CHAIRMAN HENRY HYDE

		Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, delivers his opening statement on the consequences of perjury and related crimes.

Return to the Impeachment index. Rep. Conyer's opening statement on the consequences of perjury Kenneth Starr's prepared statement before the Judiciary Committee Text and analysis of President Clinton's address to the nation following his grand jury testimony. A look at the independent counsel law and how it affected one case (From Frontline) President Clinton's interview with Jim Lehrer in which he denies any relationship with Monica Lewinsky.     The House Judiciary Committee Background on the impeachment process from JURIST, the Law Professor Network.

REP. HENRY HYDE: The committee will come to order. Today the committee holds an oversight hearing on the consequences of perjury and related crimes like subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, misprision and criminal contempt. All of these crimes thwart the proper workings of the justice system. We hold this hearing because Rule 10 of the House of Representatives requires us to exercise continuing oversight over the, "application, administration, execution and effectiveness," of the laws under our jurisdiction. Of particular relevance here we have jurisdiction over the judicial system and the criminal code. Commentators of all types have fiercely debated the gravity of these crimes in recent months. Otherwise, responsible and thoughtful people have argued they are not so serious, particularly when they occur in civil cases or when they relate to hiding private sexual matters. Indeed some have even suggested that being a gentleman requires one to lie under oath about sex. By their very nature, these kinds of crimes attack the integrity of the judicial system. Indeed that's why they are crimes. To argue that in certain instances these crimes mean little is to say that our judicial system means little. I reject that notion. Remember the fundamentals: We have a judicial system because it is fairer and more civilized to settle disputes through judicial means, rather than settle them through brute force, trial by combat. When -- brute force prevails, the strong win and the weak lose -- an efficient method, but hardly a just one. It is particularly disturbing that many who generally claim to represent the weak now argue that the powerful should be allowed a pass when they break the rules. There is nothing just or fair in a double standard. We make perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering crimes because a judicial system can only succeed if its procedures expose the truth. If citizens are allowed to lie with impunity or encourage others to tell false stories or hide evidence, judges and juries cannot reach just results. At that point, the courtroom becomes an arena for artful liars and the jury a mere focus group choosing between alternative fictions. So for my friends who think that perjury, lying, and deceit are in some circumstances acceptable and undeserving of punishment, I respectfully disagree. Every citizen is entitled to her day in court, to have her claims considered under the rule of law, and free from these abhorrent acts. That applies no matter how small or unpopular or unimportant that person is, and no matter how great or popular or powerful her opponent is. Chief Justice Burger resoundingly affirmed the seriousness of perjury when he wrote, and I quote, "in the constitutional process of securing a witness's testimony, perjury simply has no place whatever. Perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restraints against the type of egregious offense are therefore imperative. The power of subpoena, brought as it is, and the power of contempt for refusing to answer, drastic as that is, and even the solemnity of the oath cannot ensure truthful answers. Hence, Congress has made the giving of false answers a criminal act, punishable by severe penalties. In no other way can criminal conduct be flushed into the open, where the law can deal with it. "Similarly, our cases have consistently -- indeed, without exception -- allowed sanctions for false statement or perjury. They have done so even in instances where the perjurer complained that the government exceeded its constitutional powers in making the inquiry." Citation, United States vs. Mandujano, 425, U.S. 564, 1976. Even when the weak dare to confront the strong, the truth is not trivial. Playing by the rules is not trivial. The whole history of our civilization tells us that justice is not trivial. Lying poisons justice. If we are to defend justice and the rule of law, lying must have consequences. We will explore the impact of lying on the rule of law and the implications of the double standard from our distinguished panel, whom I am pleased to welcome. With that, I will recognize Mr. Conyers for an opening statement and after Mr. Conyers, we will go to our witnesses who are at the table and all other members, if they have an opening statement, without objection, it will be included in the record at this point.