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.

Now let me express my personal concerns about the present difficulty for our nation:

One of my distinguished Democratic colleagues said on the House Floor that, "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 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 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 that 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, may have public appeal as a way out, but there is a growing consensus of scholars who point out 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 out 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 specific 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 public that there should be a higher standard for those in public office. In fact our federal sentencing guidelines imposes additional penalties for those who abuse a position of public trust. But some have concluded that perjury is an impeachable offense for a federal judge but not for 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 you address the tougher question on obstruction of justice? If one witness is to be believed, then you have the President of the United States orchestrating 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 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 action after he leaves office. That could mean that this Committee may find criminal conduct, but 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've expressed. Please be assured that though I view these charges as profoundly serious, I have not concluded the outcome of this endeavor. The seriousness of this situation requires us to set aside any influence of partisanship and to proceed with these hearings with open minds, to look past the rhetoric and toward the facts.

That said, I do not believe that the unpleasantness of the present circumstances justify 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.