I haven't had time. I have been reviewing not just the Starr referral, but I have been reviewing the constitutional documents and reading some of the original documentation, again, the Federalist Papers and some of the materials generated during the '74 inquiry, because that is at least as important as the referral. We've got a bunch of allegations, and we need to measure those allegations against the constitutional standard. There is a crucial step that has been missing here in this process.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congresswoman Lofgren, is there at this point no consensus about what should be done with the supplementary materials?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN: There has been no discussion, except with the media. That's another problem here. We need to have processes that are orderly and that match the dignity of the constitutional question that we face. We haven't even met as a committee to discuss the Constitution.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congressman Canady, what about that, is it not an orderly procedure?

REP. CHARLES CANADY: I'd have to disagree with my good friend and colleague. She's prejudging these proceedings before the proceedings have even begun. There will be ample opportunity for members to express their views on all issues that are dealt with by the committee. I don't happen to agree with the view of the constitutional standard for impeachment. It's an undeniable fact that the House of Representatives has impeached a federal judge within the last ten to fifteen years and the Senate has removed that same federal judge for perjury – perjury before a grand jury!

REP. ZOE LOFGREN: They served during good behavior. It's a different standard --

REP. CHARLES CANADY: The standard for all federal officials for impeachment is treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.

REP. ZOE LOFGREN: And judges during good behavior.

What's next?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What happens next? Congressman Canady, what happens next this week? What should we expect? Tomorrow will there be a decision on at least one or some elements of the supplementary materials?

REP. CHARLES CANADY: I can't tell you exactly what's going to happen this week. I believe that it's likely that tomorrow or the next day there will be a meeting of the Judiciary Committee, probably an executive session, to deal with the matters that the House of Representatives has asked us to deal with under the resolution that was passed last week. But we're going to go through this in a very careful way. We should not rush to judgment. No one should jump to any conclusions. But, again, we cannot let this drag on month after month. That would be wrong. That's not what the American people want. And we would not be doing our duty as members of the House of Representatives if we allowed that to happen.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congresswoman, we just have a few seconds left for any remarks you have.

REP. ZOE LOFGREN: Well, you asked what's going to happen next. One of the things that's going to happen next is later on this week the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote to dismantle all K-12 education programs that exist in this country. So while all of this is going on, there's some serious other business that the country ought to be paying some attention to.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Thank you both very much.

REGIONS TOPICS RECENT PROGRAMS ABOUT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS:

Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.