B ROLL OF TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY FOR MENTALLY ILL PRISONERS / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL FOR A JAMI FLOYD CS VO ON THE LACK OF TREATMENT FOR THE LARGE NUMBER OF MENTALLY ILL INMATES IN PRISON 3:01:20 VARIOUS PRISONERS / INMATES 3:02:47 PRISON GUARD / CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OPENING DOOR 3:03:00 PRISONERS COMING THROUGH DOOR 3:04:15 SLOW PAN 3:04:52 GUARD WALKS INTO FRAME W/ PRISONER 3:05;24 PAN FROM THE GUARD FACILITY 3:06:28 PSYCHIATRIST IN WHITE COAT INTERVIEWING INMATE 3:06;47 PULL OUT 3:07:41 HIGH ANGLE / DOCTOR AND PATIENT 3;08:00 BACK OF INMATES SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3:08:35 TIGHT SHOT DOCTOR / PULL TO PATIENT 3:09:13 BACK OF SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3;09:25 PAN TO SMILING FACE OF DOCTOR 3:09:59 WS 3:10:13 PRINSONERS FEED / TILT UP TO DOCTOR 3:11:13 TIGHT SHOT DOCTORS NAME ON HIS WHITE COAT / TILT UP TO FACE OF DOCTOR 3:11:38 PULL OUT TO 2 SHOT / DOCTOR AND PRISONER 3:12:05 INMATE W/ FACE BLOCKED 3:12:12 ARMS W/ TATTOOS 3:12:18 PRISONER EXERCISING / FACE BLOCKED 3:12:35 GUARDS SHOT THROUGH GLASS DOOR 3:13:23 WS / ISOLATION SIGN ON DOOR 3:13;36 SOMEBODY WALKS BY ON OTHER SIDE OF DOOR 3:14:20 GUARD TALKING W/ SOMEONE 3;14:34 SOUND OF DOOR SLAMMING 3:16:54 NURSE 3:16:59 GUARDS TALKING THROUGH A DOOR 3:17:24 GUARD OPENING A DOOR 3:18:09 TIGHT SHOT ON BADGE / LA / LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF / PULL OUT 3:18:48 GUARD ROOM 3:18:53 SHERIFF ON PHONE / TELEPHONE 3:119:12 MONITOR / GUY PACING INSIDE CELL 3:19:27 WS 3:20:07 WS INMATE THROUGH WINDOW ACTING WEIRD 3:20:21 EXERCISE ROOM 3:20:44 GROUP AROUND PING PONG TABLE / TABLE TENNIS 3:20:58 PRISONER ON PHONE / TELEPHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:11 WS PRISONER THROWING BALL 3:21:15 ANOTHER PRISONE ON PHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:50 NEW INMATES BEING SCREENED / BLUE UNIFORMS 3:22;26 INTERVIEWER NODDING / PAN TO 2 SHOT 3:23:40 WS SCREENING AREA 3:23;50 SIGN / MEDICAL SCREENING / PULL OUT 3:24:17 SOMEONE WALKS THROUGH 3:24;29 FOUR MEN FROM BEHIND / MEDICAL SCREENING SIGN ABOVE THEM 3:25:14 SLOW PAN W/ MAN WALKING THROUGH 3:26:00 EXTS / EXTERIORS 3:26:09 BUS DRIVES THROUGH 3:26;17 TWIN TOWERS CORRECTION FACILITY SIGN 3:26:38 PULL OUT / SLOW 3:26:48 BUS 3:26:56 SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 3:27:27 WS SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY / PULL OUT AS BUS DRIVES INTO ENTRANCE

B ROLL OF TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY FOR MENTALLY ILL PRISONERS / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL FOR A JAMI FLOYD CS VO ON THE LACK OF TREATMENT FOR THE LARGE NUMBER OF MENTALLY ILL INMATES IN PRISON 3:01:20 VARIOUS PRISONERS / INMATES 3:02:47 PRISON GUARD / CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OPENING DOOR 3:03:00 PRISONERS COMING THROUGH DOOR 3:04:15 SLOW PAN 3:04:52 GUARD WALKS INTO FRAME W/ PRISONER 3:05;24 PAN FROM THE GUARD FACILITY 3:06:28 PSYCHIATRIST IN WHITE COAT INTERVIEWING INMATE 3:06;47 PULL OUT 3:07:41 HIGH ANGLE / DOCTOR AND PATIENT 3;08:00 BACK OF INMATES SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3:08:35 TIGHT SHOT DOCTOR / PULL TO PATIENT 3:09:13 BACK OF SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3;09:25 PAN TO SMILING FACE OF DOCTOR 3:09:59 WS 3:10:13 PRINSONERS FEED / TILT UP TO DOCTOR 3:11:13 TIGHT SHOT DOCTORS NAME ON HIS WHITE COAT / TILT UP TO FACE OF DOCTOR 3:11:38 PULL OUT TO 2 SHOT / DOCTOR AND PRISONER 3:12:05 INMATE W/ FACE BLOCKED 3:12:12 ARMS W/ TATTOOS 3:12:18 PRISONER EXERCISING / FACE BLOCKED 3:12:35 GUARDS SHOT THROUGH GLASS DOOR 3:13:23 WS / ISOLATION SIGN ON DOOR 3:13;36 SOMEBODY WALKS BY ON OTHER SIDE OF DOOR 3:14:20 GUARD TALKING W/ SOMEONE 3;14:34 SOUND OF DOOR SLAMMING 3:16:54 NURSE 3:16:59 GUARDS TALKING THROUGH A DOOR 3:17:24 GUARD OPENING A DOOR 3:18:09 TIGHT SHOT ON BADGE / LA / LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF / PULL OUT 3:18:48 GUARD ROOM 3:18:53 SHERIFF ON PHONE / TELEPHONE 3:119:12 MONITOR / GUY PACING INSIDE CELL 3:19:27 WS 3:20:07 WS INMATE THROUGH WINDOW ACTING WEIRD 3:20:21 EXERCISE ROOM 3:20:44 GROUP AROUND PING PONG TABLE / TABLE TENNIS 3:20:58 PRISONER ON PHONE / TELEPHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:11 WS PRISONER THROWING BALL 3:21:15 ANOTHER PRISONE ON PHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:50 NEW INMATES BEING SCREENED / BLUE UNIFORMS 3:22;26 INTERVIEWER NODDING / PAN TO 2 SHOT 3:23:40 WS SCREENING AREA 3:23;50 SIGN / MEDICAL SCREENING / PULL OUT 3:24:17 SOMEONE WALKS THROUGH 3:24;29 FOUR MEN FROM BEHIND / MEDICAL SCREENING SIGN ABOVE THEM 3:25:14 SLOW PAN W/ MAN WALKING THROUGH 3:26:00 EXTS / EXTERIORS 3:26:09 BUS DRIVES THROUGH 3:26;17 TWIN TOWERS CORRECTION FACILITY SIGN 3:26:38 PULL OUT / SLOW 3:26:48 BUS 3:26:56 SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 3:27:27 WS SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY / PULL OUT AS BUS DRIVES INTO ENTRANCE

B ROLL OF TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY FOR MENTALLY ILL PRISONERS / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL FOR A JAMI FLOYD CS VO ON THE LACK OF TREATMENT FOR THE LARGE NUMBER OF MENTALLY ILL INMATES IN PRISON 3:01:20 VARIOUS PRISONERS / INMATES 3:02:47 PRISON GUARD / CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OPENING DOOR 3:03:00 PRISONERS COMING THROUGH DOOR 3:04:15 SLOW PAN 3:04:52 GUARD WALKS INTO FRAME W/ PRISONER 3:05;24 PAN FROM THE GUARD FACILITY 3:06:28 PSYCHIATRIST IN WHITE COAT INTERVIEWING INMATE 3:06;47 PULL OUT 3:07:41 HIGH ANGLE / DOCTOR AND PATIENT 3;08:00 BACK OF INMATES SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3:08:35 TIGHT SHOT DOCTOR / PULL TO PATIENT 3:09:13 BACK OF SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3;09:25 PAN TO SMILING FACE OF DOCTOR 3:09:59 WS 3:10:13 PRINSONERS FEED / TILT UP TO DOCTOR 3:11:13 TIGHT SHOT DOCTORS NAME ON HIS WHITE COAT / TILT UP TO FACE OF DOCTOR 3:11:38 PULL OUT TO 2 SHOT / DOCTOR AND PRISONER 3:12:05 INMATE W/ FACE BLOCKED 3:12:12 ARMS W/ TATTOOS 3:12:18 PRISONER EXERCISING / FACE BLOCKED 3:12:35 GUARDS SHOT THROUGH GLASS DOOR 3:13:23 WS / ISOLATION SIGN ON DOOR 3:13;36 SOMEBODY WALKS BY ON OTHER SIDE OF DOOR 3:14:20 GUARD TALKING W/ SOMEONE 3;14:34 SOUND OF DOOR SLAMMING 3:16:54 NURSE 3:16:59 GUARDS TALKING THROUGH A DOOR 3:17:24 GUARD OPENING A DOOR 3:18:09 TIGHT SHOT ON BADGE / LA / LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF / PULL OUT 3:18:48 GUARD ROOM 3:18:53 SHERIFF ON PHONE / TELEPHONE 3:119:12 MONITOR / GUY PACING INSIDE CELL 3:19:27 WS 3:20:07 WS INMATE THROUGH WINDOW ACTING WEIRD 3:20:21 EXERCISE ROOM 3:20:44 GROUP AROUND PING PONG TABLE / TABLE TENNIS 3:20:58 PRISONER ON PHONE / TELEPHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:11 WS PRISONER THROWING BALL 3:21:15 ANOTHER PRISONE ON PHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:50 NEW INMATES BEING SCREENED / BLUE UNIFORMS 3:22;26 INTERVIEWER NODDING / PAN TO 2 SHOT 3:23:40 WS SCREENING AREA 3:23;50 SIGN / MEDICAL SCREENING / PULL OUT 3:24:17 SOMEONE WALKS THROUGH 3:24;29 FOUR MEN FROM BEHIND / MEDICAL SCREENING SIGN ABOVE THEM 3:25:14 SLOW PAN W/ MAN WALKING THROUGH 3:26:00 EXTS / EXTERIORS 3:26:09 BUS DRIVES THROUGH 3:26;17 TWIN TOWERS CORRECTION FACILITY SIGN 3:26:38 PULL OUT / SLOW 3:26:48 BUS 3:26:56 SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 3:27:27 WS SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY / PULL OUT AS BUS DRIVES INTO ENTRANCE

B ROLL OF TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY FOR MENTALLY ILL PRISONERS / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL FOR A JAMI FLOYD CS VO ON THE LACK OF TREATMENT FOR THE LARGE NUMBER OF MENTALLY ILL INMATES IN PRISON 3:01:20 VARIOUS PRISONERS / INMATES 3:02:47 PRISON GUARD / CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OPENING DOOR 3:03:00 PRISONERS COMING THROUGH DOOR 3:04:15 SLOW PAN 3:04:52 GUARD WALKS INTO FRAME W/ PRISONER 3:05;24 PAN FROM THE GUARD FACILITY 3:06:28 PSYCHIATRIST IN WHITE COAT INTERVIEWING INMATE 3:06;47 PULL OUT 3:07:41 HIGH ANGLE / DOCTOR AND PATIENT 3;08:00 BACK OF INMATES SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3:08:35 TIGHT SHOT DOCTOR / PULL TO PATIENT 3:09:13 BACK OF SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3;09:25 PAN TO SMILING FACE OF DOCTOR 3:09:59 WS 3:10:13 PRINSONERS FEED / TILT UP TO DOCTOR 3:11:13 TIGHT SHOT DOCTORS NAME ON HIS WHITE COAT / TILT UP TO FACE OF DOCTOR 3:11:38 PULL OUT TO 2 SHOT / DOCTOR AND PRISONER 3:12:05 INMATE W/ FACE BLOCKED 3:12:12 ARMS W/ TATTOOS 3:12:18 PRISONER EXERCISING / FACE BLOCKED 3:12:35 GUARDS SHOT THROUGH GLASS DOOR 3:13:23 WS / ISOLATION SIGN ON DOOR 3:13;36 SOMEBODY WALKS BY ON OTHER SIDE OF DOOR 3:14:20 GUARD TALKING W/ SOMEONE 3;14:34 SOUND OF DOOR SLAMMING 3:16:54 NURSE 3:16:59 GUARDS TALKING THROUGH A DOOR 3:17:24 GUARD OPENING A DOOR 3:18:09 TIGHT SHOT ON BADGE / LA / LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF / PULL OUT 3:18:48 GUARD ROOM 3:18:53 SHERIFF ON PHONE / TELEPHONE 3:119:12 MONITOR / GUY PACING INSIDE CELL 3:19:27 WS 3:20:07 WS INMATE THROUGH WINDOW ACTING WEIRD 3:20:21 EXERCISE ROOM 3:20:44 GROUP AROUND PING PONG TABLE / TABLE TENNIS 3:20:58 PRISONER ON PHONE / TELEPHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:11 WS PRISONER THROWING BALL 3:21:15 ANOTHER PRISONE ON PHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:50 NEW INMATES BEING SCREENED / BLUE UNIFORMS 3:22;26 INTERVIEWER NODDING / PAN TO 2 SHOT 3:23:40 WS SCREENING AREA 3:23;50 SIGN / MEDICAL SCREENING / PULL OUT 3:24:17 SOMEONE WALKS THROUGH 3:24;29 FOUR MEN FROM BEHIND / MEDICAL SCREENING SIGN ABOVE THEM 3:25:14 SLOW PAN W/ MAN WALKING THROUGH 3:26:00 EXTS / EXTERIORS 3:26:09 BUS DRIVES THROUGH 3:26;17 TWIN TOWERS CORRECTION FACILITY SIGN 3:26:38 PULL OUT / SLOW 3:26:48 BUS 3:26:56 SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 3:27:27 WS SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY / PULL OUT AS BUS DRIVES INTO ENTRANCE

B ROLL OF TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY FOR MENTALLY ILL PRISONERS / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL FOR A JAMI FLOYD CS VO ON THE LACK OF TREATMENT FOR THE LARGE NUMBER OF MENTALLY ILL INMATES IN PRISON 3:01:20 VARIOUS PRISONERS / INMATES 3:02:47 PRISON GUARD / CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OPENING DOOR 3:03:00 PRISONERS COMING THROUGH DOOR 3:04:15 SLOW PAN 3:04:52 GUARD WALKS INTO FRAME W/ PRISONER 3:05;24 PAN FROM THE GUARD FACILITY 3:06:28 PSYCHIATRIST IN WHITE COAT INTERVIEWING INMATE 3:06;47 PULL OUT 3:07:41 HIGH ANGLE / DOCTOR AND PATIENT 3;08:00 BACK OF INMATES SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3:08:35 TIGHT SHOT DOCTOR / PULL TO PATIENT 3:09:13 BACK OF SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3;09:25 PAN TO SMILING FACE OF DOCTOR 3:09:59 WS 3:10:13 PRINSONERS FEED / TILT UP TO DOCTOR 3:11:13 TIGHT SHOT DOCTORS NAME ON HIS WHITE COAT / TILT UP TO FACE OF DOCTOR 3:11:38 PULL OUT TO 2 SHOT / DOCTOR AND PRISONER 3:12:05 INMATE W/ FACE BLOCKED 3:12:12 ARMS W/ TATTOOS 3:12:18 PRISONER EXERCISING / FACE BLOCKED 3:12:35 GUARDS SHOT THROUGH GLASS DOOR 3:13:23 WS / ISOLATION SIGN ON DOOR 3:13;36 SOMEBODY WALKS BY ON OTHER SIDE OF DOOR 3:14:20 GUARD TALKING W/ SOMEONE 3;14:34 SOUND OF DOOR SLAMMING 3:16:54 NURSE 3:16:59 GUARDS TALKING THROUGH A DOOR 3:17:24 GUARD OPENING A DOOR 3:18:09 TIGHT SHOT ON BADGE / LA / LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF / PULL OUT 3:18:48 GUARD ROOM 3:18:53 SHERIFF ON PHONE / TELEPHONE 3:119:12 MONITOR / GUY PACING INSIDE CELL 3:19:27 WS 3:20:07 WS INMATE THROUGH WINDOW ACTING WEIRD 3:20:21 EXERCISE ROOM 3:20:44 GROUP AROUND PING PONG TABLE / TABLE TENNIS 3:20:58 PRISONER ON PHONE / TELEPHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:11 WS PRISONER THROWING BALL 3:21:15 ANOTHER PRISONE ON PHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:50 NEW INMATES BEING SCREENED / BLUE UNIFORMS 3:22;26 INTERVIEWER NODDING / PAN TO 2 SHOT 3:23:40 WS SCREENING AREA 3:23;50 SIGN / MEDICAL SCREENING / PULL OUT 3:24:17 SOMEONE WALKS THROUGH 3:24;29 FOUR MEN FROM BEHIND / MEDICAL SCREENING SIGN ABOVE THEM 3:25:14 SLOW PAN W/ MAN WALKING THROUGH 3:26:00 EXTS / EXTERIORS 3:26:09 BUS DRIVES THROUGH 3:26;17 TWIN TOWERS CORRECTION FACILITY SIGN 3:26:38 PULL OUT / SLOW 3:26:48 BUS 3:26:56 SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 3:27:27 WS SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY / PULL OUT AS BUS DRIVES INTO ENTRANCE

B ROLL OF TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY FOR MENTALLY ILL PRISONERS / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL FOR A JAMI FLOYD CS VO ON THE LACK OF TREATMENT FOR THE LARGE NUMBER OF MENTALLY ILL INMATES IN PRISON 3:01:20 VARIOUS PRISONERS / INMATES 3:02:47 PRISON GUARD / CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OPENING DOOR 3:03:00 PRISONERS COMING THROUGH DOOR 3:04:15 SLOW PAN 3:04:52 GUARD WALKS INTO FRAME W/ PRISONER 3:05;24 PAN FROM THE GUARD FACILITY 3:06:28 PSYCHIATRIST IN WHITE COAT INTERVIEWING INMATE 3:06;47 PULL OUT 3:07:41 HIGH ANGLE / DOCTOR AND PATIENT 3;08:00 BACK OF INMATES SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3:08:35 TIGHT SHOT DOCTOR / PULL TO PATIENT 3:09:13 BACK OF SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3;09:25 PAN TO SMILING FACE OF DOCTOR 3:09:59 WS 3:10:13 PRINSONERS FEED / TILT UP TO DOCTOR 3:11:13 TIGHT SHOT DOCTORS NAME ON HIS WHITE COAT / TILT UP TO FACE OF DOCTOR 3:11:38 PULL OUT TO 2 SHOT / DOCTOR AND PRISONER 3:12:05 INMATE W/ FACE BLOCKED 3:12:12 ARMS W/ TATTOOS 3:12:18 PRISONER EXERCISING / FACE BLOCKED 3:12:35 GUARDS SHOT THROUGH GLASS DOOR 3:13:23 WS / ISOLATION SIGN ON DOOR 3:13;36 SOMEBODY WALKS BY ON OTHER SIDE OF DOOR 3:14:20 GUARD TALKING W/ SOMEONE 3;14:34 SOUND OF DOOR SLAMMING 3:16:54 NURSE 3:16:59 GUARDS TALKING THROUGH A DOOR 3:17:24 GUARD OPENING A DOOR 3:18:09 TIGHT SHOT ON BADGE / LA / LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF / PULL OUT 3:18:48 GUARD ROOM 3:18:53 SHERIFF ON PHONE / TELEPHONE 3:119:12 MONITOR / GUY PACING INSIDE CELL 3:19:27 WS 3:20:07 WS INMATE THROUGH WINDOW ACTING WEIRD 3:20:21 EXERCISE ROOM 3:20:44 GROUP AROUND PING PONG TABLE / TABLE TENNIS 3:20:58 PRISONER ON PHONE / TELEPHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:11 WS PRISONER THROWING BALL 3:21:15 ANOTHER PRISONE ON PHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:50 NEW INMATES BEING SCREENED / BLUE UNIFORMS 3:22;26 INTERVIEWER NODDING / PAN TO 2 SHOT 3:23:40 WS SCREENING AREA 3:23;50 SIGN / MEDICAL SCREENING / PULL OUT 3:24:17 SOMEONE WALKS THROUGH 3:24;29 FOUR MEN FROM BEHIND / MEDICAL SCREENING SIGN ABOVE THEM 3:25:14 SLOW PAN W/ MAN WALKING THROUGH 3:26:00 EXTS / EXTERIORS 3:26:09 BUS DRIVES THROUGH 3:26;17 TWIN TOWERS CORRECTION FACILITY SIGN 3:26:38 PULL OUT / SLOW 3:26:48 BUS 3:26:56 SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 3:27:27 WS SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY / PULL OUT AS BUS DRIVES INTO ENTRANCE

B ROLL OF TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY FOR MENTALLY ILL PRISONERS / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL FOR A JAMI FLOYD CS VO ON THE LACK OF TREATMENT FOR THE LARGE NUMBER OF MENTALLY ILL INMATES IN PRISON 3:01:20 VARIOUS PRISONERS / INMATES 3:02:47 PRISON GUARD / CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OPENING DOOR 3:03:00 PRISONERS COMING THROUGH DOOR 3:04:15 SLOW PAN 3:04:52 GUARD WALKS INTO FRAME W/ PRISONER 3:05;24 PAN FROM THE GUARD FACILITY 3:06:28 PSYCHIATRIST IN WHITE COAT INTERVIEWING INMATE 3:06;47 PULL OUT 3:07:41 HIGH ANGLE / DOCTOR AND PATIENT 3;08:00 BACK OF INMATES SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3:08:35 TIGHT SHOT DOCTOR / PULL TO PATIENT 3:09:13 BACK OF SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3;09:25 PAN TO SMILING FACE OF DOCTOR 3:09:59 WS 3:10:13 PRINSONERS FEED / TILT UP TO DOCTOR 3:11:13 TIGHT SHOT DOCTORS NAME ON HIS WHITE COAT / TILT UP TO FACE OF DOCTOR 3:11:38 PULL OUT TO 2 SHOT / DOCTOR AND PRISONER 3:12:05 INMATE W/ FACE BLOCKED 3:12:12 ARMS W/ TATTOOS 3:12:18 PRISONER EXERCISING / FACE BLOCKED 3:12:35 GUARDS SHOT THROUGH GLASS DOOR 3:13:23 WS / ISOLATION SIGN ON DOOR 3:13;36 SOMEBODY WALKS BY ON OTHER SIDE OF DOOR 3:14:20 GUARD TALKING W/ SOMEONE 3;14:34 SOUND OF DOOR SLAMMING 3:16:54 NURSE 3:16:59 GUARDS TALKING THROUGH A DOOR 3:17:24 GUARD OPENING A DOOR 3:18:09 TIGHT SHOT ON BADGE / LA / LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF / PULL OUT 3:18:48 GUARD ROOM 3:18:53 SHERIFF ON PHONE / TELEPHONE 3:119:12 MONITOR / GUY PACING INSIDE CELL 3:19:27 WS 3:20:07 WS INMATE THROUGH WINDOW ACTING WEIRD 3:20:21 EXERCISE ROOM 3:20:44 GROUP AROUND PING PONG TABLE / TABLE TENNIS 3:20:58 PRISONER ON PHONE / TELEPHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:11 WS PRISONER THROWING BALL 3:21:15 ANOTHER PRISONE ON PHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:50 NEW INMATES BEING SCREENED / BLUE UNIFORMS 3:22;26 INTERVIEWER NODDING / PAN TO 2 SHOT 3:23:40 WS SCREENING AREA 3:23;50 SIGN / MEDICAL SCREENING / PULL OUT 3:24:17 SOMEONE WALKS THROUGH 3:24;29 FOUR MEN FROM BEHIND / MEDICAL SCREENING SIGN ABOVE THEM 3:25:14 SLOW PAN W/ MAN WALKING THROUGH 3:26:00 EXTS / EXTERIORS 3:26:09 BUS DRIVES THROUGH 3:26;17 TWIN TOWERS CORRECTION FACILITY SIGN 3:26:38 PULL OUT / SLOW 3:26:48 BUS 3:26:56 SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 3:27:27 WS SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY / PULL OUT AS BUS DRIVES INTO ENTRANCE

B ROLL OF TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY FOR MENTALLY ILL PRISONERS / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL FOR A JAMI FLOYD CS VO ON THE LACK OF TREATMENT FOR THE LARGE NUMBER OF MENTALLY ILL INMATES IN PRISON 3:01:20 VARIOUS PRISONERS / INMATES 3:02:47 PRISON GUARD / CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OPENING DOOR 3:03:00 PRISONERS COMING THROUGH DOOR 3:04:15 SLOW PAN 3:04:52 GUARD WALKS INTO FRAME W/ PRISONER 3:05;24 PAN FROM THE GUARD FACILITY 3:06:28 PSYCHIATRIST IN WHITE COAT INTERVIEWING INMATE 3:06;47 PULL OUT 3:07:41 HIGH ANGLE / DOCTOR AND PATIENT 3;08:00 BACK OF INMATES SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3:08:35 TIGHT SHOT DOCTOR / PULL TO PATIENT 3:09:13 BACK OF SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3;09:25 PAN TO SMILING FACE OF DOCTOR 3:09:59 WS 3:10:13 PRINSONERS FEED / TILT UP TO DOCTOR 3:11:13 TIGHT SHOT DOCTORS NAME ON HIS WHITE COAT / TILT UP TO FACE OF DOCTOR 3:11:38 PULL OUT TO 2 SHOT / DOCTOR AND PRISONER 3:12:05 INMATE W/ FACE BLOCKED 3:12:12 ARMS W/ TATTOOS 3:12:18 PRISONER EXERCISING / FACE BLOCKED 3:12:35 GUARDS SHOT THROUGH GLASS DOOR 3:13:23 WS / ISOLATION SIGN ON DOOR 3:13;36 SOMEBODY WALKS BY ON OTHER SIDE OF DOOR 3:14:20 GUARD TALKING W/ SOMEONE 3;14:34 SOUND OF DOOR SLAMMING 3:16:54 NURSE 3:16:59 GUARDS TALKING THROUGH A DOOR 3:17:24 GUARD OPENING A DOOR 3:18:09 TIGHT SHOT ON BADGE / LA / LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF / PULL OUT 3:18:48 GUARD ROOM 3:18:53 SHERIFF ON PHONE / TELEPHONE 3:119:12 MONITOR / GUY PACING INSIDE CELL 3:19:27 WS 3:20:07 WS INMATE THROUGH WINDOW ACTING WEIRD 3:20:21 EXERCISE ROOM 3:20:44 GROUP AROUND PING PONG TABLE / TABLE TENNIS 3:20:58 PRISONER ON PHONE / TELEPHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:11 WS PRISONER THROWING BALL 3:21:15 ANOTHER PRISONE ON PHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:50 NEW INMATES BEING SCREENED / BLUE UNIFORMS 3:22;26 INTERVIEWER NODDING / PAN TO 2 SHOT 3:23:40 WS SCREENING AREA 3:23;50 SIGN / MEDICAL SCREENING / PULL OUT 3:24:17 SOMEONE WALKS THROUGH 3:24;29 FOUR MEN FROM BEHIND / MEDICAL SCREENING SIGN ABOVE THEM 3:25:14 SLOW PAN W/ MAN WALKING THROUGH 3:26:00 EXTS / EXTERIORS 3:26:09 BUS DRIVES THROUGH 3:26;17 TWIN TOWERS CORRECTION FACILITY SIGN 3:26:38 PULL OUT / SLOW 3:26:48 BUS 3:26:56 SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 3:27:27 WS SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY / PULL OUT AS BUS DRIVES INTO ENTRANCE

B ROLL OF TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY FOR MENTALLY ILL PRISONERS / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL FOR A JAMI FLOYD CS VO ON THE LACK OF TREATMENT FOR THE LARGE NUMBER OF MENTALLY ILL INMATES IN PRISON 3:01:20 VARIOUS PRISONERS / INMATES 3:02:47 PRISON GUARD / CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OPENING DOOR 3:03:00 PRISONERS COMING THROUGH DOOR 3:04:15 SLOW PAN 3:04:52 GUARD WALKS INTO FRAME W/ PRISONER 3:05;24 PAN FROM THE GUARD FACILITY 3:06:28 PSYCHIATRIST IN WHITE COAT INTERVIEWING INMATE 3:06;47 PULL OUT 3:07:41 HIGH ANGLE / DOCTOR AND PATIENT 3;08:00 BACK OF INMATES SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3:08:35 TIGHT SHOT DOCTOR / PULL TO PATIENT 3:09:13 BACK OF SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3;09:25 PAN TO SMILING FACE OF DOCTOR 3:09:59 WS 3:10:13 PRINSONERS FEED / TILT UP TO DOCTOR 3:11:13 TIGHT SHOT DOCTORS NAME ON HIS WHITE COAT / TILT UP TO FACE OF DOCTOR 3:11:38 PULL OUT TO 2 SHOT / DOCTOR AND PRISONER 3:12:05 INMATE W/ FACE BLOCKED 3:12:12 ARMS W/ TATTOOS 3:12:18 PRISONER EXERCISING / FACE BLOCKED 3:12:35 GUARDS SHOT THROUGH GLASS DOOR 3:13:23 WS / ISOLATION SIGN ON DOOR 3:13;36 SOMEBODY WALKS BY ON OTHER SIDE OF DOOR 3:14:20 GUARD TALKING W/ SOMEONE 3;14:34 SOUND OF DOOR SLAMMING 3:16:54 NURSE 3:16:59 GUARDS TALKING THROUGH A DOOR 3:17:24 GUARD OPENING A DOOR 3:18:09 TIGHT SHOT ON BADGE / LA / LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF / PULL OUT 3:18:48 GUARD ROOM 3:18:53 SHERIFF ON PHONE / TELEPHONE 3:119:12 MONITOR / GUY PACING INSIDE CELL 3:19:27 WS 3:20:07 WS INMATE THROUGH WINDOW ACTING WEIRD 3:20:21 EXERCISE ROOM 3:20:44 GROUP AROUND PING PONG TABLE / TABLE TENNIS 3:20:58 PRISONER ON PHONE / TELEPHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:11 WS PRISONER THROWING BALL 3:21:15 ANOTHER PRISONE ON PHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:50 NEW INMATES BEING SCREENED / BLUE UNIFORMS 3:22;26 INTERVIEWER NODDING / PAN TO 2 SHOT 3:23:40 WS SCREENING AREA 3:23;50 SIGN / MEDICAL SCREENING / PULL OUT 3:24:17 SOMEONE WALKS THROUGH 3:24;29 FOUR MEN FROM BEHIND / MEDICAL SCREENING SIGN ABOVE THEM 3:25:14 SLOW PAN W/ MAN WALKING THROUGH 3:26:00 EXTS / EXTERIORS 3:26:09 BUS DRIVES THROUGH 3:26;17 TWIN TOWERS CORRECTION FACILITY SIGN 3:26:38 PULL OUT / SLOW 3:26:48 BUS 3:26:56 SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 3:27:27 WS SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY / PULL OUT AS BUS DRIVES INTO ENTRANCE

B ROLL OF TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY FOR MENTALLY ILL PRISONERS / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL FOR A JAMI FLOYD CS VO ON THE LACK OF TREATMENT FOR THE LARGE NUMBER OF MENTALLY ILL INMATES IN PRISON 3:01:20 VARIOUS PRISONERS / INMATES 3:02:47 PRISON GUARD / CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OPENING DOOR 3:03:00 PRISONERS COMING THROUGH DOOR 3:04:15 SLOW PAN 3:04:52 GUARD WALKS INTO FRAME W/ PRISONER 3:05;24 PAN FROM THE GUARD FACILITY 3:06:28 PSYCHIATRIST IN WHITE COAT INTERVIEWING INMATE 3:06;47 PULL OUT 3:07:41 HIGH ANGLE / DOCTOR AND PATIENT 3;08:00 BACK OF INMATES SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3:08:35 TIGHT SHOT DOCTOR / PULL TO PATIENT 3:09:13 BACK OF SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3;09:25 PAN TO SMILING FACE OF DOCTOR 3:09:59 WS 3:10:13 PRINSONERS FEED / TILT UP TO DOCTOR 3:11:13 TIGHT SHOT DOCTORS NAME ON HIS WHITE COAT / TILT UP TO FACE OF DOCTOR 3:11:38 PULL OUT TO 2 SHOT / DOCTOR AND PRISONER 3:12:05 INMATE W/ FACE BLOCKED 3:12:12 ARMS W/ TATTOOS 3:12:18 PRISONER EXERCISING / FACE BLOCKED 3:12:35 GUARDS SHOT THROUGH GLASS DOOR 3:13:23 WS / ISOLATION SIGN ON DOOR 3:13;36 SOMEBODY WALKS BY ON OTHER SIDE OF DOOR 3:14:20 GUARD TALKING W/ SOMEONE 3;14:34 SOUND OF DOOR SLAMMING 3:16:54 NURSE 3:16:59 GUARDS TALKING THROUGH A DOOR 3:17:24 GUARD OPENING A DOOR 3:18:09 TIGHT SHOT ON BADGE / LA / LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF / PULL OUT 3:18:48 GUARD ROOM 3:18:53 SHERIFF ON PHONE / TELEPHONE 3:119:12 MONITOR / GUY PACING INSIDE CELL 3:19:27 WS 3:20:07 WS INMATE THROUGH WINDOW ACTING WEIRD 3:20:21 EXERCISE ROOM 3:20:44 GROUP AROUND PING PONG TABLE / TABLE TENNIS 3:20:58 PRISONER ON PHONE / TELEPHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:11 WS PRISONER THROWING BALL 3:21:15 ANOTHER PRISONE ON PHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:50 NEW INMATES BEING SCREENED / BLUE UNIFORMS 3:22;26 INTERVIEWER NODDING / PAN TO 2 SHOT 3:23:40 WS SCREENING AREA 3:23;50 SIGN / MEDICAL SCREENING / PULL OUT 3:24:17 SOMEONE WALKS THROUGH 3:24;29 FOUR MEN FROM BEHIND / MEDICAL SCREENING SIGN ABOVE THEM 3:25:14 SLOW PAN W/ MAN WALKING THROUGH 3:26:00 EXTS / EXTERIORS 3:26:09 BUS DRIVES THROUGH 3:26;17 TWIN TOWERS CORRECTION FACILITY SIGN 3:26:38 PULL OUT / SLOW 3:26:48 BUS 3:26:56 SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 3:27:27 WS SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY / PULL OUT AS BUS DRIVES INTO ENTRANCE

B ROLL OF TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY FOR MENTALLY ILL PRISONERS / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL FOR A JAMI FLOYD CS VO ON THE LACK OF TREATMENT FOR THE LARGE NUMBER OF MENTALLY ILL INMATES IN PRISON 3:01:20 VARIOUS PRISONERS / INMATES 3:02:47 PRISON GUARD / CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OPENING DOOR 3:03:00 PRISONERS COMING THROUGH DOOR 3:04:15 SLOW PAN 3:04:52 GUARD WALKS INTO FRAME W/ PRISONER 3:05;24 PAN FROM THE GUARD FACILITY 3:06:28 PSYCHIATRIST IN WHITE COAT INTERVIEWING INMATE 3:06;47 PULL OUT 3:07:41 HIGH ANGLE / DOCTOR AND PATIENT 3;08:00 BACK OF INMATES SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3:08:35 TIGHT SHOT DOCTOR / PULL TO PATIENT 3:09:13 BACK OF SHIRT / LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL 3;09:25 PAN TO SMILING FACE OF DOCTOR 3:09:59 WS 3:10:13 PRINSONERS FEED / TILT UP TO DOCTOR 3:11:13 TIGHT SHOT DOCTORS NAME ON HIS WHITE COAT / TILT UP TO FACE OF DOCTOR 3:11:38 PULL OUT TO 2 SHOT / DOCTOR AND PRISONER 3:12:05 INMATE W/ FACE BLOCKED 3:12:12 ARMS W/ TATTOOS 3:12:18 PRISONER EXERCISING / FACE BLOCKED 3:12:35 GUARDS SHOT THROUGH GLASS DOOR 3:13:23 WS / ISOLATION SIGN ON DOOR 3:13;36 SOMEBODY WALKS BY ON OTHER SIDE OF DOOR 3:14:20 GUARD TALKING W/ SOMEONE 3;14:34 SOUND OF DOOR SLAMMING 3:16:54 NURSE 3:16:59 GUARDS TALKING THROUGH A DOOR 3:17:24 GUARD OPENING A DOOR 3:18:09 TIGHT SHOT ON BADGE / LA / LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF / PULL OUT 3:18:48 GUARD ROOM 3:18:53 SHERIFF ON PHONE / TELEPHONE 3:119:12 MONITOR / GUY PACING INSIDE CELL 3:19:27 WS 3:20:07 WS INMATE THROUGH WINDOW ACTING WEIRD 3:20:21 EXERCISE ROOM 3:20:44 GROUP AROUND PING PONG TABLE / TABLE TENNIS 3:20:58 PRISONER ON PHONE / TELEPHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:11 WS PRISONER THROWING BALL 3:21:15 ANOTHER PRISONE ON PHONE FROM BEHIND 3:21:50 NEW INMATES BEING SCREENED / BLUE UNIFORMS 3:22;26 INTERVIEWER NODDING / PAN TO 2 SHOT 3:23:40 WS SCREENING AREA 3:23;50 SIGN / MEDICAL SCREENING / PULL OUT 3:24:17 SOMEONE WALKS THROUGH 3:24;29 FOUR MEN FROM BEHIND / MEDICAL SCREENING SIGN ABOVE THEM 3:25:14 SLOW PAN W/ MAN WALKING THROUGH 3:26:00 EXTS / EXTERIORS 3:26:09 BUS DRIVES THROUGH 3:26;17 TWIN TOWERS CORRECTION FACILITY SIGN 3:26:38 PULL OUT / SLOW 3:26:48 BUS 3:26:56 SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 3:27:27 WS SIGN / TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY / PULL OUT AS BUS DRIVES INTO ENTRANCE

PROGRAM FEED FROM THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION AT THE WELLS FARGO CENTER IN PHILADELPHIA / PAM LIVENGOOD 19:38:20 Hi. For my 50th birthday, I got a 2-year-old. You see, my daughter and her boyfriend had a beautiful little boy named Francis but they got caught up in drugs. It started with the pain medication she was given after Francis was born. And it just got worse. It's hard to explain just how devastating it is to watch your child struggle with substance abuse. I know my daughter loved Francis but love wasn't enough to take care of him. I started getting calls from child services. And one day, they said Francis would be taken away from my family and put in foster care unless he had family who could take care of him. There was no way we were going to let our grandson end up in foster care. So, Francis lived with my husband, John and I, until he was 5. 19:39:15 His grandfather -- he lives with his grandfather now, who is on disability. And when you're my age, you don't expect to start all over again, raising a grandchild. Today, my daughter is in treatment but she has a long road ahead of her. My story isn't unique. This epidemic has devastated communities all over the country. It doesn't discriminate against age, race, gender or income. It affects all of us. But sometimes it feels like folks in Washington don't hear these stories. Well, last year, Hillary Clinton came to New Hampshire for a round table at my workplace. And she asked if addiction had touched any of us. And as I told my story, Hillary listened. She even took notes. And then she did something else we don't see a lot of in Washington. She took action. 19:40:13 She came up with a plan, one that includes everything from reducing overdoses to expanding access to treatment. To me, that's the kind of leader we need. We need a leader who listens to the voices of ordinary Americans, a leader who treats people with compassion and respect, a leader who believes that, as Americans, we look out for each other. I'm not saying that leader has to be a grandmother but it sure helps. For me, that leader is Hillary Clinton. JEANNE SHAHEEN (NEW HAMPSHIRE) 19:41:15 Thank you. Thank you, delegates. And thank you, Pam Livengood for sharing your family's story here today. I applaud your courage. Democrats stand with you, your family and all families struggling with addiction and president Hillary Clinton will stand with you and we will win this fight together. 19:41:50 The opioid and heroin epidemic is ravaging communities all across this country. It's a crisis that affects old and young, rich and poor, men and women, Democrats and Republicans. And it will take all of us working together to defeat it. Across my home state of New Hampshire the awful toll grows each year, 192 overdoses in 2013, 326 fatalities in 2014. And 433 fatalities in 2015. These stories -- these statistics tell a story of a staggering epidemic, but statistics can't fully capture the profound human toll. 19:42:49 It's not only thousands of individual lives that have been destroyed. Entire communities are being devastated. Hillary Clinton sees the epidemic and its terrific toll because she came to new Hampshire. Not to talk but to listen. And she heard stories like Pam livengood's story. She heard stories like the one I recently heard about a young man full of promise, on his way to college when he suffered a sports injury, got addicted to pain killers,switched to heroin. And now instead of living on the freshman quad, he's living on the streets. Panhandling for his next fix. 19:43:35 Hillary heard how addicts are being turned away from treatment facilities due to a lack of resources. Hillary heard from law enforcement, stretched to their limit, dealing with substance abuse. She knows that drug counselors and police officers and others on the front lines of the battle are heroes. 19:43:58 They're doing amazing work. But they need our help. More than 47,000 americans died from drug overdoses in 2014. Hillary Clinton knows we cannot continue on this path. She knows because during this campaign she listened in New Hampshire and across the country. She listened. She learned. And she put together a plan to treat this like the health emergency that it is. And to deploy the necessary resources to fight it. Her plan would invest in some very simple goals, empower communities to prevent drug use among teenagers, ensure every person suffering from addiction can obtain comprehensive treatment, ensure that all first responders carry narcan, which can stop overdoses from becoming fatal and prioritize treatment over prison for low-level and nonviolent drug offenses so we can end the era of mass incarceration. 19:45:10 Early this year, I introduced an emergency funding bill in the senate to pay for policing, prevention, treatment and recovery. But sadly, it was defeated by Republicans. Donald Trump certainly doesn't have a plan to deal with this health epidemic that's gripped our country. In fact, Donald Trump doesn't seem to know what's happening outside of Trump tower. And he seems completely uninterested in finding out. How can trump represent America when he doesn't even take the time to know America? We need a president who listens, who learns, who has empathy and who wants the same opportunities for all children that she's had. Who wants an America where we go forward together. We need president Hillary Clinton. Thank you DEMI LOVATO 19:47:01 Like millions of Americans I'm living with mental illness. But I'm lucky. I had the resources and support to get treatment at a top facility. Unfortunately too many Americans from all walks of life don't get help either because they fear the stigma or cannot afford treatment. Untreated mental illness can lead to devastating consequences, including suicide, substance abuse and long-term medical issues. We can do better. Every one of us can make a difference. By getting educated on this epidemic and its frightening statistics and by breaking the stigma 19:47:38 I urge every politician to support laws that will provide access to better health care and support for everyone. This is not about politics, it's simply the right thing to do. I'm doing my very small part by having the treatment center that saw me through my recovery on tour with me so at least a small group of people even for a brief moment can have the same support that I received. 19:48:07 It may not be a lot but we have to believe every small action counts. I stand here today, as proof that you can live a Normal and empowered life with mental illness. I'm proud to support a presidential candidate who will fight to ensure all people living with mental health conditions get the care they need to lead fulfilling lives. That candidate is Hillary Clinton. [ cheers ] Let's make her the next president of the United States of America. DEMI LOVATO PERFORMANCE JEFF MERKLEY (OREGON) 19:54:09 Hello Philadelphia. And hello Oregon. Wasn't Demi Lovato great? I'm the son of a millwright from a small town in southern Oregon. I was the first in my family to go to college. I live in the same blue collar community I grew up in. And my children go to the same public schools I did. And here is the truth. 19:54:37 Donald Trump got rich by taking advantage of Americans like the hard working Oregonians in my community back home. Making his products overseas, hiring foreign workers instead of Americans for jobs that are right here in the United States. Cheating small business contractors, never paying them what he owed. And scamming people out of their savings through his fraudulent university. 19:55:11 Where I come from, people like Donald Trump are not the problem -- they're not the solution, they are the problem. Last week in Cleveland, Donald Trump claimed he was champion for American workers, but he's never woken up a day in his life worried about American workers. He is no more a champion for American workers than a lion is a champion for a gazelle. When I talk to folks back home again and again, I hear the frustrations of people who watch billionaires get richer while they struggle to find a job, struggle to send their kids to college, struggle to make their rent or their mortgage. Our response to these real challenges should not be to blame, to bully, to belittle, but to rise to the moment with real solutions. 19:56:11 We owe an enormous debt to Bernie Sanders, speaking of solutions. [ Applause ] Bernie Sanders inspired us to reach for bold solutions the challenges we face. Bernie's leadership on Progressive issues, his willingness to fearlessly stand up to the powers that be have galvanized a grassroots movement that is here tonight and will continue long after November and we need it to continue long after November. And now together, working together, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have forged the most progressive platform in our party's history. 19:57:09 And working together we need to join their fight for tuition free college for working americans. For (?) to 100% renewable energy to save our planet from climate change. We need to fight together to overturn citizens united. We need to fight together for passage of the equality act for full opportunity for LGBTQ Americans. We need to fight together with bernie and hillary to end profiling and mass incarceration for our communities of color. And we need to fight for trade policies that put american workers first, which means as Hillary has said, we must say no to bad trade deals and that includes the TPP. 19:58:28 Together -- >> [ inaud. Chant ] --together, we must fight for a government of, by, and for the people. Not a government for the powerful, not a government for the privileged. But a government for the people. And that is exactly what we're going to do when we follow the vision of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and elect her, Hillary Clinton, and Tim Kaine in November. [ cheers and applause ] 19:59:08 We must be united in this battle. Whether you spent this year feeling the bern or you spent this year ready for Hillary, all of us are ready for an America that rejects discrimination and embraces diversity, that celebrates voter empowerment not voter suppression, that creates opportunity for all of us not just the lucky few. So let's work together, as Bernie and Hillary have, and make sure that next January, on the west steps of the capital, it is Hillary Clinton that we are celebrating to become the next president of the United States of America. [ cheers ] Thank you so much, God bless you, and goodnight. Thank you. 20:02:16 [ 'SHE'S WITH US' VIDEO ] KARLA (11 YRS. OLD) AND FRANCISCA ORTIZ 20:03:44 KARLA: Thank you very much for coming here today. I really appreciate it. And today I'm going to tell you guys the story about my parents, about their deportation of immigration. And I'm a daughter of immigrant parents. Valiente, brave, that's what Hillary Clinton called me when I told her I was worried my parents would be deported. 20:04:15 Even when I was little, my parents were always crying. But I didn't understand why. Soy Americana. (I'm American) I was -- [ cheers ] I was born in Las Vegas, Nevada. My parents came here, looking for a better life, for the American dream. Sueno Americano. But I don't feel brave every day. On most days I'm scared. I'm scared that at any moment, my mom and my dad will be forced to leave. 20:04:58 And I wonder, what if I come home and find it empty? I want to see my parents do -- I want my parents to see me do science experiments and help me find my rare rocks in the desert. I want to grow up to be a lawyer so I can help other families like us. [ cheers and applause ] I have hope. Esperanza. 20:05:32 Hillary Clinton told me that she would do everything she could to help us. She told me that I didn't have to do the worrying because she would do the worrying for me and all of us. 20:05:52 She wants me to have the worries of an 11-year-old, not the weight of the world on my shoulder. 20:06:09 FRANCISCA: Valiente. [ cheers and applause ] [speaking Spanish] 20:06:34 [SHOT OF WOMAN IN AUDIENCE CRYING] 20:06:54 KARLA: [Speaks Spanish] Hillary Clinton for president. Thank you. >> [ chant ] Si se pueda! Si se pueda! 20:07:34 ['TRUMP IN HIS OWN WORDS' VIDEO PLAYS ASTRID SILVA 20:09:12 When I was 4 years old, my mother and I climbed into a raft and we crossed the river to join my father in America, in search of a better life. All I had was a little doll. I grew up like an ordinary girl. My dad worked as a landscaper and my mom stayed at home with my brother and I. But while my friends did ordinary things, I couldn't. Because my parents were afraid that someone might discover I was undocumented. 20:09:41 My family believed so deeply in the promise of this country that we risked everything for the American dream. As an undocumented student, I felt like college was out of reach. But after a journey of ten years, I finally graduated from Nevada state college. [ cheers ] My family and I are here because of people like senator Harry Reid. [ cheers ] Mi abuelito, who put themselves in our shoes and helped us. And while president Obama's immigration action protected me, we live in constant fear that my parents could be taken away from their grandson, Noah. 20:10:33 So, when Donald Trump talks about deporting 11 million people, he's talking about ripping families apart. Separating families like mine and like Karla's. Hillary Clinton understands that this is not who we are as a country. I have seen her comfort children like Karla, who are scared they might lose their parents to deportation. I know she will fight to keep our families together. Nuestras familias. I know she will. LUIS GUTIERREZ (ILLINOIS) 20:11:36 Thank you. Hello, Philadelphia. You know, my parents grew up in San Sebastian, Del Pepino in rural Puerto Rico. They weren't educated. They didn't speak English. But they didn't even have a winter coat. Barely out of their teens, they came to the U.S. When I -- and I was born in the great city of Chicago. [ cheers ] 20:12:20 My parents were born American citizens but when they moved, along with half a million other Puerto ricans in the 1950s, they were greeted with scorn and discrimination. Politicians called them criminals. They said my parents were a dangerous disease and would ruin the country. Sound familiar to you tonight? Nobody spoke up against the bigotry and hatred my parents endured. So you better believe I'm using my voice against the discrimination we hear today. [ cheers and applause ] 20:13:00 I will raise my voice against the bigot who think a judge born in Indiana can't do his job because his parents were born in Mexico. I'll raise my voice against a bully who calls hard-working immigrants criminals and rapists. Someone who promises to round up and deport families, millions of families and then put up a wall between them and us. You have joined me in that fight and so has Hillary Clinton. She stands with us so Americans remain and America remains a welcoming nation. 20:13:53 We don't discriminate because of what you look like, who you love, how you pray, what language your parents speak or where you were born. But let's be clear. My parents, when they came from Puerto Rico, weren't the only ones to confront discrimination. Every generation of newcomers, whoever and whatever they come from, Latin America, Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, they're met with skepticism and suspicion. But every generation proves the skeptics wrong. Immigrants contribute to our communities and make America a great nation. Immigrants die defending our democracy. 20:14:49 And you know what? They give our founding principles meaning in our time. Every time immigrants are labeled as them but over time they become part of us. We, the people. About 11 million undocumented immigrants live, work, pay taxes and raise their families in the United States of America. A lot of their families include U.S. Citizens just like me. But, listen, no matter what your family tree looks like, a fair immigration system is better for all of America. 20:15:35 No matter what others say, it is simply a fantasy that we're going to round up and deport 11 million people. It's a sick, hateful fantasy. But let me tell you what gives me hope. In her heart, Hillary Clinton's dream for America is one where immigrants are allowed to come out of the shadows, get right with the law, pay their taxes and not feel fear that their families are going to be ripped apart. [ applause ] 20:16:13 When Hillary Clinton steps to this podium to accept the nomination, we'll all take a giant step forward. The broad and diverse America that fights for an inclusive and fair nation, our union of black and brown, white and African and Asian people, who love the Earth and know that climate change is real and value education, we will all step up to that podium with her. Listen, we continue the work of our heroes like John Lewis, Chavez and Dr. Martin Luther king. And martyrs like Medgar Evers, who allow me the ability to speak from this podium. We fight for equal rights we believe women deserve equal pay for equal work in this country. [ cheers and applause ] 20:17:18 And we will not stand idly by because we believe that congress has to keep its hands off planned parenthood. We believe that people should be able to love who they love and marry who they want to marry in the United States of America. And we believe that when you send your children to school or young people are having fun at a nightclub, or you walk a beat as a police officer or you walk down the street in your neighborhood in Chicago, you shouldn't fear being shot. We will take on the NRA with Hillary as president of the United States. 20:18:17 Yes. We believe in a country where this son of uneducated parents born in Puerto Rico can speak to this nation on this podium in the city where the United States of America was born. [ Speaking Spanish ] With Hillary, our nation will be greater, better and stronger. [ Speaking Spanish ] Si se puede.[ Crowd chanting, si se puede ] JASON AND JARRON COLLINS 20:19:32 JARRON: Thank you. I'm Jarron Collins. And alongside my kind and brilliant wife, Elsa, we have three children that are raised here in America. I want my kids to know that anything is possible here. I want them to know that any more than any star athlete, the president of the United States is a role model to millions of children. So when it comes to Donald Trump, how do you tell your kids not to be a bully if their president is one? [ cheers ] How do you tell your kids to respect their heritage? My wife is Mexican-american, if their president disparages it? How do you tell your daughters they are empowered if their president reduces women to their physical appearance? 20:20:28 My parents, my family and all the great coaches I've had in my life have taught me the importance of working hard, playing fair and, most importantly, the ability to lead and bring people together to accomplish great things. That sounds like Hillary Clinton to me. [ cheers and applause ] And now, it is with great pride I introduce the first publicly gay athlete to play in any of the four major American sports leagues, my less handsome twin brother, Jason Collins. 20:21:09 JASON: Thank you, Jarron. I'll get you back for that one later. My dream was to play in the NBA and live my authentic life as a proud gay man at the same time. I was able to accomplish both of those goals because of the people who have supported me throughout my life. Before I came out to the world on the cover of "Sports Illustrated" I came out privately to the Clinton family. I have known their family for almost 20 years. I knew that they would accept me for who I was and that they would help pave a path for others to do the same. 20:21:52 I am forever grateful for their words of wisdom back then and their unconditional support. They knew that my sexual orientation made no difference in my ability to play basketball. Just as someone's gender makes no difference in his or her ability to lead our nation. Hillary has defended the lgbt community for years, from co-sponsoring the Matthew Shepard hate crimes prevention act to helping pass the first-ever U.N. Resolution on lgbt human rights, to making sure transgender individuals passports could reflect their true gender. 20:22:40 As both an African-American and a member of the lgbt community, the choice for continued progress is clear.This November, we must elect Hillary Clinton as our next president. Thank you. JESSE LIPSON 20:23:27 So I don't know about you, but Donald Trump's acceptance speech left me with a lot questions. For example, where's this losing country he keeps talking about? The America I live in, the North Carolina I live in -- [ cheers ] -- is a creative engine where the innovative spirit is alive and well. Where nearly all net new jobs are created by startups. Where you can still make something from nothing like I did. 20:24:04 I taught myself how to build software on nights and weekends. When I was 26, I started my company with just $100 in advertising. Today we're in more than 100 countries and we've created more than 800 jobs in Raleigh. [Cheers and applause] 20:24:26 Donald, I'm also a businessman, you build skyscrapers, I build in the cloud, but it's clear you don't understand something simple about business. 20:24:40 Nothing scares away investment like hate. [ applause ] Disgusting laws like north Carolina's attack on lgbt Americans are costing my state hundreds of millions of dollars. It cost us the NBA all-star game and it is also costing us talented programmers who are ready to build the future. I've seen venture capitalists who refuse to invest in our state. Republicans may think they are telling people which bathroom to go into, but they are actually telling people which market to stay out of. 20:25:27 When I travel abroad, I hear people talking about legalized discrimination in America, bigotry doesn't just hurt my state, it hurts our entire country. It is not just North Carolina. In Indiana Mike pence approved discrimination against lgbt Americans. [boos] So I guess you could say if bigotry has created one job, the position of Donald Trump's running mate. 20:26:06 Hillary Clinton knows what every great CEO knows, we're stronger together. That's why she supports a federal law protecting workers in the workplace, no matter who they love or who they are. She'll cut taxes and regulations for startups and small businesses so they can hire and grow. She'll invest in breakthrough R&D so the industry and jobs of the future are created here in America. She'll help lift the burden of college debt so young people can chase their dreams. I tell my employees all of the time, focus on solutions not problems. All trump offers are problems. Hillary offers real solutions. 20:27:07 America, there is no question Hillary Clinton must be our next president. [Cheers and applause] Thank you. PAT SPEARMAN 20:29:02 Good evening, Democrats. Good evening, Democrats! I'm a veteran, I'm a minister, I'm an African American, and I am a proud member of the lgbtq community. [Cheers and applause] When I joined our military in 1977 I lived in fear of being discharged. But today, lgbtq members of the military can serve openly and proudly. When I was elected to the Nevada state legislature in 2012, I was one of only two who were openly gay and today I'm one of five. [ cheers ] When Nevada started recognizing same-sex marriage in 2014, we were one of 26 states and today marriage equality is nationwide, that's progress, my friends. [Cheers and applause] 20:30:17 But we can't stop now. We've heard Trump say that he would protect the lgbtq community, but he is against marriage equality and has said he's all for overturning it. Donald Trump says that anyone can use any bathroom in trump towers, but he still supports heinous bathroom bills and he would strip the rights away from transgender Americans. But his worst attack on us was his vice presidential pick. Indiana governor Mike pence. 20:31:08 Governor pence signed a law that lets individuals and businesses deny services to LGBTQ Americans and he used religion as a weapon to discriminate. And the state lost millions of dollars as a result. As a lesbian that hurts me, and as a person of faith that offends me and as a legislator working hard to create jobs that baffles me. No matter the cost to our country Donald Trump and Mike pence will strip away the progress we have fought so hard to win. 20:32:00 Why? Because they fear diversity, we celebrate it. They fear progress, we build on it. They fear equality, we'll keep fighting for it. So Democrats, Democrats, are we going to retreat? >> No. SPEARMAN>> Will we keep marching forward? >> Yes. 20:32:24 SPEARMAN>> Hillary Clinton is battle tested. She will fight alongside us for equality in our schools, in our communities, in our workplaces and in our nation. She will make the equality act legal and make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of who you love, who you are, wherever you live or wherever you work once and for all. 20:33:00 This election make no mistake about it, won't be easy. I know we are ready. And in the words of the old negro spiritual, so let's walk together Democrats, don't get weary, let's work together Democrats, don't get weary, let's talk together Democrats, don't get weary, there's a great camp meeting in the promised land of equality. Thank you, and god bless you all. [Cheers and applause] [ VIDEO PLAYS ] BOB CASEY (PENNSYLVANIA) 20:35:50 Welcome to Philadelphia, the place where American independence began, where our Constitution was born. Since the time of William Penn, Pennsylvania has been a commonwealth of creators. Of makers. Of builders who, every day, invent the future. My father, Governor Casey, believed that we must never forget that quote, "the sweat and blood of working men and women who built Pennsylvania forged the industrial revolution in our country and out-produced the world." 20:36:24 With family roots in Scranton and her many visits to the state over the years, Hillary Clinton understands this. She'll work every day to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. But what about Donald Trump? Donald Trump says he stands for workers and that he'll put America first, but that's not how he conducted himself in business. Where are his quote, "tremendous" Trump products made? Dress shirts: Bangladesh; furniture: Turkey; picture frames: India; wine glasses: Slovenia; neckties: China. China. 20:37:09 Why would Donald Trump make his products in every corner of the globe, but not in Altoona, Erie, or here in Philadelphia? [ cheers ] Well, this is what he said: quote, "outsourcing is not always a terrible thing." Wages in America quote "are too high." And then he complained about companies moving jobs overseas because quote, "we don't make things anymore." 20:37:41 Really? Well, tell that to the union workers at All-Clad in Canonsburg, who make the pots and pans found in many of our kitchens. [ cheers and applause ] Tell that -- Tell that to the employees of K'NEX in Hatfield, who create toys that teach our children about engineering and architecture. Tell that to the robotics students at Carnegie Mellon, who are building 21st century robots and cars that drive themselves. 20:38:11 Donald Trump hasn't made anything in his life except a buck on the backs of working people. If he's a champion of working people, I'm the starting center for the 76ers. The man who says he wants to make America great doesn't make anything in America. And it's insulting that he has no plan, no plan to support the men and women who are manufacturing products here at home. All he has are empty promises, like so many he's made and failed to follow through on before. If you believe that outsourcing has been good for working people and has raised incomes for the middle class, then you should vote for Donald Trump. 20:39:03 I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. Hillary believes that we need an economy that works for everyone, not just Donald Trump and those at the top. We need to commit ourselves to making good-paying jobs here at home, so that everyone who works hard can get ahead and stay there. That's why in her first 100 days in office, President Hillary Clinton will put forward the largest investment in good-paying jobs since World War II. 20:39:38 As President, she'll reward businesses that share profits with their employees. She will slap a new "exit tax" on companies that move overseas while rewarding companies that invest here at home. And she'll strengthen our economy by investing $10 billion in new advanced manufacturing jobs that can't be sent overseas. 20:40:02 This November, we have a choice. You can choose a candidate who's only out for himself, who wants to get rid of the federal minimum wage, and who would cut taxes for the richest Americans at the expense of the middle class. Or you can choose Hillary Clinton - a leader with a proven track record of fighting for an economy that works for ALL of us. If you're with her like I am, go to hillaryclinton.com. Thank you. LUKE FEENEY MAYOR OF CHILLICOTHE, OHIO 20:41:04 >> Hello, delegates! Hello, Ohio! I am proud to serve the great people of historic Chillicothe, Ohio's first capital. And I'm proud to be one of the many Ohioans supporting Hillary Clinton. [Cheers and applause] When I think about what's at stake this November, I think about a woman from our hometown named Courtney Lewis. Courtney's dad works at the local paper mill. She dreamed of opening her own business. Not just for her, but for her city. She didn't like seeing her city with those empty buildings downtown. 20:41:52 She wanted to do her part. So, Courtney moved into a vacant storefront and, with two partners, started a local gift shop called Totem Supply Company. Three years later, Totem is a small town success story and it's not the only one. Chillicothe is on the rise. Appalache is on the rise. And it's thanks to small business owners like Courtney. I tell Courtney's story tonight not because it's unique, but because it isn't. 20:42:28 All across the country thousands of entrepreneurs and small business owners are equally ready to drive growth in their communities, all they need is a chance. The last thing Ohioans need is a president who has crushed small businesses by not paying them for the work they did. The last thing Ohio needs is Donald Trump. Hillary's dad was a small business owner, she gets it. Hillary knows America works best when it works for everyone. And she has a plan to make sure that entrepreneurs like Courtney have all the tools they need to succeed. 20:43:12 Less red tape, more access to capital like bigger businesses have. A more even playing field and a wider path to prosperity for all of us. Mayors of small towns across the country need a president who will be a friend to small business, who will be a partner in our resurgence. Hillary knows Americans' success stories start in places like Chillicothe. That's why we're with her. That's why Chillicothe is with her. That's why ohio is with her. 20:43:53 We're with her, because she's with us. And that's why we're going to send Hillary Clinton to the White House this November. Thank you. 20:44:18 [ VIDEO: 'TRUMP IN HIS OWN WORDS'] KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (NEW YORK) 20:46:10 Some people know me as a United States Senator from New York. [ cheers ] But during school drop-off and pick-up, I'm better known as Theo and Henry's mom. Like most working parents, my husband and I juggle a lot. We're fortunate to have flexibility, but some days, we still barely keep it together. 20:46:40 The vast majority of working parents have it much tougher. They're struggling with too little time, too little money, and too little support. And Washington hasn't caught up to their reality. Families today look almost nothing like they did a generation ago. Eight in 10 moms work outside of the home. Four in 10 moms are the primary or sole breadwinners, and many are single. Thanks to marriage equality, more children grow up with two moms or two dads. And yet, today, our policies are stuck in the "Mad Men" era. 20:47:26 We are the only industrialized nation that doesn't guarantee workers paid family leave. Many women can't even get a paid day off to give birth. Most parents work outside the home, yet child care can cost as much as college tuition. Families rely on women's income, but we still don't have equal pay for equal work. This makes no sense, because we know that when families are strong, America is strong. 20:48:07 Hillary Clinton gets it-not just because she's a working mother, and Charlotte and Aidan's grandmother, but because for her, it's about her core values, the idea we have that we have a responsibility to one another. It's about who we are as a nation. It's why after law school, she could have gone to a fancy law firm-but she chose to work at the Children's Defense Fund, where she advocated for children with disabilities. 20:48:47 It's why as America's First Lady she helped create a health insurance program for children so that 8 million kids could get the care they need. And it's why as Secretary of State, she helped women and children to escape violence and poverty-to attend schools, support their families, and reinvest in their communities. 20:49:13 And it's why as President of the United States, she will bring our workplace policies out of the Dark Ages, and always, always, put families first. You see, Hillary Clinton's life -- Hillary Clinton's life's work has been defined by one question: "How can we help those who need it most?" Donald Trump's has been defined by a very different question: "How can I help myself the most?" 20:49:54 Donald Trump actually stood on a debate stage and said that wages are "too high." Hillary knows that in the richest country in the world, it is unacceptable that a mom with two kids working full time still lives in poverty. [ applause ] Donald Trump says that when it comes to paid family leave, "you have to be careful of it." Hillary knows that it's long past time to have guaranteed paid family leave. [ cheers ] 20:50:32 Donald Trump thinks that women should just work harder because-and I'm quoting-"You're gonna make the same if you do as good of a job." Every woman in America knows-that's not true! Hillary believes that women deserve equal pay for equal work. 20:50:58 The choice in this election couldn't be clearer! If you believe in the values that have always made us great-if you believe in keeping America great-then support Hillary Clinton. Thank you and God bless our great nation. AL FRANKEN (MINNESOTA) 20:51:45 Hi everybody. [ cheers ] Hi. Save it for the end. I'm Al Franken. [ cheers ] I'm Al Franken: Minnesotan, Senator, and world-renowned expert on right-wing megalomaniacs: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and now Donald Trump. 20:52:31 Now a little about my qualifications. I got my doctorate in megalomania studies from Trump University. [ laughter ] Sure, I had to empty out my 401(k) and take a reverse mortgage on my house to pay the tuition. But Mr. Trump or, rather, some people who said they'd once met him, convinced me that it was worth it. 20:53:02 And frankly, as a proud alum of Trump U, I think we may be mis-underestimating Donald Trump. Sure, he's scammed a lot of people. But did you know that Trump University's School of Ripping People Off is ranked second in the nation? Right behind Bernie Madoff University? That's no mean feat. 20:53:38 And Trump University is about more than just bilking people. Although, trust me, you will get bilked. It's also about learning directly from success experts like Scott Baio, Mike -- Mike Tyson, and, of course, a life-size cardboard cutout of Mr. Trump himself. 20:54:07 Now, of course, Trump University wouldn't be Trump University without its business school. Their bankruptcy program in particular is known throughout the real estate/investment community for its creativity. The most popular course, Bankruptcy 101, "How to Leave Your Partners Holding the Bag," is taught by the cardboard cutout itself. 20:54:38 The pride of Trump University, of course, is its library, located on a shelf in a closet on the third floor of Trump Tower. All of Mr. Trump's bestsellers are available for sale at a special rate, for students, which is 10% higher than the retail price. Clearly, Donald Trump's enormous, dare I say "huge," success as a businessman qualifies him to be President. And if you believe that, I've got some delicious Trump Steaks to sell you. 20:55:28 In all seriousness, I think rather than voting for someone who's never done anything for anyone other than himself, maybe we should go with the candidate who's spent her entire life working to get important things done for the American people. [ cheers and applause ] I've known Hillary, I've known Hillary for almost a quarter-century. I've never met anyone smarter, tougher, or more ready to lead us forward. I am proud to call Hillary Clinton my friend. And I can't wait to call her Madam President. 20:56:30 Now, we're going to have a lot of fun this week. But when we wake up Friday morning, there will be just 102 days left until the election. And what you - yes, all of you - what you do in those 102 days could determine who wins. And I mean that literally. I won my first race for the Senate by 312 votes. 20:57:07 There's my Minnesota delegation. There are people up there who contacted more than 312 people themselves. And literally I would not be here. The reason--they are, each of them, individually, the reason I'm giving this speech here and not into my bathroom mirror. 20:57:42 My friend, my friend Paul Wellstone - [ cheers ] -- my friend Paul Wellstone used to say, "The future belongs to those who are passionate and work hard." This week is about passion. But starting Friday morning, it's all about work, hard work. 20:58:21 Now, now, many of you have jobs. Many of you have families. Ignore them. Let me tell you something: kids love it when their parents aren't home. They love it. And let me tell you something else. An 8-year-old knows how to use a microwave oven. And let me tell you something else. An 8-year-old can teach a 4-year-old kid how to use a microwave. It's just scientific fact. 20:59:02 Don't worry about your kids. They'll be fine. You have work to do. Get on those phones. Knock on those doors. And tell 'em Al Franken sent you. Thank you. 21:02:22 [ VIDEO PLAYS ] ANASTASIA SOMOZA 21:04:00 I first met Hillary as first lady on a visit to the white house. I was 9 years old and I listened to her and my mom discuss health care and early intervention for children with disabilities. [ cheers and applause ] Over the past 23 years, she has continued to serve as a friend and mentor, championing my inclusion and access to classrooms, higher education and the work force. She has never lost touch with people like me. She has invested in me, she believes in me and in a country where 56 million Americans with disabilities so often feel invisible, Hillary Clinton sees me. 20:05:11 She sees me as a strong woman, a young professional, a hard worker and the proud daughter of immigrants. My father from Nicaragua and my mother from Ireland. She has shown me that all these aspects of my identity are strengths which will help me effect change. I fear the day we elect a president who defines being American in the narrowest possible terms, who shouts, bullies and profits off of vulnerable Americans. 21:06:00 Donald Trump has shown us who he really is and I honestly feel bad for anyone with that much hate in their heart. I know we will show each other and the world who we really are in November when we choose genuine strength and thoughtful leadership over fear and division. Donald Trump doesn't see me. He doesn't hear me. And he definitely doesn't speak for me. [ cheers and applause ] 21:06:50 I am confident that as our president, Hillary will do everything in her power to promote the rights, empowerment and humanity of all Americans. [ cheers ] She knows that when we support access to education and employment opportunities for absolutely everyone, more of us will be able to live happy, independent lives and to promote, build, and contribute to this great country. 21:07:31 As president, Hillary Clinton will continue fighting and inspiring us all with her (?) and tireless efforts on our behalf. On the eve of the 26th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act, I'm proud to be with you, Hillary. Thank you for showing me how to live boldly with a courageous heart. AL FRANKEN AND SARAH SILVERMAN 21:14:57 FRANKEN>> Remember me? I'm senator Al Franken and this past year, I have been #I'mwithher. SILVERMAN>> I'm Sarah Silverman. And this past year, I've been feeling the Bern. Relax. I put some cream on it. FRANKEN>> What did you say? SILVERMAN>> I said I put some cream on it. 21:15:30 FRANKEN>> You see, Sarah's the comedian so she gets the joke and I'm the politician now, so I get to make what's known as an ask. But trust me, it's a good ask. You see, if you go to hillaryclinton.com before midnight tonight and join the team, you can be not just #I'mwithher in spirit but #I'mwithher literally, as in you could win a trip to Philadelphia to be here on Thursday night when Hillary accepts the nomination. See, Sarah? That's even more fun than getting to get the joke. 21:16:15 SILVERMAN>> Oh, Al. You still got it. While we're on the subject, can I make my speech now? FRANKEN>> Oh absolutely. Go ahead. SILVERMAN>> Thank you. Al, get out of my frame. As some of you may know, I support Bernie Sanders and the movement behind him. [ cheers and applause ] 21:16:41 And Bernie's already succeeded in so many ways. He proved that citizens united is in fact not a necessary evil and by the way, citizens united, isn't that such a beautiful name for something that means billionaires buying politicians? Good Lord. Rails against the very spirit of our democracy. 21:17:06 And I'm very glad that Hillary has vowed to overturn it. [ cheers ] Not only did Bernie wake us up, he made us understand what is possible and what we deserve. You know, my shrink says we don't get what we want, we get what we think we deserve, and Bernie showed us that all of America's citizens deserve quality health care and education, not just the wealthy elites. I know. It sounds so obvious, who wouldn't agree with that? But yet it's not what's been happening. You know, I happen to believe the crazy notion that people who maybe weren't born with the same opportunities as you and me should be given the same opportunities as you and me. 21:17:57 And all it takes to accomplish this is everyone, is all of us, or as a pretty kick-ass woman once said, it takes a village. This democratic primary was exemplary. No name calling, no comments about the size of candidate's hands or ethnicity or how much they sweat or if they go to the bathroo m. Inside secret, they do. That stuff is for third graders. Come on. That's like major arrested development stuff. That's -- I'm still emotionally for calling people names from my gold-encrusted sand box because I was given money instead of human touch or coping tools stuff. Stop. But I digress. I have just been told to stretch. 21:18:54 Hillary heard the passion of the people, the people behind Bernie, and brought those passions into the party's platform and that, that is the process of democracy at its very best and it's very cool to see. [ cheers and applause ] Hillary is our democratic nominee and I will proudly vote for her. >> [ boos ] [ SHOT OF BERNIE SUPPORTERS ] 21:19:28 It's so inspiring, it's so inspiring, just a few years ago -- [ SHOT OF BERNIE SUPPORTERS BOOING ] -- she was a secretary and now she's going to be president. I mean, come on. She's like the only person ever to be overqualified for a job as the president. 21:19:51 So I tell you this, I will vote for Hillary with gusto, as I -- as I continue to be inspired and moved to action by the ideals set forth by Bernie, who will never stop fighting for us. [ CAN HEAR AUDIENCE IN BACKGROUND ] I am proud to be a part of Bernie's movement and a vital part of that movement is making absolutely sure that Hillary Clinton is our next president of the United States. Boo ya. Ba, ba, booey. 21:20:31 FRANKEN>> Gee, that was pretty good, Sarah. Hillary, Hillary. SILVERMAN>> Unity, unity, unity. FRANKEN>>Hillary, Hillary. 21:20:56 SILVERMAN>> Can I just say to the Bernie or bust people, you're being ridiculous. [ cheers ] They told us to stretch so I figured I'd add that. They made me cut off my speech and now we have to stretch. Oh I have so much I want to say. FRANKEN>> Well, okay. >> [ chant ] BERNIE! BERNIE! FRANKEN>> You know, listen to that. Listen to what you did. This is a comedian. This is the power of comedy. SILVERMAN>> Thank god they can fix this in post. 21:21:55 FRANKEN>> You know, we -- we have been -- I want to thank you, because Sarah and I have been asked to stretch, because we are about to introduce someone that we're both huge fans of. How we doing, guys? We close? We'll see. You know, Sarah, what I love about us both being here is that you know, it's like we're a bridge. A bridge. SILVERMAN>> How do you figure that, Al? How do you figure that we're a bridge? FRANKEN>> Well, you were for Bernie. I'm for Hillary. So we are like a bridge over troubled -- 22:22:52 SILVERMAN>> Oh, good lord. Are they ready? Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Paul Simon. 21:23:30 [PAUL SIMON PERFORMANCE] 21:28:41 VIDEO OF MARIO CUOMO PLAYS

5532 2020 CANDIDATES GALIVANTS FERRY SC STUMP POOL 091619 2020 P2 LOG FROM TVU 20 COVERAGE KLOBUCHAR 182256 Thank you. Thank you, South Carolina, thank you john It is so great to be here. What a beautiful, beautiful sight, with all of you. So many democrats gathered in one place. I want to thank Sally Howard, the Holiday family, and the PD farms general store for hosting this world famous stuff. I guess this is your year 143, and that is pretty impressive. I want to thank a number of people. One of them is not here -- two who aren't here I want to start with Congressman Cliburn, who is such a champion for your state. 182333 Also I got to see Joe cutting him, which was incredible, earlier today. We're so proud of him, and someone else I got to meet just a little bit. I visited him a few times when I was here to help candidates over the last decade, and that's Fritz Hollings who we miss so much. And there's a funny Minnesota- South Carolina connection, and that is that my mentor Paul Wellstone who sadly died in a plane crash. He used to tell the story of his very first speech on the Senate floor. He was so proud of himself and Senator Hollings comes over and approaches him. 182414 He was there, and Senator Hollings in his inimitable way, says to Paul Wellstone "Young man, you remind me of Hubert Humphrey. " [laughter] Paul is overjoyed. He's so honored and he says, "OhSenator Hollings, Thank you so much." 182432 And he says, Hollings says, Let me finish young man. You talk too much. So I want to thank my opponents who are here tonight, Buttigieg, Biden and de Blasio okay what do they have in common? B. B names, and I say one thing. "A" comes before "B". But I am going first. 182459 I'm going first a good story about going first, a bit involving the south, and this was the first time I ever got invited to the White House. I hadn't even been there on a tour. I was the local prosecutor in Hennepin County Minnesota, and I got invited because I'd done work on hate crimes. Very important. Bill Clinton was the president, he was unveiling the big hate crimes bill, the Matthew Shepard Bill, and I got invited and at the last minute they invited me to introduce the President. This very formal thing in the East Room, never even been there, standing outside with my little piece of paper. 182533 I've got Bill Clinton on one side, I've got Janet Reno on the other side, the band starts playing Hail to the Chief you know, do do dodo. I start walking in and all of a sudden I feel this big hand on my shoulder and his voice says, "I know you're gonna do great out there, but when they play that song. I usually go first." This is a true story. That is a true story. President Clinton remembers that story. 182600 He will -- you can ask him, and I can tell you this, my friends in South Carolina, that might have been my first time in the White House, but it won't be my last. 182616 Our states actually have more in common than you might think. You know, you've got southern hospitality. We've got Minnesota-nice. You in South Carolina are home to the world's largest roller-skate. Minnesota is home to the world's largest hockey puck. You have a former governor who hiked the Appalachian Trail. We don't have a governor that hiked that trail...Oh, that's right you don't either. 182646 You have the Rice Museum in Georgetown, and we have the world's only---world's only museum entirely devoted to Spam or as we call it the gugen-ham. And we share something else and that is a tradition of independent voters, people that maybe will change and vote differently from time to time, which is what we're betting on in this election. For people like Jamie, and if you don't believe me about Minnesota---I have three words for you, Governor Jesse Ventura. All right. 182721 So, what do we need to do in this election? Well what you did in the first congressional district, over there. You did the right thing when you elected Joe Cunningham, right? And we made the House of Representatives the people's house again. And we need to bring those voters with us, so that gets to my argument here for my candidacy. And that is that in 2020, we don't just need to win, my friends, we need to win big. We need to win big. We need to win big in the White House, why? Because that is how we bring back the US Senate. 182801 That's how we win here in South Carolina in the senate race, and that is how we send Mitch Mcconnell packing , by winning big. That's how we do it. That's how we do it. And I can tell you right now, I don't want to be the president for just half the country. I want to be the president for all the country, and you want to have someone heading up that ticket that understands rural, that is able to bring along not just our fired up base that we see out here, but also independents and moderate Republicans, and I've done it every place, every race, every time. 182838 Yes, South Carolina democrats, I have won Michele Bachmann's district three times. Okay. You do this by winning big. I think you all know how high the stakes are, what a big deal this is, how we can't afford to lose because right now we have a president who is running this country like a game show. Right? He would rather lie than lead. He seems to only care about himself all the time, his own business interests. I said the other day, I sent out a tweet that did better than all his tweets a few weekends ago, and I said, "What's the difference between Donald Trump and Greenland? Greenland is not for sale." 182928 And you know why he does that stuff? You know why he brings up things like Greenland, why he talked -- He wants to distract us. Right and he does it in the meanest ways. He uses immigrants, as political pawns. He belittles people including in his own party that don't always agree with him, destroying our democracy with dark money and voter suppression and allowing a foreign country to make mincemeat out of our democracy. 182954 Well, I think we can be different. I think we need a candidate that understands that what unites us as a country, whether it's the south, the Midwest, whether it's the east, whether it's the West, that what unites us is bigger than what divides us. That's what we need and that was the message I sent out if any of you watched the debate. Right. That was what I was saying to people. That we need to do. Now, we've got a president right now, where literally when he goes on TV, you know how you used to watch your president maybe with someone you didn't vote for someone you don't agree with, but when he was on TV or when she will be on TV, you listened out of respect. 183035 Right, you listened because they had a message for the nation. You had your kids listen. You had your grandkids listen. Well we are at a point in our country right now, when parents see that President coming up at a rally or somewhere else what did they do? They turn the volume down. They can't even hear what he says, and I will promise you this, when I'm president you will not turn the volume down and you will be proud of the President of the United States. 183100 And my message to you out there is that if you feel stuck in the middle of the extremes in our politics or you are tired of the noise and the nonsense. You have a home with me. Because, South Carolina, the stakes are high. We have a president who literally said there were two sides after Charlottesville. Well there are not two sides when one side is the Klu Klux Klan. There is only one side and that is the American side. 183130 We have a president that has let all these tax cuts go to the wealthy. Right? Think of what he's done. How he's built up this debt, make that argument to your friends, independent, moderate, republican, friends that he has added to the debt daily. That he gave us a tax bill that those republicans voted for that added a trillion dollars to the debt. So you asked what party has been fiscally responsible when you look back through time. 183159 When you look at President Clinton and President Obama, it is not the Republican Party, and it is not - It is not Donald Trump. He is literally right now, treating our farmers and we are in a big rural community here, treating our farmers and treating our workers, like they are poker chips in one of his bankrupt casinos and if we're not careful, he is going to bankrupt the country. 183225 And one thing that I think we need to emphasize more and we haven't even been asked a question about world issues in a big way in the debate. I think we have to be the party, this time, of rural America. You know why? It is the democratic party that is worried about your rural hospitals that are closing in South Carolina. right? it is the democratic party that is standing up for education. It is the democratic party that's standing up for no lead in your water and yes, it is a democratic party that standing up when it comes to climate change. That's what we need to do. 183301 I am proud to have the support of Collin Peterson, who heads up the Agriculture Committee in the House of Representatives, and that is because I'm the only candidate that was up on that stage at that debate, who asked to be on the Agriculture Committee and has served on it through many farm bills, who has stood up for farmers, who stood up---and this will help South Carolina---for that exemption to allow hemp to be grown as we move forward with our agriculture community in this state. 183332 I believe that food doesn't just magically end up at the table, right? It doesn't. Someone works hard and someone makes that food, and that's why we have to work so hard to make sure that we have a president that looks out for rural America. And when it comes to climate change, this is my plan. On day one, I will sign us back into the international climate change agreement. [applause] We can do that. We can do that, South Carolina. We can do that without Congress. Day Two, bring back the Clean Power rules, day three bring back the gas mileage standards, day four, five, and six introduce sweeping legislation, and on day seven, you're supposed to rest but I won't. 183413 Gun safety, you ever proud hunting state. I come from a proud hunting state. Well we have reached the point in our country where the majority of hunters actually want to see background checks. The majority of Trump voters want to see background checks. And that's why, when we go back to Washington, when I go back tonight, we've got to push Mitch McConnell to allow that bill, and closing the Charleston loophole and closing the boyfriend loophole to get on for a vote, because if we get a vote, we win. The public is with us. That's what we need to do. [applause] 183452 So, what do you tell those voters in South Carolina who voted for Donald Trump? And you know some of them are ready to change. You tell them, we don't want a whiner in the White House, out of South Carolina. Literally, what has he done? He came in and our economy was resilient because of our strong workers, because of our union workers, because of our businesses, and we got out of that hole that we were in, and he inherits that economy. What does he do? He gloats about it, pretends he had something to do with it. And then, when things get challenging, when the long term outlook's bad, when because of his trade war we have an all time trade deficit of $791 billion. 183532 What does he do then? He blames other people. He blames the head of the Federal Reserve. He blames his own people that want to see some change in the trade agreements. He blames the President Obama, seriously, he did that. He blames the entire country of Denmark, right. That is what a whiner does, and you got to explain to these people who voted for him---a lot of them thought we were going to get infrastructure. We haven't gotten infrastructure. A lot of them thought they were going to get change. It hasn't happened. 183601 So this is how I think we beat this guy. One, we cross the river of our divides. That's why I announced in the middle of the Mississippi River, in the middle of a blizzard with four inches of snow on my head, because I wanted to make that point. Secondly, we have an optimistic economic agenda for this country where we bring people with us. We bring down the cost of health care, and the way I think you do it is with a public option. So we have a way to compete with the insurance companies. 183631 We take on pharmaceutical prices by allowing our seniors to negotiate Medicare to get a better deal. I lead that bill in the Senate. And yes we bring in less expensive drugs from other countries like Canada. In Minnesota, we can see Canada from our porch. All right, so I see those prices over there, and we bring in less expensive drugs from other countries. That's what we do. We take on climate change, we take on the challenges, we take on education. 183701 My mom she taught second grade until she was 70 years old. I am a proud product of the public schools. My daughter went to public schools, and my mom was a teacher. We need to respect our teachers, and the way we do that is by increasing teacher pay. We need to make it easier for kids to go to college, free two year Community College along for refinancing. If millionaires can refinance their yacht, students should be able to refinance their student loans. 183733 That's what we need. Last thing I want to talk about here is voting rights because all of these things we've talked about that are so important for South Carolina: infrastructure, doing something about health care and by the way that includes mental health and addiction and check out on our website, Amy Klobuchar.com, for my own personal experience with my dad had three DWIs. Right. 183756 The week before I got married, or a few weeks before I got married, he got that last one, and he had a choice. Was he going to be, go to jail, or was he going to go to treatment. He picked treatment, and he had insurance that covered that. And because of that, in his words and his faith and his friends and his family, he was pursued by grace. Everyone in this country should have the same right to be pursued by grace. What do we do about voting so that everyone has a seat at the table so we don't have a situation where 53,000 ballots and 53,000 voter registrations, were held back in Georgia? 183833 Where if they had changed those voting laws in Georgia and made it easier to vote, Stacey Abrams would have been the governor of Georgia. What do we do about South Carolina, what do we do about North Carolina, where the court actually said that they had discriminated with surgical precision. Well what do we do? We reauthorize the voting rights act. That's what we do with a new president and a new senate. We pass my bill to allow every kid to automatically register when they turn 18 in this country. 183803 And we pass a citizen amendment, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. That;s what we do, Democrats. I am someone that comes at this race with grit. I don't come with a lot of money, my family - my husband grew up in a trailer home. 5 brothers in 1 trailer home, that was something. Triple bunk beds, okay? 183930 His mom had 4 boys, she wanted to have girls, she got pregnant again and had identical twin boys. That's true story. My husband, as was mentioned, I'm the granddaughter of --(?) --- I'm the daughter of a union teacher and a newspaper man. I'm the first woman elected to the SEnate from the state of Minnesota, and a candidate for President of the United States. That's what shared dreams are about in this country. And if we want to win, as I said, if we want to win big, we've got to make sure we win those states. 184001 The states of Pennsylvania that we lost last time. I'm going on this blue wall tour after we leave here. The state of Wisconsin, right? The state of Michigan. Those are states that we lost and we have to do so well that we bring Jamie and we bring Joe Cunningham and we win in the state of South Carolina. So how do we do this? We do this by uniting by a candidate and not giving up. And if every moment that you feel like you want to give up because this guy says something that you can't believe in the morning or he tweets something out to divide people, and you want to put the blanket over your head, you remember the March that we are on. 184039 You remember that the day after the inauguration, that dark day, that millions of people across this country, including in this state, peacefully marched. You remember that day. And you remember that day after that, 6,000 women signed up to run for office. That happened. And then, on day 9 when that mean spirited refugee order, what happened? People spontaneously showed up at the airport to protest that order. They showed up at non-international airports on a Saturday night. 184113 And then you fast forward to my favorite march, the March for Science with my favorite sign. What do we want? Science. When do we want it? After peer review. [laughter] Then you go to the summer, where the fighting 48 democrats stood together. 184129 Then three republicans joined us cause we stood together and we defeated their effort to repeal the Affordable CAre act and push people off their insurance when they had pre-existing conditions. We did that. They didn't go to the fall (?) The first glimmers of hope, this is a year ago, last fall, when there were those races in Virginia and in New Jersey and legislative districts an we put out this diverse set of candidates that no one thought was going to win in these red districts. This is a lesson to you, South Carolina. And you know what happened? 184157 They won. And my favorite victory was in New JErsey where a guy the day of the women's march said I hope they're home in time to make dinner. That guy got defeated by an Afrifacn American woman. That happened. Then you go to the spring where after that tragedy in Parkland, people joined with the people of Charleston, they joined with the people all over this country. And those kids, they stood up there in Florida. They became icons. 184228 And kids all across the country talked to their dads and their grandpas and said We love hunting to, and our family, but we can have universal background check.s we can do something about magazine limits, and those kids didn't just talk. They marched. And then they voted in record levels in the midterm. And then comes the midterm, with the election of Joe Cunningham when we made the House of Representatives the people's House again. That is the march that we are on. That's the march that's going to lead us right into November of 2020. 184255 And South Carolina Democrats, I want to lead this March because I know how important it is to win in states like yours because I have the track record to do it. And because you, at my side, are the people that have made this arc of justice even shorter. You are the welders that got us through this. Let's go ahead. Let's win this race and let's send Donald Trump back to where he came from Thank you, South Carolina! ### BUTTIGIEG 184814 Thank you, you know how to make a guy from South Bend feel welcome in South Carolina. I appreciate it. And thank you to Walter and all of the organizers like him who are empowering the ground game that is going to help us win this election. Everytime I come to this state I think about the first time that I saw those tall trees. It was out the windows of the bus that was taking me to Fort Jackson. I was a Navy guy so I wasn't exactly sure what I was supposed to be doing in Fort Jackson, but when you sign up for the needs of the Navy are what comes first. And for some reason, the Navy decided they needed me to go do army stuff. 184857 So they sent me here to South Carolina. In other words, the first time I came here it was in order to prepare to serve. And now, I am here once again prepared to serve and asking for your help in making that happen [applause]. Friends, I'm running for President because I believe that our country is running out of time. Our country's in a crisis. The American people are divided, discouraged, and doubtful at the very moment we need to be rising to meet some of the toughest challenges we've ever known. 184935 And everyday, we've got a President tweeting out a new outrage in order to distract us from the fact that he's not capable of doing the job. Within a decade, we're going to reach a point of no return on our climate. And yet, the President thinks you can change the weather by taking out a Sharpie and rewriting the map [applause] Our economy is so out of whack that the stock market and the gross domestic product are going up at the same time that life expectancy is going down in this country. 185009 That shouldn't even be possible. And yet, when we first got news that we might have a recession coming, we spent the whole week talking about whether we were going to keep upsetting Denmark over a proposal to buy Greenland. We oughta be more worried about how to buy groceries at a time like this. And if you think this first time has been problematic, imagine what would happen if we had to get through a second one. [boos/groans] 185042 What's he gonna do? Pick a fight with Switzerland, maybe? Move the White House ot the Trump Tower. I don't know. We can't let it happen because our infrastructure, our health, our safety cannot wait. 185101 And if that doesn't happen the world will finish doing what it's already starting to do, which is to prepare for a century without American leadership and we just can't let that happen. Now, the chaos is so mesmerizing that it has us all doing one of two things, I think. Either we can't watch anymore and we get depressed, and we just tune out, or we can't look away, which is how we respond sometimes when there's a wreck. We can't look away. 185132 But we've got to do something different from either of those things. We got to recognize the urgency of the moment and we got to summon the courage to act. Because what's at stake in 2020 isn't just the outcome of one election, I believe it is the future of the American project, and that depends on us. That means we got to summon the courage to change the trajectory of this country not four years from now, not 10 years from now, but right now. 185202 These problems have been brewing for years. Certainly where I come from growing up in the so called rust belt in northern Indiana, passing collapsing Studebaker factories and empty houses on the way to school, not knowing that was unusual in a city until I moved away to go to college. I've seen how politics affects us in our everyday life, how a chain of events that starts in one of those big white buildings in WAshington winds up reaching into our lives, into our home, our paychecks, our family. 185235 There are people in my life who have been saved by the Affordable Care Act. And people I cared about killed by the opioid crisis. My family's finances were saved by the existence of Medicare, and right now, they're under pressure because of the existence of 6 figure student debt. The very course of my life was changed by orders that sent me to a foreign war and my marriage exists by the grace of a single vote on the US Supreme Court. 185308 All politics is personal. Nothin about politics is theory, not for me and not for my city. But instead of a politics that is about our day to day lives, right now in Washington, we're seeing a politics that's about the day to day drama of the politicians. About who's up nad who's down. And who looked good in a committee meeting and who got the best zinger off in the debate. 185232 We're sending politicians to Washington in order to fight for us and when they get there, they seem more interested in the part about fighting than the part about us. That's got to change. We can't let our political leaders keep pitting us against each other. They speak of patriotism. But we know that patriotism lies in speaking up for what you believe, not telling somebody who disagrees with you to go back to where they came from. 185403 Especially iof where they came from is Michigan. They speak of faith, but what faith would condone, a budget that cuts food going to hungry hungry children. 185425 What faith condones taking children out of the arms of their parents at the American Border? What ever happened to "I was a stranger and you welcomed me"? Let's talk about faith. [applause] They speak of freedom. We know that freedom is more than just the freedom from taxes for a company like Amazon. We're talking about freedom to organize for a good day's pay for a good day's work, which is why we stand with organized labor. 185459 We're talking about the freedom to be treated equally regardless of your race, or who you are or your gender and yes, freedom means the freedom to control your own body and make your own medical decisions. Not have politicians do it for you. Don't let them divide us around the very values that are supposed to hold our country together. Cause rihgt now we see an America gripped in a crisis of belonging. 185527 Prices so profound that people are self medicating and deaths from dispair are on the rise. That wall on the border is never going to get built, but real walls are being built within our families and our communities and our churches to where Thanksgiving dinner is starting to feel like a minefield. Our anxiety is going up and our trust in our fellow Americans is going down. Instead of having each other's backs, they've got us at each other's throats. 185555 But there's good news. And that is in a few short months you all have the chance to change it. You have a thumb on the scale on the future of this country, and the future of this party. You get to vote, not only to defeat this president, but to do something about the conditions that got him here in the first place because under ordinary circumstances, someone like him never gets within cheating distance in the Oval Office to begin with. We have a chance to do something about that. 185627 You get a chance to be part of an American majority that will come together to deal with our challenges, not just diehard Democrats, but people coming across the aisle, I see one right there, independants, people who were under no illusions about this president but may have voted, just to do anything for a change now we got to actually make sure that change is in the American interest. And that's not going to happen if we act like Donald Trump is just an aberration, it just happened out of the blue. It's not going to happen if we try too hard to play it safe. 185658 Or pretend that we can go back to normal. It's also not going to happen if we water down our values of paper over our differences so you got to squint hard just to tell the difference between a Democrat and Republican. Nor will it happen if we get so trapped in the purity tests that we turn off half the country before we even get to next November. This is the time to unify the American people. This is a time for ideas that are bold enough to get the job done andcapable of bringing us together. 185727 And if you think about it, that's how Democrats win. From john f kennedy to Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton to Barack Obama. We win when we offer leadership from a new generation with new ideas, calling America to be better than it's been. That's where we are at our best (?) And that means, offering that new generation with a politics that is grounded in our everyday lives. So when I'm the nominee, this president can call us socialists all he wants. 185802 But I worked in the private sector and I partnered with the private sector to bring jobs and investment into our community. We know what it takes to create economic growth. When I am your nominee, this president will do all we can to paint us as the party of Washington, but I spent my career in South Bend, Indiana, serving a city that was told that we were dying and bringing real solutions to improve real people's lives. When I'm the nominee this president can talk tough, throw himself military parades, hug the flag every now and then. 185835 But I've faced worse kinds of incoming than a tweet full of typos. And I don't mind reminding a guy who was getting ready for season seven of Celebrity Apprentice while I was out here figuring out how to use a rifle, I don't mind having a debate with him about who's going to be a better commander in chief. 185907 When I'm the nominee we're gonna work to make sure not only that we win but then we deserve to win and set the stage for a presidency, that will put forward solutions, bold enough to actually meet the challenges of our time. I want you to picture that presidency with me. 185929 Of what you imagine what would it be like to have a presidency that offers Vision Without decisiveness. A president who gets up in the morning, not thinking about who hurt his feelings on cable, but about how to make your life better. I want you to picture what it would be like to turn on the news and see what's coming out of the White House and feel your blood pressure going down instead of up. 190000 And that means delivering for the American people, bold and unifying means things like what I call Medicare for All Who Want It. (points) And thank you to those who are raising their voices on the affordability of prescription drugs right now. 190028 Soo the way I see it, when we create that public alternative, empowered to negotiate drug prices, and available to every American. It's going to be better. It's going to be better than those private options out there, but if I'm right, then you're going to be able to decide that on your own. So instead of kicking you off your plan, we're going to create a new one. Let you vote with your feet, and let you decide if and when that's the right thing to do. 190050 Instead of showing tax cuts on the wealthiest, we're going to build an economy that actually works for everyone. And that means lifting wages, empowering workers, respecting unions and investing in rural economies that are not getting enough support right now. We're going to see to it that we treat mental health in such a way that it is a routine to get seen by a psychologist as it is to go in for a physical, and we're going to break the stigma around dealing with addiction too. 190127 I want you to picture a presidency where your head of environmental protection actually believes in climate change and feels responsible for protecting the environment. And where we make dealing with climate into a national project that enlists the energies of every American. Whether you live in a city or work on a farm or serve in the military. It's going to take all of us. 190156 And as your president, you can expect me to appoint a secretary of education who actually believes in public education. I think it;s about time. We will tackle systemic racism with the Douglass Plan for black america as ambitious a shte marshall that rebuilt Europe, but this time right here at home to make sure that systemic racism does not ruin the prospects of a future generation. 190237 And that means not only tearing down things like the prison industrial complex but building up things like entrepreneurship in the black community that's creating jobs and opportunity for the next generation. And thinking back to my time in uniform and how I learned to trust and repsect and like people with totally different backgrounds, from different regions and with different politics than mine. 190304 We're going to create a million paid national volunteer service opportunities a year that Americans can sign up for, serve, get to know each other, and make a difference in their country. Because what we need more than anything is that fabric, that bonding, and you shouldn't have to go to war in order to get it. We need to come together as one. 190330 And I believe that is the purpose of the Presidents. I think that's what the presidency is for. The function of the presidency is not the glorification of the President, it is the unification the people around dealing with the biggest challenges that we face. And as much as we need to get better policies in this country, the presidency is about more than that. 190357 I don't think we appreciated the unwritten job of the presidency and still be -- until we started having to live without it. But that is the moral leadership, the responsibility to call us to our highest values. That is part of what the presidency is for. That is how we build up a sense of belonging in a country where right now we're feeling only isolation. I keep thinking about a young woman in Iowa, maybe 13 years old who came up to me recently and told me what this campaign meant to her. 190426 She told me because of this campaign, I feel like I can be myself now I feel like I can go to school, and be who I am, and talk about my values and share my beliefs and not be ashamed. And I thought I knew exactly what she was about to say. Because so many young people inspire me by expressing that, when I have shared the truth of who I am, it's made it easier for them to do the same. But then she said something I wasn't expecting. She went on she said, I know that I can come forward, I don't have to be ashamed that I have autism. 190458 And I thought, Now we're getting somewhere as a campaign. Because everyone means everyone. And we got to build up a country where everyone belongs, everyone can contribute. And everyone ought to be proud to be who they are. That's what we have the opportunity to do, to enlist all of us in a better vision for what this country can be. To knit back together one country, one American story where every one of us belongs. 190527 And if we do that, the future doesn't have to be such a bleak place. So here, at an event that traces its roots, to just a little while after the Civil War, we got to remember that some of our dark moments sometimes bring out the best in us. What is good in America, dare I say what is great in America. And I can't wait to tell our future children what we did now, to give them a better world. To tell them, we set up an economy where we protect workers as well as jobs and see to it, that a rising tide really does lift all boats. 190600 Starting in 2020. I'll tell them, you woulnd't believe, once upon a time we got to where the electoral college could overturn the American people twice in my lifetime. But then we had the vision to see to it that in this country, we give the presidency to whoever gets the most votes. We're going to tell them displayed tweeted about a day where your race had no bearing on your health, or your wealth, or life expectancy or your relationship with law enforcement in this country. Once upon a time to change your learning active shooter drills before they learn how to read. But then we saw on the courage to get weapons of war off of our streets. I'll take such pride in telling them how we beat the odds and God ahead of climate change before it ruin their opportunities in life. running for office is an act of hope. And so it's helping somebody run for office not naive hope. It is the hope of those who cannot afford to go back. It is the hope of those who insist on something better than trying to be great again, because there is no again in the real world. It is about some realize that the future is where we are going to spend every minute of the rest of our lives. So we better make sure that it is better than the present. We believe we can do that believing is so much better. So are you ready to make sure that that's a reality. Show pick up and change something man. asking your support in this journey with open our hearts and with fire in our belly. Let's go forward all the way to the White House and beyond. Thank you. And now we got Joe 36 years go by himself is a leader in Beijing some of our nation's most important United States chobani continued his leadership on the board issues facing the nation fighting to raise living standards of middle class Americans finally reduce gun violence fighting to address violence against women. And through the Cancer Moonshot be level headed is to output cancer as we know it. This is my favorite.

NET REQUEST FEED FROM THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION AT THE WELLS FARGO CENTER IN PHILADELPHIA / JOHN PODESTA CLINTON CAMPAIGN CHAIR 19:00:55 >> Hello, Democrats! I want to begin by saying thank you to all of you across the country who have volunteered your time, donated what you could. Signed up at Hillaryclinton.com. You have voted to make Hillary Clinton the nominee of the democratic party. This is your victory! [applause] And to everyone who supported senator Sanders, this is your victory, too! I've known Bernie since I was a young staffer for senator Pat Leahy and he was mayor of Burlington. He stood up to the special interests and fought to give the working people a fair economy and a bigger say. And those are the same values that he brought to this campaign and our party and our country are better for it. 19:01:52 Donald Trump has different values. He built his career by ripping people off, stiffing contractors and skipping out on his bills through bankruptcy. He is too erratic, dangerous and divisive (trust?) to the white house. I'm a fortunate grandson of Italian and Greek immigrants with a blue collar dad and a pink collar mom, I've had the honor to serve two great presidents who fought for working people and met the challenges of their time. 19:02:29 Now, like all of you, I'm working to elect a president who has the experience, vision, values and grit to make progress in these turbulent times. That person is Hillary Clinton. [ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ] Hillary will be a president who gets results. She'll take on powerful special interests in a rigged system to make our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top. And she''ill be a champion for our children and our families. With your hard work, we can build a better future for everyone. Steelworkers and school teachers, farm families and military families, the forgotten middle class and those who have been left out and left behind. And immigrants. 19:03:14 People like my family and yours, who struggled to get here, who built this country and who love America. That's who we're fighting for. That's who this election is about. That's why she picked Tim Kaine as her running mate, a man with a deep core and a passion for service. And if we, and if we work overtime, work overtime for the next 105 days, we will succeed in making history and elect the first woman president of the united States! Thank you. 19:03:58 (VIDEO: 'POSSIBLE NEXT PRESIDENT ON MARRIAGE') TRUMP>> I don't wanna sound too much like a chauvinist, but when I come home and dinner's not ready, I go through the roof, okay. LINDA SANCHEZ (CALIFORNIA) 19:04:28 Buenas noches, good evening everyone. It's great to be here with all of you. My name is Linda Sanchez and I have the honor of representing California's 38th congressional district, and serving as the chairwoman of the congressional hispanic caucus. We are a diverse caucus and we bring in an important perspective to the decisions that shape the future of our country. We embody the promise of the american dream. That you can achieve success in our great country if you are willing to work hard enough for it. The hispanic caucus is made up of 26 talented members who are veterans attorneys, business owners, doctors and engineers just to name a few. 19:05:18 Our caucus is growing and this november we have the opportunity to elect outstanding hispanic candidates from across the country. And with Loretta sanchez and Katrine cortez masto (sp?) we will elect a latina to the US senate. 19:05:50 I'm proud of the hispanic caucus and the work we do everyday to make our country stronger. Take a look. [VIDEO] 19:09:46 We are here at this historic democratic convention to nominate Hillary Clinton, the next president and Tim kaine, the next vice president of the United States. [ cheers and applause ] 19:10:06 I want to share a little bit of my story because it's an American story. It's the story of millions of Latinos and Latinas across this country. I'm the daughter of immigrant parents from Mexico. They came to this country and worked hard every day to provide for me and my brothers and sisters. My father, Ignacio, was an industrial mechanic. And my mother, Maria, became an elementary school teacher after raising a family. They owned their own home. They sent all seven of their children to college. [ cheers ] 19:10:48 My mother and father saved and sacrificed to achieve the American dream for our family. They weren't given their success. They earned it. Donald Trump believes that Mexican immigrants are murderers and rapists. [ boos ] But what about my parents, Donald? Let me tell you what my parents are. They are the only parents in our nation's 265-year history to send not one, but two daughters to the United States congress. [ LORETTA SANCHEZ COMES UP AND GRABS HER SISTER'S HAND ] 19:11:44 Like my parents, Hillary Clinton believes the United States is a country where people of all backgrounds can make a home and a better life. But that America isn't possible if we allow Donald Trump and his Republican party to build a wall that divides us. I stand here tonight as the chair of the congressional hispanic caucus and a proud congresswoman from California, but most importantly, I'm here as a mom. 19:12:13 We all want what's best for our kids. We want our children to grow up to be healthy, successful and kind hearted. Our job is to nurture them, be good role models for them to follow as they grow. Now I will be the first to tell you that being a parent hard. But Donald Trump is making it a whole lot harder. He has taken the low road time and time again. He has been vulgar and he has been intolerant. Or as we say in Spanish, [ speaks Spanish ] 19:12:53 He peddles fear intestine security to divide the great people of this country. Tell me, what kind of example would we set for our children by allowing a bully to sit in the oval office? We know that our children aren't born with hate or racism in their hearts. They learn it from watching the world around them and following the example of the adults in their life. Too many of our children are watching and learning the wrong lessons from Donald Trump. We've seen it at an Indiana basketball game where a group of white students started chanting "Build that wall" to players from a predominantly hispanic high school. 19:13:40 This is the behavior that Donald Trump inspires in our youth. A trump presidency would be a signal to our children that we condone this kind of behavior. Well that is a message I refuse to accept. Who we vote for says a lot about our values. There are few moments in history that have an impact on the trajectory of the world. And I believe that this election is one of those moments. Our children are watching us. Their future depends on the outcome of this race. 19:14:16 Do we want a responsible leader or a loud-mouth bully? Do we want a president who respects women or who calls them names and devalues them? Do we want a president who appreciates the contributions immigrants make to our country or someone who vilifies them? Hillary Clinton is the only choice for president. She is a president we can be proud of. [boos] And, Donald, let me just say this. America is great. It is the country that gave my family the opportunity for a better life, just like all immigrants who came before them. It is because of our diversity that we are the envy of the world. Hillary [ Speaking Spanish ] 19:15:18 Like I said in the video, Hillary Clinton is badass and ready to lead. Let's win in November. MARTY WALSH BOSTON MAYOR 19:16:11 Good evening. Good evening. Thank you, Massachusetts. Thank you. Good evening delegates. My name is Marty Walsh and I'm an alcoholic. On April 23rd, 1995, I hit rock bottom.I woke up with little memory of the night before and even less hope for the days to come. Everybody was losing faith in me. Everybody except my family and the labor movement. I followed my father into the building trades when I was 18 years old. Labor gave my immigrant family a chance and the labor community got me the help I needed and gave me a second chance. 19:17:19 18 years later, I became the mayor of Boston, a city of big dreams and a big heart. As mayor, I work to give everyone a fair shot and a second chance. Whether it's apprenticeships, free community college or help starting a business. There's no doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton is the champion American workers need. She will help workers get the skills, the jobs and the child care they need to support strong families. 19:18:02 She believes in an America that's not just for those with advantages. She believes in an America for those who need a helping hand, people struggling with addiction, moms working two jobs, students in debt, seniors struggling to retire. Workers facing layoffs and people like the carpenters and electrician Donald Trump hired but then refused to pay just because he did. We may not have our names in gold outside any buildings we've worked on. But our sweat, our work, our pride is on the inside of every single one of them. Hillary Clinton knows that. She believes what I learned in my labor family, we are stronger together. This is our choice. Are we going to let Donald Trump stiff the working families so he can make more for himself and the people at the top or are we going to stick together and build an economy that works for everybody in America? 19:19:14 I know where I stand. I stand with the women and men of every race, creed, color who built this country. And I stand as a living example of Hillary Clinton's vision for an America where everyone gets a fair shot and a second chance to achieve their dreams. That's the America I believe in. That's the America I've lived. And that's why America's working people are going to vote and elect Hillary Clinton our next president. I want to thank you and god bless the United States of America. LEE SAUNDERS PRESIDENT OF AFSCME 19:20:24 >> Good evening. I am Lee Saunders, I am proud to be here representing the 1.6 million public service workers of afscme. We keep our community safe and strong, feeding school kids, healing patients, plowing roads and answering 911 calls. Every day, in every way, we never quit putting families first.Hillary Clinton never quits, either. She is an unstoppable champion for working people. She understands collective bargaining rights don't just improve the lives of union members, they strengthen all of us. 19:21:15 We need a president who gets that, who understands that busting unions and cutting public services means families suffer. Let's look at Flint, Michigan, where poisonous policies led directly to poisoned drinking water. Donald Trump wants to tear working people down. He's only in business for himself. I was just in Las Vegas with workers at the trump hotel last week. They voted to form a union, but Donald Trump won't negotiate a contract with them. You can't keep saying you like to make deals, Donald. How about working out a deal with the housekeepers and the food servers to help your business succeed? [ Applause ] 19:22:08 It's no surprise, I guess, how can you be pro worker when you're famous for the catchphrase "You're fired." But this isn't reality television. This is reality. And we need a serious-minded leader who puts families first, not a thin skinned bully who puts himself first. [ Applause ] That's the choice. An unstoppable champion versus an unstable (?). I know whose side I'm on. I'm with her. Afscme is with her. Let's elect Hillary Clinton our next president of the united States. RICHARD TRUMKA PRESIDENT AFL-CIO 19:23:07 >> Hello, Democrats. I'm Rich Trumka president of the afl-cio. [ Applause ]And it's great to be in Philadelphia, a proud, proud union town. See, working people built this stage, and now we'll build a new era of shared prosperity,working people are strong. And Donald Trump is wrong, wrong, wrong. Listen, he thinks he's a tough guy. Well Donald, I worked in the mines with tough guys. I know tough guys. They're friends of mine. And Donald, you're no tough guy, you're a phoney. [ Applause ] [ Cheers ] 19:24:07 Donald Trump has repeatedly outsourced jobs to line his own pocket. He rooted for the housing collapse. He actually said that our wages are too high, not just once, but repeatedly. Donald Trump isn't the solution to America's problems, he is the problem. [ Cheers ] 19:24:30 Working people, we have the solution. We're building a national movement for a better life, no matter the color of our skin, where we were born, who we love, or how we worship. We set the bar high, and Hillary Clinton answered our call. In this election, she is fighting to rewrite the economic rules for all of us. She has a bold plan to invest in manufacturing, infrastructure and jobs. She opposes the job killing trans pacific partnership. [ cheers ] 19:25:14 She'll protect workplace rights, stand up to Wall Street and fight to finally, finally, secure equal pay for equal work. So Democrats, get on your feet. Let's change the rules. Let's take back congress. Let's win a pro-workers supreme court and let's elect Hillary Clinton the next president of the United States. [ Cheers ] LILY ESKELSEN GARCIA PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 19:25:55 >> Wow. Wow. [ Speaking Spanish ] My name is Lily Eskelsen Garcia. And I'm here because I have the honor to be representing the 3 million educators that formed the union of the national education association. My story isn't different from my students' stories. My mom is an immigrant. My dad served in the army. My parents worked hard so that their kids could have a chance to get ahead, and they were so proud of me when I became a teacher. But today too many students in our classrooms feel like they won't get the same chance that I got, especially those from immigrant families. They tell us they're afraid that their parents might be taken away, that they might be deported for not having the right piece of paper. 19:26:56 Hillary Clinton believes in keeping families together. She believes in our dreamers. She believes that educators should be focused on education, not deportation. [ Cheering ] Now, Donald Trump sees things differently. My mom says that if you can't say something nice about somebody, you should at least make it funny. I can't make this funny. Donald Trump sees immigrants as criminals, as drug dealers, as rapists. He says he'd round up families and deport them. He'll build a wall. We're better than that. Our kids deserve better than that. Hillary Clinton doesn't want to divide people with walls of hate. She wants to build bridges to a better future for all of us. That's why America's educators are with her, and why we're going to do everything in our power to build a bridge to a future where Hillary Clinton is the president of the United States of America. Gracias. [ Cheering ] MARY KAY HENRY 19:28:21 >> Hello, sisters and brothers. I'm Mary Kay Henry and I'm proud to stand here on behalf of 2 million members of service employees international union. [ Cheering ] And the millions more who are fighting for 15 in the unions. Our movement will be an unstoppable force in this election, because the stakes could not be higher. We need a president who wants to raise wages in this country, not one that says wages are too high and that there shouldn't even be a federal minimum wage. 19:29:02 That's why we're working to elect Hillary Clinton and champions up and down the ballot who are going to raise wages and help workers join together in unions. Hillary has spent time with workers, who care for children and our seniors, like Lizbeth (?) from Las Vegas. Lizbeth has been a home care provider for 40 years, but still Lizbeth has to rely on food stamps and medicaid just to make ends meet. Hillary Clinton knows that's wrong, and that's why Hillary Clinton is ready to raise wages for home care providers and child care providers, and ensure that they have a strong voice in quality care. We know that economic justice is inextricably linked to winning racial justice, environmental justice, and immigrant justice. 19:30:08 We must elect Hillary Clinton and the champions like her who are going to put families first, and stop the candidates of hatred and greed. Brothers and sisters, I believe that we can win. Do you? Repeat after me. I. I believe. I believe that we. I believe that we can win. I believe that we can win. I believe that we can win. Thank you very much, brothers and sisters. [ Applause ] SEAN MCGARVEY 19:30:58 >> Good evening. I'm proud to be here in my hometown of Philadelphia. I'm even prouder to represent the 3 million members of north America's building trades unions. Trade union members have helped build this great nation. The hoover dam, the golden gate bridge, the freedom towers, the very arena we are in tonight. You name it, we build it. We're proud of our work. But with collapsed bridges, crumbling roads and stressed energy systems we know it's past time to rebuild our nation's infrastructure. And building trades members are ready to do their part. 19:31:41 Hillary Clinton has the boldest infrastructure plan we've seen in generations. She will help us repair roads and bridges and make broadband universal, build new airports and modernize our energy grid. She will do it all while creating good, fair paying jobs with standards that support real apprenticeship programs, which the building trades pioneer to ensure that workers get the skills they need to succeed. And let me be very clear, we cannot rebuild America unless we treat America's workers with respect. 19:32:17 Donald Trump chose the running mate that has not respected workers. As governor Mike pence gave corporations license to pay construction workers less by repealing the prevailing wage law that had been in place for 80 years. That was bad deal for Indiana. It would be a bad deal for America. That's why hardhats, all across America support Hillary Clinton and honorary iron worker Tim kaine, they have our backs and we have theirs. Now let's get them elected. God bless you and thank you. RANDI WEINGARTEN PRESIDENT AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS 19:32:55 Brothers and sisters, I am proud to be here representing the 1.6 million members of the AFT. Last week, last week we saw a festival of fear, every day was full of hate and bigotry. Why? To hide that trump's plans like many of his businesses are completely bankrupt. Donald made millions while he ripped off workers and small businesses with his unfair business practices. 19:33:41 Remember, he ended up bankrupting not one, not two, not three, but four of his companies. And his economic ideas will make millionaires like him richer at the expense of the middle class. Just look at Trump University to see how he operates. Salespeople were told to exploit people's fears -- and let me be very careful -- I quote, "a single parent that may need money for food into useless high cost seminars." Instead of an education, students lost thousands of dollars and got nothing in return. That's Trump in a nutshell. Manipulating people's fears to enrich himself. He is completely unqualified to be in the Oval Office. 19:34:44 So thankfully we have a different choice and it's a great one, Hillary Clinton. Hillary's worked her entire life to level the playing field for working families. That starts with public education from pre k to college. She has a plan for universal early childhood education. She'll reset education policy to focus on creativity and critical thinking, not on more testing. And she'll make public universities free for working families, a stark contrast from Trump's for profit scam. 19:35:31 Hillary is the most qualified candidate to run for president in my lifetime. She'll wake up thinking everyday how to help us. The choice couldn't be clearer. We must elect Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. Thank you very much. [ cheers and applause ] PAM LIVENGOOD 19:38:20 Hi. For my 50th birthday, I got a 2-year-old. You see, my daughter and her boyfriend had a beautiful little boy named Francis but they got caught up in drugs. It started with the pain medication she was given after Francis was born. And it just got worse. It's hard to explain just how devastating it is to watch your child struggle with substance abuse. I know my daughter loved Francis but love wasn't enough to take care of him. I started getting calls from child services. And one day, they said Francis would be taken away from my family and put in foster care unless he had family who could take care of him. There was no way we were going to let our grandson end up in foster care. So, Francis lived with my husband, John and I, until he was 5. 19:39:15 His grandfather -- he lives with his grandfather now, who is on disability. And when you're my age, you don't expect to start all over again, raising a grandchild. Today, my daughter is in treatment but she has a long road ahead of her. My story isn't unique. This epidemic has devastated communities all over the country. It doesn't discriminate against age, race, gender or income. It affects all of us. But sometimes it feels like folks in Washington don't hear these stories. Well, last year, Hillary Clinton came to New Hampshire for a round table at my workplace. And she asked if addiction had touched any of us. And as I told my story, Hillary listened. She even took notes. And then she did something else we don't see a lot of in Washington. She took action. 19:40:13 She came up with a plan, one that includes everything from reducing overdoses to expanding access to treatment. To me, that's the kind of leader we need. We need a leader who listens to the voices of ordinary Americans, a leader who treats people with compassion and respect, a leader who believes that, as Americans, we look out for each other. I'm not saying that leader has to be a grandmother but it sure helps. For me, that leader is Hillary Clinton. JEANNE SHAHEEN (NEW HAMPSHIRE) 19:41:15 Thank you. Thank you, delegates. And thank you, Pam Livengood for sharing your family's story here today. I applaud your courage. Democrats stand with you, your family and all families struggling with addiction and president Hillary Clinton will stand with you and we will win this fight together. 19:41:50 The opioid and heroin epidemic is ravaging communities all across this country. It's a crisis that affects old and young, rich and poor, men and women, Democrats and Republicans. And it will take all of us working together to defeat it. Across my home state of New Hampshire the awful toll grows each year, 192 overdoses in 2013, 326 fatalities in 2014. And 433 fatalities in 2015. These stories -- these statistics tell a story of a staggering epidemic, but statistics can't fully capture the profound human toll. 19:42:49 It's not only thousands of individual lives that have been destroyed. Entire communities are being devastated. Hillary Clinton sees the epidemic and its terrific toll because she came to new Hampshire. Not to talk but to listen. And she heard stories like Pam livengood's story. She heard stories like the one I recently heard about a young man full of promise, on his way to college when he suffered a sports injury, got addicted to pain killers,switched to heroin. And now instead of living on the freshman quad, he's living on the streets. Panhandling for his next fix. 19:43:35 Hillary heard how addicts are being turned away from treatment facilities due to a lack of resources. Hillary heard from law enforcement, stretched to their limit, dealing with substance abuse. She knows that drug counselors and police officers and others on the front lines of the battle are heroes. 19:43:58 They're doing amazing work. But they need our help. More than 47,000 americans died from drug overdoses in 2014. Hillary Clinton knows we cannot continue on this path. She knows because during this campaign she listened in New Hampshire and across the country. She listened. She learned. And she put together a plan to treat this like the health emergency that it is. And to deploy the necessary resources to fight it. Her plan would invest in some very simple goals, empower communities to prevent drug use among teenagers, ensure every person suffering from addiction can obtain comprehensive treatment, ensure that all first responders carry narcan, which can stop overdoses from becoming fatal and prioritize treatment over prison for low-level and nonviolent drug offenses so we can end the era of mass incarceration. 19:45:10 Early this year, I introduced an emergency funding bill in the senate to pay for policing, prevention, treatment and recovery. But sadly, it was defeated by Republicans. Donald Trump certainly doesn't have a plan to deal with this health epidemic that's gripped our country. In fact, Donald Trump doesn't seem to know what's happening outside of Trump tower. And he seems completely uninterested in finding out. How can trump represent America when he doesn't even take the time to know America? We need a president who listens, who learns, who has empathy and who wants the same opportunities for all children that she's had. Who wants an America where we go forward together. We need president Hillary Clinton. Thank you DEMI LOVATO 19:47:01 Like millions of Americans I'm living with mental illness. But I'm lucky. I had the resources and support to get treatment at a top facility. Unfortunately too many Americans from all walks of life don't get help either because they fear the stigma or cannot afford treatment. Untreated mental illness can lead to devastating consequences, including suicide, substance abuse and long-term medical issues. We can do better. Every one of us can make a difference. By getting educated on this epidemic and its frightening statistics and by breaking the stigma 19:47:38 I urge every politician to support laws that will provide access to better health care and support for everyone. This is not about politics, it's simply the right thing to do. I'm doing my very small part by having the treatment center that saw me through my recovery on tour with me so at least a small group of people even for a brief moment can have the same support that I received. 19:48:07 It may not be a lot but we have to believe every small action counts. I stand here today, as proof that you can live a Normal and empowered life with mental illness. I'm proud to support a presidential candidate who will fight to ensure all people living with mental health conditions get the care they need to lead fulfilling lives. That candidate is Hillary Clinton. [ cheers ] Let's make her the next president of the United States of America. DEMI LOVATO PERFORMANCE JEFF MERKLEY (OREGON) 19:54:09 Hello Philadelphia. And hello Oregon. Wasn't Demi Lovato great? I'm the son of a millwright from a small town in southern Oregon. I was the first in my family to go to college. I live in the same blue collar community I grew up in. And my children go to the same public schools I did. And here is the truth. 19:54:37 Donald Trump got rich by taking advantage of Americans like the hard working Oregonians in my community back home. Making his products overseas, hiring foreign workers instead of Americans for jobs that are right here in the United States. Cheating small business contractors, never paying them what he owed. And scamming people out of their savings through his fraudulent university. 19:55:11 Where I come from, people like Donald Trump are not the problem -- they're not the solution, they are the problem. Last week in Cleveland, Donald Trump claimed he was champion for American workers, but he's never woken up a day in his life worried about American workers. He is no more a champion for American workers than a lion is a champion for a gazelle. When I talk to folks back home again and again, I hear the frustrations of people who watch billionaires get richer while they struggle to find a job, struggle to send their kids to college, struggle to make their rent or their mortgage. Our response to these real challenges should not be to blame, to bully, to belittle, but to rise to the moment with real solutions. 19:56:11 We owe an enormous debt to Bernie Sanders, speaking of solutions. [ Applause ] Bernie Sanders inspired us to reach for bold solutions the challenges we face. Bernie's leadership on Progressive issues, his willingness to fearlessly stand up to the powers that be have galvanized a grassroots movement that is here tonight and will continue long after November and we need it to continue long after November. And now together, working together, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have forged the most progressive platform in our party's history. 19:57:09 And working together we need to join their fight for tuition free college for working americans. For (?) to 100% renewable energy to save our planet from climate change. We need to fight together to overturn citizens united. We need to fight together for passage of the equality act for full opportunity for LGBTQ Americans. We need to fight together with bernie and hillary to end profiling and mass incarceration for our communities of color. And we need to fight for trade policies that put american workers first, which means as Hillary has said, we must say no to bad trade deals and that includes the TPP. 19:58:28 Together -- >> [ inaud. Chant ] --together, we must fight for a government of, by, and for the people. Not a government for the powerful, not a government for the privileged. But a government for the people. And that is exactly what we're going to do when we follow the vision of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and elect her, Hillary Clinton, and Tim Kaine in November. [ cheers and applause ] 19:59:08 We must be united in this battle. Whether you spent this year feeling the bern or you spent this year ready for Hillary, all of us are ready for an America that rejects discrimination and embraces diversity, that celebrates voter empowerment not voter suppression, that creates opportunity for all of us not just the lucky few. So let's work together, as Bernie and Hillary have, and make sure that next January, on the west steps of the capital, it is Hillary Clinton that we are celebrating to become the next president of the United States of America. [ cheers ] Thank you so much, God bless you, and goodnight. Thank you. 20:02:16 [ 'SHE'S WITH US' VIDEO ] KARLA (11 YRS. OLD) AND FRANCISCA ORTIZ 20:03:44 KARLA: Thank you very much for coming here today. I really appreciate it. And today I'm going to tell you guys the story about my parents, about their deportation of immigration. And I'm a daughter of immigrant parents. Valiente, brave, that's what Hillary Clinton called me when I told her I was worried my parents would be deported. 20:04:15 Even when I was little, my parents were always crying. But I didn't understand why. Soy Americana. (I'm American) I was -- [ cheers ] I was born in Las Vegas, Nevada. My parents came here, looking for a better life, for the American dream. Sueno Americano. But I don't feel brave every day. On most days I'm scared. I'm scared that at any moment, my mom and my dad will be forced to leave. 20:04:58 And I wonder, what if I come home and find it empty? I want to see my parents do -- I want my parents to see me do science experiments and help me find my rare rocks in the desert. I want to grow up to be a lawyer so I can help other families like us. [ cheers and applause ] I have hope. Esperanza. 20:05:32 Hillary Clinton told me that she would do everything she could to help us. She told me that I didn't have to do the worrying because she would do the worrying for me and all of us. 20:05:52 She wants me to have the worries of an 11-year-old, not the weight of the world on my shoulder. 20:06:09 FRANCISCA: Valiente. [ cheers and applause ] [speaking Spanish] 20:06:34 [SHOT OF WOMAN IN AUDIENCE CRYING] 20:06:54 KARLA: [Speaks Spanish] Hillary Clinton for president. Thank you. >> [ chant ] Si se pueda! Si se pueda! 20:07:34 ['TRUMP IN HIS OWN WORDS' VIDEO PLAYS ASTRID SILVA 20:09:12 When I was 4 years old, my mother and I climbed into a raft and we crossed the river to join my father in America, in search of a better life. All I had was a little doll. I grew up like an ordinary girl. My dad worked as a landscaper and my mom stayed at home with my brother and I. But while my friends did ordinary things, I couldn't. Because my parents were afraid that someone might discover I was undocumented. 20:09:41 My family believed so deeply in the promise of this country that we risked everything for the American dream. As an undocumented student, I felt like college was out of reach. But after a journey of ten years, I finally graduated from Nevada state college. [ cheers ] My family and I are here because of people like senator Harry Reid. [ cheers ] Mi abuelito, who put themselves in our shoes and helped us. And while president Obama's immigration action protected me, we live in constant fear that my parents could be taken away from their grandson, Noah. 20:10:33 So, when Donald Trump talks about deporting 11 million people, he's talking about ripping families apart. Separating families like mine and like Karla's. Hillary Clinton understands that this is not who we are as a country. I have seen her comfort children like Karla, who are scared they might lose their parents to deportation. I know she will fight to keep our families together. Nuestras familias. I know she will. LUIS GUTIERREZ (ILLINOIS) 20:11:36 Thank you. Hello, Philadelphia. You know, my parents grew up in San Sebastian, Del Pepino in rural Puerto Rico. They weren't educated. They didn't speak English. But they didn't even have a winter coat. Barely out of their teens, they came to the U.S. When I -- and I was born in the great city of Chicago. [ cheers ] 20:12:20 My parents were born American citizens but when they moved, along with half a million other Puerto ricans in the 1950s, they were greeted with scorn and discrimination. Politicians called them criminals. They said my parents were a dangerous disease and would ruin the country. Sound familiar to you tonight? Nobody spoke up against the bigotry and hatred my parents endured. So you better believe I'm using my voice against the discrimination we hear today. [ cheers and applause ] 20:13:00 I will raise my voice against the bigot who think a judge born in Indiana can't do his job because his parents were born in Mexico. I'll raise my voice against a bully who calls hard-working immigrants criminals and rapists. Someone who promises to round up and deport families, millions of families and then put up a wall between them and us. You have joined me in that fight and so has Hillary Clinton. She stands with us so Americans remain and America remains a welcoming nation. 20:13:53 We don't discriminate because of what you look like, who you love, how you pray, what language your parents speak or where you were born. But let's be clear. My parents, when they came from Puerto Rico, weren't the only ones to confront discrimination. Every generation of newcomers, whoever and whatever they come from, Latin America, Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, they're met with skepticism and suspicion. But every generation proves the skeptics wrong. Immigrants contribute to our communities and make America a great nation. Immigrants die defending our democracy. 20:14:49 And you know what? They give our founding principles meaning in our time. Every time immigrants are labeled as them but over time they become part of us. We, the people. About 11 million undocumented immigrants live, work, pay taxes and raise their families in the United States of America. A lot of their families include U.S. Citizens just like me. But, listen, no matter what your family tree looks like, a fair immigration system is better for all of America. 20:15:35 No matter what others say, it is simply a fantasy that we're going to round up and deport 11 million people. It's a sick, hateful fantasy. But let me tell you what gives me hope. In her heart, Hillary Clinton's dream for America is one where immigrants are allowed to come out of the shadows, get right with the law, pay their taxes and not feel fear that their families are going to be ripped apart. [ applause ] 20:16:13 When Hillary Clinton steps to this podium to accept the nomination, we'll all take a giant step forward. The broad and diverse America that fights for an inclusive and fair nation, our union of black and brown, white and African and Asian people, who love the Earth and know that climate change is real and value education, we will all step up to that podium with her. Listen, we continue the work of our heroes like John Lewis, Chavez and Dr. Martin Luther king. And martyrs like Medgar Evers, who allow me the ability to speak from this podium. We fight for equal rights we believe women deserve equal pay for equal work in this country. [ cheers and applause ] 20:17:18 And we will not stand idly by because we believe that congress has to keep its hands off planned parenthood. We believe that people should be able to love who they love and marry who they want to marry in the United States of America. And we believe that when you send your children to school or young people are having fun at a nightclub, or you walk a beat as a police officer or you walk down the street in your neighborhood in Chicago, you shouldn't fear being shot. We will take on the NRA with Hillary as president of the United States. 20:18:17 Yes. We believe in a country where this son of uneducated parents born in Puerto Rico can speak to this nation on this podium in the city where the United States of America was born. [ Speaking Spanish ] With Hillary, our nation will be greater, better and stronger. [ Speaking Spanish ] Si se puede.[ Crowd chanting, si se puede ] JASON AND JARRON COLLINS 20:19:32 JARRON: Thank you. I'm Jarron Collins. And alongside my kind and brilliant wife, Elsa, we have three children that are raised here in America. I want my kids to know that anything is possible here. I want them to know that any more than any star athlete, the president of the United States is a role model to millions of children. So when it comes to Donald Trump, how do you tell your kids not to be a bully if their president is one? [ cheers ] How do you tell your kids to respect their heritage? My wife is Mexican-american, if their president disparages it? How do you tell your daughters they are empowered if their president reduces women to their physical appearance? 20:20:28 My parents, my family and all the great coaches I've had in my life have taught me the importance of working hard, playing fair and, most importantly, the ability to lead and bring people together to accomplish great things. That sounds like Hillary Clinton to me. [ cheers and applause ] And now, it is with great pride I introduce the first publicly gay athlete to play in any of the four major American sports leagues, my less handsome twin brother, Jason Collins. 20:21:09 JASON: Thank you, Jarron. I'll get you back for that one later. My dream was to play in the NBA and live my authentic life as a proud gay man at the same time. I was able to accomplish both of those goals because of the people who have supported me throughout my life. Before I came out to the world on the cover of "Sports Illustrated" I came out privately to the Clinton family. I have known their family for almost 20 years. I knew that they would accept me for who I was and that they would help pave a path for others to do the same. 20:21:52 I am forever grateful for their words of wisdom back then and their unconditional support. They knew that my sexual orientation made no difference in my ability to play basketball. Just as someone's gender makes no difference in his or her ability to lead our nation. Hillary has defended the lgbt community for years, from co-sponsoring the Matthew Shepard hate crimes prevention act to helping pass the first-ever U.N. Resolution on lgbt human rights, to making sure transgender individuals passports could reflect their true gender. 20:22:40 As both an African-American and a member of the lgbt community, the choice for continued progress is clear.This November, we must elect Hillary Clinton as our next president. Thank you. JESSE LIPSON 20:23:27 So I don't know about you, but Donald Trump's acceptance speech left me with a lot questions. For example, where's this losing country he keeps talking about? The America I live in, the North Carolina I live in -- [ cheers ] -- is a creative engine where the innovative spirit is alive and well. Where nearly all net new jobs are created by startups. Where you can still make something from nothing like I did. 20:24:04 I taught myself how to build software on nights and weekends. When I was 26, I started my company with just $100 in advertising. Today we're in more than 100 countries and we've created more than 800 jobs in Raleigh. [Cheers and applause] 20:24:26 Donald, I'm also a businessman, you build skyscrapers, I build in the cloud, but it's clear you don't understand something simple about business. 20:24:40 Nothing scares away investment like hate. [ applause ] Disgusting laws like north Carolina's attack on lgbt Americans are costing my state hundreds of millions of dollars. It cost us the NBA all-star game and it is also costing us talented programmers who are ready to build the future. I've seen venture capitalists who refuse to invest in our state. Republicans may think they are telling people which bathroom to go into, but they are actually telling people which market to stay out of. 20:25:27 When I travel abroad, I hear people talking about legalized discrimination in America, bigotry doesn't just hurt my state, it hurts our entire country. It is not just North Carolina. In Indiana Mike pence approved discrimination against lgbt Americans. [boos] So I guess you could say if bigotry has created one job, the position of Donald Trump's running mate. 20:26:06 Hillary Clinton knows what every great CEO knows, we're stronger together. That's why she supports a federal law protecting workers in the workplace, no matter who they love or who they are. She'll cut taxes and regulations for startups and small businesses so they can hire and grow. She'll invest in breakthrough R&D so the industry and jobs of the future are created here in America. She'll help lift the burden of college debt so young people can chase their dreams. I tell my employees all of the time, focus on solutions not problems. All trump offers are problems. Hillary offers real solutions. 20:27:07 America, there is no question Hillary Clinton must be our next president. [Cheers and applause] Thank you. PAT SPEARMAN 20:29:02 Good evening, Democrats. Good evening, Democrats! I'm a veteran, I'm a minister, I'm an African American, and I am a proud member of the lgbtq community. [Cheers and applause] When I joined our military in 1977 I lived in fear of being discharged. But today, lgbtq members of the military can serve openly and proudly. When I was elected to the Nevada state legislature in 2012, I was one of only two who were openly gay and today I'm one of five. [ cheers ] When Nevada started recognizing same-sex marriage in 2014, we were one of 26 states and today marriage equality is nationwide, that's progress, my friends. [Cheers and applause] 20:30:17 But we can't stop now. We've heard Trump say that he would protect the lgbtq community, but he is against marriage equality and has said he's all for overturning it. Donald Trump says that anyone can use any bathroom in trump towers, but he still supports heinous bathroom bills and he would strip the rights away from transgender Americans. But his worst attack on us was his vice presidential pick. Indiana governor Mike pence. 20:31:08 Governor pence signed a law that lets individuals and businesses deny services to LGBTQ Americans and he used religion as a weapon to discriminate. And the state lost millions of dollars as a result. As a lesbian that hurts me, and as a person of faith that offends me and as a legislator working hard to create jobs that baffles me. No matter the cost to our country Donald Trump and Mike pence will strip away the progress we have fought so hard to win. 20:32:00 Why? Because they fear diversity, we celebrate it. They fear progress, we build on it. They fear equality, we'll keep fighting for it. So Democrats, Democrats, are we going to retreat? >> No. SPEARMAN>> Will we keep marching forward? >> Yes. 20:32:24 SPEARMAN>> Hillary Clinton is battle tested. She will fight alongside us for equality in our schools, in our communities, in our workplaces and in our nation. She will make the equality act legal and make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of who you love, who you are, wherever you live or wherever you work once and for all. 20:33:00 This election make no mistake about it, won't be easy. I know we are ready. And in the words of the old negro spiritual, so let's walk together Democrats, don't get weary, let's work together Democrats, don't get weary, let's talk together Democrats, don't get weary, there's a great camp meeting in the promised land of equality. Thank you, and god bless you all. [Cheers and applause] [ VIDEO PLAYS ] BOB CASEY (PENNSYLVANIA) 20:35:50 Welcome to Philadelphia, the place where American independence began, where our Constitution was born. Since the time of William Penn, Pennsylvania has been a commonwealth of creators. Of makers. Of builders who, every day, invent the future. My father, Governor Casey, believed that we must never forget that quote, "the sweat and blood of working men and women who built Pennsylvania forged the industrial revolution in our country and out-produced the world." 20:36:24 With family roots in Scranton and her many visits to the state over the years, Hillary Clinton understands this. She'll work every day to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. But what about Donald Trump? Donald Trump says he stands for workers and that he'll put America first, but that's not how he conducted himself in business. Where are his quote, "tremendous" Trump products made? Dress shirts: Bangladesh; furniture: Turkey; picture frames: India; wine glasses: Slovenia; neckties: China. China. 20:37:09 Why would Donald Trump make his products in every corner of the globe, but not in Altoona, Erie, or here in Philadelphia? [ cheers ] Well, this is what he said: quote, "outsourcing is not always a terrible thing." Wages in America quote "are too high." And then he complained about companies moving jobs overseas because quote, "we don't make things anymore." 20:37:41 Really? Well, tell that to the union workers at All-Clad in Canonsburg, who make the pots and pans found in many of our kitchens. [ cheers and applause ] Tell that -- Tell that to the employees of K'NEX in Hatfield, who create toys that teach our children about engineering and architecture. Tell that to the robotics students at Carnegie Mellon, who are building 21st century robots and cars that drive themselves. 20:38:11 Donald Trump hasn't made anything in his life except a buck on the backs of working people. If he's a champion of working people, I'm the starting center for the 76ers. The man who says he wants to make America great doesn't make anything in America. And it's insulting that he has no plan, no plan to support the men and women who are manufacturing products here at home. All he has are empty promises, like so many he's made and failed to follow through on before. If you believe that outsourcing has been good for working people and has raised incomes for the middle class, then you should vote for Donald Trump. 20:39:03 I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. Hillary believes that we need an economy that works for everyone, not just Donald Trump and those at the top. We need to commit ourselves to making good-paying jobs here at home, so that everyone who works hard can get ahead and stay there. That's why in her first 100 days in office, President Hillary Clinton will put forward the largest investment in good-paying jobs since World War II. 20:39:38 As President, she'll reward businesses that share profits with their employees. She will slap a new "exit tax" on companies that move overseas while rewarding companies that invest here at home. And she'll strengthen our economy by investing $10 billion in new advanced manufacturing jobs that can't be sent overseas. 20:40:02 This November, we have a choice. You can choose a candidate who's only out for himself, who wants to get rid of the federal minimum wage, and who would cut taxes for the richest Americans at the expense of the middle class. Or you can choose Hillary Clinton - a leader with a proven track record of fighting for an economy that works for ALL of us. If you're with her like I am, go to hillaryclinton.com. Thank you. LUKE FEENEY MAYOR OF CHILLICOTHE, OHIO 20:41:04 >> Hello, delegates! Hello, Ohio! I am proud to serve the great people of historic Chillicothe, Ohio's first capital. And I'm proud to be one of the many Ohioans supporting Hillary Clinton. [Cheers and applause] When I think about what's at stake this November, I think about a woman from our hometown named Courtney Lewis. Courtney's dad works at the local paper mill. She dreamed of opening her own business. Not just for her, but for her city. She didn't like seeing her city with those empty buildings downtown. 20:41:52 She wanted to do her part. So, Courtney moved into a vacant storefront and, with two partners, started a local gift shop called Totem Supply Company. Three years later, Totem is a small town success story and it's not the only one. Chillicothe is on the rise. Appalache is on the rise. And it's thanks to small business owners like Courtney. I tell Courtney's story tonight not because it's unique, but because it isn't. 20:42:28 All across the country thousands of entrepreneurs and small business owners are equally ready to drive growth in their communities, all they need is a chance. The last thing Ohioans need is a president who has crushed small businesses by not paying them for the work they did. The last thing Ohio needs is Donald Trump. Hillary's dad was a small business owner, she gets it. Hillary knows America works best when it works for everyone. And she has a plan to make sure that entrepreneurs like Courtney have all the tools they need to succeed. 20:43:12 Less red tape, more access to capital like bigger businesses have. A more even playing field and a wider path to prosperity for all of us. Mayors of small towns across the country need a president who will be a friend to small business, who will be a partner in our resurgence. Hillary knows Americans' success stories start in places like Chillicothe. That's why we're with her. That's why Chillicothe is with her. That's why ohio is with her. 20:43:53 We're with her, because she's with us. And that's why we're going to send Hillary Clinton to the White House this November. Thank you. 20:44:18 [ VIDEO: 'TRUMP IN HIS OWN WORDS'] KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (NEW YORK) 20:46:10 Some people know me as a United States Senator from New York. [ cheers ] But during school drop-off and pick-up, I'm better known as Theo and Henry's mom. Like most working parents, my husband and I juggle a lot. We're fortunate to have flexibility, but some days, we still barely keep it together. 20:46:40 The vast majority of working parents have it much tougher. They're struggling with too little time, too little money, and too little support. And Washington hasn't caught up to their reality. Families today look almost nothing like they did a generation ago. Eight in 10 moms work outside of the home. Four in 10 moms are the primary or sole breadwinners, and many are single. Thanks to marriage equality, more children grow up with two moms or two dads. And yet, today, our policies are stuck in the "Mad Men" era. 20:47:26 We are the only industrialized nation that doesn't guarantee workers paid family leave. Many women can't even get a paid day off to give birth. Most parents work outside the home, yet child care can cost as much as college tuition. Families rely on women's income, but we still don't have equal pay for equal work. This makes no sense, because we know that when families are strong, America is strong. 20:48:07 Hillary Clinton gets it-not just because she's a working mother, and Charlotte and Aidan's grandmother, but because for her, it's about her core values, the idea we have that we have a responsibility to one another. It's about who we are as a nation. It's why after law school, she could have gone to a fancy law firm-but she chose to work at the Children's Defense Fund, where she advocated for children with disabilities. 20:48:47 It's why as America's First Lady she helped create a health insurance program for children so that 8 million kids could get the care they need. And it's why as Secretary of State, she helped women and children to escape violence and poverty-to attend schools, support their families, and reinvest in their communities. 20:49:13 And it's why as President of the United States, she will bring our workplace policies out of the Dark Ages, and always, always, put families first. You see, Hillary Clinton's life -- Hillary Clinton's life's work has been defined by one question: "How can we help those who need it most?" Donald Trump's has been defined by a very different question: "How can I help myself the most?" 20:49:54 Donald Trump actually stood on a debate stage and said that wages are "too high." Hillary knows that in the richest country in the world, it is unacceptable that a mom with two kids working full time still lives in poverty. [ applause ] Donald Trump says that when it comes to paid family leave, "you have to be careful of it." Hillary knows that it's long past time to have guaranteed paid family leave. [ cheers ] 20:50:32 Donald Trump thinks that women should just work harder because-and I'm quoting-"You're gonna make the same if you do as good of a job." Every woman in America knows-that's not true! Hillary believes that women deserve equal pay for equal work. 20:50:58 The choice in this election couldn't be clearer! If you believe in the values that have always made us great-if you believe in keeping America great-then support Hillary Clinton. Thank you and God bless our great nation. AL FRANKEN (MINNESOTA) 20:51:45 Hi everybody. [ cheers ] Hi. Save it for the end. I'm Al Franken. [ cheers ] I'm Al Franken: Minnesotan, Senator, and world-renowned expert on right-wing megalomaniacs: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and now Donald Trump. 20:52:31 Now a little about my qualifications. I got my doctorate in megalomania studies from Trump University. [ laughter ] Sure, I had to empty out my 401(k) and take a reverse mortgage on my house to pay the tuition. But Mr. Trump or, rather, some people who said they'd once met him, convinced me that it was worth it. 20:53:02 And frankly, as a proud alum of Trump U, I think we may be mis-underestimating Donald Trump. Sure, he's scammed a lot of people. But did you know that Trump University's School of Ripping People Off is ranked second in the nation? Right behind Bernie Madoff University? That's no mean feat. 20:53:38 And Trump University is about more than just bilking people. Although, trust me, you will get bilked. It's also about learning directly from success experts like Scott Baio, Mike -- Mike Tyson, and, of course, a life-size cardboard cutout of Mr. Trump himself. 20:54:07 Now, of course, Trump University wouldn't be Trump University without its business school. Their bankruptcy program in particular is known throughout the real estate/investment community for its creativity. The most popular course, Bankruptcy 101, "How to Leave Your Partners Holding the Bag," is taught by the cardboard cutout itself. 20:54:38 The pride of Trump University, of course, is its library, located on a shelf in a closet on the third floor of Trump Tower. All of Mr. Trump's bestsellers are available for sale at a special rate, for students, which is 10% higher than the retail price. Clearly, Donald Trump's enormous, dare I say "huge," success as a businessman qualifies him to be President. And if you believe that, I've got some delicious Trump Steaks to sell you. 20:55:28 In all seriousness, I think rather than voting for someone who's never done anything for anyone other than himself, maybe we should go with the candidate who's spent her entire life working to get important things done for the American people. [ cheers and applause ] I've known Hillary, I've known Hillary for almost a quarter-century. I've never met anyone smarter, tougher, or more ready to lead us forward. I am proud to call Hillary Clinton my friend. And I can't wait to call her Madam President. 20:56:30 Now, we're going to have a lot of fun this week. But when we wake up Friday morning, there will be just 102 days left until the election. And what you - yes, all of you - what you do in those 102 days could determine who wins. And I mean that literally. I won my first race for the Senate by 312 votes. 20:57:07 There's my Minnesota delegation. There are people up there who contacted more than 312 people themselves. And literally I would not be here. The reason--they are, each of them, individually, the reason I'm giving this speech here and not into my bathroom mirror. 20:57:42 My friend, my friend Paul Wellstone - [ cheers ] -- my friend Paul Wellstone used to say, "The future belongs to those who are passionate and work hard." This week is about passion. But starting Friday morning, it's all about work, hard work. 20:58:21 Now, now, many of you have jobs. Many of you have families. Ignore them. Let me tell you something: kids love it when their parents aren't home. They love it. And let me tell you something else. An 8-year-old knows how to use a microwave oven. And let me tell you something else. An 8-year-old can teach a 4-year-old kid how to use a microwave. It's just scientific fact. 20:59:02 Don't worry about your kids. They'll be fine. You have work to do. Get on those phones. Knock on those doors. And tell 'em Al Franken sent you. Thank you. 21:02:22 [ VIDEO PLAYS ]

SWITCHED PROGRAM FEED FROM THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION AT THE WELLS FARGO CENTER IN PHILADELPHIA / 19:02:29 Now, like all of you, I'm working to elect a president who has the experience, vision, values and grit to make progress in these turbulent times. That person is Hillary Clinton. [ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ] Hillary will be a president who gets results. She'll take on powerful special interests in a rigged system to make our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top. And she''ill be a champion for our children and our families. With your hard work, we can build a better future for everyone. Steelworkers and school teachers, farm families and military families, the forgotten middle class and those who have been left out and left behind. And immigrants. 19:03:14 People like my family and yours, who struggled to get here, who built this country and who love America. That's who we're fighting for. That's who this election is about. That's why she picked Tim Kaine as her running mate, a man with a deep core and a passion for service. And if we, and if we work overtime, work overtime for the next 105 days, we will succeed in making history and elect the first woman president of the united States! Thank you. 19:03:58 (VIDEO: 'POSSIBLE NEXT PRESIDENT ON MARRIAGE') TRUMP>> I don't wanna sound too much like a chauvinist, but when I come home and dinner's not ready, I go through the roof, okay. LINDA SANCHEZ (CALIFORNIA) 19:04:28 Buenas noches, good evening everyone. It's great to be here with all of you. My name is Linda Sanchez and I have the honor of representing California's 38th congressional district, and serving as the chairwoman of the congressional hispanic caucus. We are a diverse caucus and we bring in an important perspective to the decisions that shape the future of our country. We embody the promise of the american dream. That you can achieve success in our great country if you are willing to work hard enough for it. The hispanic caucus is made up of 26 talented members who are veterans attorneys, business owners, doctors and engineers just to name a few. 19:05:18 Our caucus is growing and this november we have the opportunity to elect outstanding hispanic candidates from across the country. And with Loretta sanchez and Katrine cortez masto (sp?) we will elect a latina to the US senate. 19:05:50 I'm proud of the hispanic caucus and the work we do everyday to make our country stronger. Take a look. [VIDEO] 19:09:46 We are here at this historic democratic convention to nominate Hillary Clinton, the next president and Tim kaine, the next vice president of the United States. [ cheers and applause ] 19:10:06 I want to share a little bit of my story because it's an American story. It's the story of millions of Latinos and Latinas across this country. I'm the daughter of immigrant parents from Mexico. They came to this country and worked hard every day to provide for me and my brothers and sisters. My father, Ignacio, was an industrial mechanic. And my mother, Maria, became an elementary school teacher after raising a family. They owned their own home. They sent all seven of their children to college. [ cheers ] 19:10:48 My mother and father saved and sacrificed to achieve the American dream for our family. They weren't given their success. They earned it. Donald Trump believes that Mexican immigrants are murderers and rapists. [ boos ] But what about my parents, Donald? Let me tell you what my parents are. They are the only parents in our nation's 265-year history to send not one, but two daughters to the United States congress. [ LORETTA SANCHEZ COMES UP AND GRABS HER SISTER'S HAND ] 19:11:44 Like my parents, Hillary Clinton believes the United States is a country where people of all backgrounds can make a home and a better life. But that America isn't possible if we allow Donald Trump and his Republican party to build a wall that divides us. I stand here tonight as the chair of the congressional hispanic caucus and a proud congresswoman from California, but most importantly, I'm here as a mom. 19:12:13 We all want what's best for our kids. We want our children to grow up to be healthy, successful and kind hearted. Our job is to nurture them, be good role models for them to follow as they grow. Now I will be the first to tell you that being a parent hard. But Donald Trump is making it a whole lot harder. He has taken the low road time and time again. He has been vulgar and he has been intolerant. Or as we say in Spanish, [ speaks Spanish ] 19:12:53 He peddles fear intestine security to divide the great people of this country. Tell me, what kind of example would we set for our children by allowing a bully to sit in the oval office? We know that our children aren't born with hate or racism in their hearts. They learn it from watching the world around them and following the example of the adults in their life. Too many of our children are watching and learning the wrong lessons from Donald Trump. We've seen it at an Indiana basketball game where a group of white students started chanting "Build that wall" to players from a predominantly hispanic high school. 19:13:40 This is the behavior that Donald Trump inspires in our youth. A trump presidency would be a signal to our children that we condone this kind of behavior. Well that is a message I refuse to accept. Who we vote for says a lot about our values. There are few moments in history that have an impact on the trajectory of the world. And I believe that this election is one of those moments. Our children are watching us. Their future depends on the outcome of this race. 19:14:16 Do we want a responsible leader or a loud-mouth bully? Do we want a president who respects women or who calls them names and devalues them? Do we want a president who appreciates the contributions immigrants make to our country or someone who vilifies them? Hillary Clinton is the only choice for president. She is a president we can be proud of. [boos] And, Donald, let me just say this. America is great. It is the country that gave my family the opportunity for a better life, just like all immigrants who came before them. It is because of our diversity that we are the envy of the world. Hillary [ Speaking Spanish ] 19:15:18 Like I said in the video, Hillary Clinton is badass and ready to lead. Let's win in November. MARTY WALSH BOSTON MAYOR 19:16:11 Good evening. Good evening. Thank you, Massachusetts. Thank you. Good evening delegates. My name is Marty Walsh and I'm an alcoholic. On April 23rd, 1995, I hit rock bottom.I woke up with little memory of the night before and even less hope for the days to come. Everybody was losing faith in me. Everybody except my family and the labor movement. I followed my father into the building trades when I was 18 years old. Labor gave my immigrant family a chance and the labor community got me the help I needed and gave me a second chance. 19:17:19 18 years later, I became the mayor of Boston, a city of big dreams and a big heart. As mayor, I work to give everyone a fair shot and a second chance. Whether it's apprenticeships, free community college or help starting a business. There's no doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton is the champion American workers need. She will help workers get the skills, the jobs and the child care they need to support strong families. 19:18:02 She believes in an America that's not just for those with advantages. She believes in an America for those who need a helping hand, people struggling with addiction, moms working two jobs, students in debt, seniors struggling to retire. Workers facing layoffs and people like the carpenters and electrician Donald Trump hired but then refused to pay just because he did. We may not have our names in gold outside any buildings we've worked on. But our sweat, our work, our pride is on the inside of every single one of them. Hillary Clinton knows that. She believes what I learned in my labor family, we are stronger together. This is our choice. Are we going to let Donald Trump stiff the working families so he can make more for himself and the people at the top or are we going to stick together and build an economy that works for everybody in America? 19:19:14 I know where I stand. I stand with the women and men of every race, creed, color who built this country. And I stand as a living example of Hillary Clinton's vision for an America where everyone gets a fair shot and a second chance to achieve their dreams. That's the America I believe in. That's the America I've lived. And that's why America's working people are going to vote and elect Hillary Clinton our next president. I want to thank you and god bless the United States of America. LEE SAUNDERS PRESIDENT OF AFSCME 19:20:24 >> Good evening. I am Lee Saunders, I am proud to be here representing the 1.6 million public service workers of afscme. We keep our community safe and strong, feeding school kids, healing patients, plowing roads and answering 911 calls. Every day, in every way, we never quit putting families first.Hillary Clinton never quits, either. She is an unstoppable champion for working people. She understands collective bargaining rights don't just improve the lives of union members, they strengthen all of us. 19:21:15 We need a president who gets that, who understands that busting unions and cutting public services means families suffer. Let's look at Flint, Michigan, where poisonous policies led directly to poisoned drinking water. Donald Trump wants to tear working people down. He's only in business for himself. I was just in Las Vegas with workers at the trump hotel last week. They voted to form a union, but Donald Trump won't negotiate a contract with them. You can't keep saying you like to make deals, Donald. How about working out a deal with the housekeepers and the food servers to help your business succeed? [ Applause ] 19:22:08 It's no surprise, I guess, how can you be pro worker when you're famous for the catchphrase "You're fired." But this isn't reality television. This is reality. And we need a serious-minded leader who puts families first, not a thin skinned bully who puts himself first. [ Applause ] That's the choice. An unstoppable champion versus an unstable (?). I know whose side I'm on. I'm with her. Afscme is with her. Let's elect Hillary Clinton our next president of the united States. RICHARD TRUMKA PRESIDENT AFL-CIO 19:23:07 >> Hello, Democrats. I'm Rich Trumka president of the afl-cio. [ Applause ]And it's great to be in Philadelphia, a proud, proud union town. See, working people built this stage, and now we'll build a new era of shared prosperity,working people are strong. And Donald Trump is wrong, wrong, wrong. Listen, he thinks he's a tough guy. Well Donald, I worked in the mines with tough guys. I know tough guys. They're friends of mine. And Donald, you're no tough guy, you're a phoney. [ Applause ] [ Cheers ] 19:24:07 Donald Trump has repeatedly outsourced jobs to line his own pocket. He rooted for the housing collapse. He actually said that our wages are too high, not just once, but repeatedly. Donald Trump isn't the solution to America's problems, he is the problem. [ Cheers ] 19:24:30 Working people, we have the solution. We're building a national movement for a better life, no matter the color of our skin, where we were born, who we love, or how we worship. We set the bar high, and Hillary Clinton answered our call. In this election, she is fighting to rewrite the economic rules for all of us. She has a bold plan to invest in manufacturing, infrastructure and jobs. She opposes the job killing trans pacific partnership. [ cheers ] 19:25:14 She'll protect workplace rights, stand up to Wall Street and fight to finally, finally, secure equal pay for equal work. So Democrats, get on your feet. Let's change the rules. Let's take back congress. Let's win a pro-workers supreme court and let's elect Hillary Clinton the next president of the United States. [ Cheers ] LILY ESKELSEN GARCIA PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 19:25:55 >> Wow. Wow. [ Speaking Spanish ] My name is Lily Eskelsen Garcia. And I'm here because I have the honor to be representing the 3 million educators that formed the union of the national education association. My story isn't different from my students' stories. My mom is an immigrant. My dad served in the army. My parents worked hard so that their kids could have a chance to get ahead, and they were so proud of me when I became a teacher. But today too many students in our classrooms feel like they won't get the same chance that I got, especially those from immigrant families. They tell us they're afraid that their parents might be taken away, that they might be deported for not having the right piece of paper. 19:26:56 Hillary Clinton believes in keeping families together. She believes in our dreamers. She believes that educators should be focused on education, not deportation. [ Cheering ] Now, Donald Trump sees things differently. My mom says that if you can't say something nice about somebody, you should at least make it funny. I can't make this funny. Donald Trump sees immigrants as criminals, as drug dealers, as rapists. He says he'd round up families and deport them. He'll build a wall. We're better than that. Our kids deserve better than that. Hillary Clinton doesn't want to divide people with walls of hate. She wants to build bridges to a better future for all of us. That's why America's educators are with her, and why we're going to do everything in our power to build a bridge to a future where Hillary Clinton is the president of the United States of America. Gracias. [ Cheering ] MARY KAY HENRY 19:28:21 >> Hello, sisters and brothers. I'm Mary Kay Henry and I'm proud to stand here on behalf of 2 million members of service employees international union. [ Cheering ] And the millions more who are fighting for 15 in the unions. Our movement will be an unstoppable force in this election, because the stakes could not be higher. We need a president who wants to raise wages in this country, not one that says wages are too high and that there shouldn't even be a federal minimum wage. 19:29:02 That's why we're working to elect Hillary Clinton and champions up and down the ballot who are going to raise wages and help workers join together in unions. Hillary has spent time with workers, who care for children and our seniors, like Lizbeth (?) from Las Vegas. Lizbeth has been a home care provider for 40 years, but still Lizbeth has to rely on food stamps and medicaid just to make ends meet. Hillary Clinton knows that's wrong, and that's why Hillary Clinton is ready to raise wages for home care providers and child care providers, and ensure that they have a strong voice in quality care. We know that economic justice is inextricably linked to winning racial justice, environmental justice, and immigrant justice. 19:30:08 We must elect Hillary Clinton and the champions like her who are going to put families first, and stop the candidates of hatred and greed. Brothers and sisters, I believe that we can win. Do you? Repeat after me. I. I believe. I believe that we. I believe that we can win. I believe that we can win. I believe that we can win. Thank you very much, brothers and sisters. [ Applause ] SEAN MCGARVEY 19:30:58 >> Good evening. I'm proud to be here in my hometown of Philadelphia. I'm even prouder to represent the 3 million members of north America's building trades unions. Trade union members have helped build this great nation. The hoover dam, the golden gate bridge, the freedom towers, the very arena we are in tonight. You name it, we build it. We're proud of our work. But with collapsed bridges, crumbling roads and stressed energy systems we know it's past time to rebuild our nation's infrastructure. And building trades members are ready to do their part. 19:31:41 Hillary Clinton has the boldest infrastructure plan we've seen in generations. She will help us repair roads and bridges and make broadband universal, build new airports and modernize our energy grid. She will do it all while creating good, fair paying jobs with standards that support real apprenticeship programs, which the building trades pioneer to ensure that workers get the skills they need to succeed. And let me be very clear, we cannot rebuild America unless we treat America's workers with respect. 19:32:17 Donald Trump chose the running mate that has not respected workers. As governor Mike pence gave corporations license to pay construction workers less by repealing the prevailing wage law that had been in place for 80 years. That was bad deal for Indiana. It would be a bad deal for America. That's why hardhats, all across America support Hillary Clinton and honorary iron worker Tim kaine, they have our backs and we have theirs. Now let's get them elected. God bless you and thank you. RANDI WEINGARTEN PRESIDENT AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS 19:32:55 Brothers and sisters, I am proud to be here representing the 1.6 million members of the AFT. Last week, last week we saw a festival of fear, every day was full of hate and bigotry. Why? To hide that trump's plans like many of his businesses are completely bankrupt. Donald made millions while he ripped off workers and small businesses with his unfair business practices. 19:33:41 Remember, he ended up bankrupting not one, not two, not three, but four of his companies. And his economic ideas will make millionaires like him richer at the expense of the middle class. Just look at Trump University to see how he operates. Salespeople were told to exploit people's fears -- and let me be very careful -- I quote, "a single parent that may need money for food into useless high cost seminars." Instead of an education, students lost thousands of dollars and got nothing in return. That's Trump in a nutshell. Manipulating people's fears to enrich himself. He is completely unqualified to be in the Oval Office. 19:34:44 So thankfully we have a different choice and it's a great one, Hillary Clinton. Hillary's worked her entire life to level the playing field for working families. That starts with public education from pre k to college. She has a plan for universal early childhood education. She'll reset education policy to focus on creativity and critical thinking, not on more testing. And she'll make public universities free for working families, a stark contrast from Trump's for profit scam. 19:35:31 Hillary is the most qualified candidate to run for president in my lifetime. She'll wake up thinking everyday how to help us. The choice couldn't be clearer. We must elect Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. Thank you very much. [ cheers and applause ] PAM LIVENGOOD 19:38:20 Hi. For my 50th birthday, I got a 2-year-old. You see, my daughter and her boyfriend had a beautiful little boy named Francis but they got caught up in drugs. It started with the pain medication she was given after Francis was born. And it just got worse. It's hard to explain just how devastating it is to watch your child struggle with substance abuse. I know my daughter loved Francis but love wasn't enough to take care of him. I started getting calls from child services. And one day, they said Francis would be taken away from my family and put in foster care unless he had family who could take care of him. There was no way we were going to let our grandson end up in foster care. So, Francis lived with my husband, John and I, until he was 5. 19:39:15 His grandfather -- he lives with his grandfather now, who is on disability. And when you're my age, you don't expect to start all over again, raising a grandchild. Today, my daughter is in treatment but she has a long road ahead of her. My story isn't unique. This epidemic has devastated communities all over the country. It doesn't discriminate against age, race, gender or income. It affects all of us. But sometimes it feels like folks in Washington don't hear these stories. Well, last year, Hillary Clinton came to New Hampshire for a round table at my workplace. And she asked if addiction had touched any of us. And as I told my story, Hillary listened. She even took notes. And then she did something else we don't see a lot of in Washington. She took action. 19:40:13 She came up with a plan, one that includes everything from reducing overdoses to expanding access to treatment. To me, that's the kind of leader we need. We need a leader who listens to the voices of ordinary Americans, a leader who treats people with compassion and respect, a leader who believes that, as Americans, we look out for each other. I'm not saying that leader has to be a grandmother but it sure helps. For me, that leader is Hillary Clinton. JEANNE SHAHEEN (NEW HAMPSHIRE) 19:41:15 Thank you. Thank you, delegates. And thank you, Pam Livengood for sharing your family's story here today. I applaud your courage. Democrats stand with you, your family and all families struggling with addiction and president Hillary Clinton will stand with you and we will win this fight together. 19:41:50 The opioid and heroin epidemic is ravaging communities all across this country. It's a crisis that affects old and young, rich and poor, men and women, Democrats and Republicans. And it will take all of us working together to defeat it. Across my home state of New Hampshire the awful toll grows each year, 192 overdoses in 2013, 326 fatalities in 2014. And 433 fatalities in 2015. These stories -- these statistics tell a story of a staggering epidemic, but statistics can't fully capture the profound human toll. 19:42:49 It's not only thousands of individual lives that have been destroyed. Entire communities are being devastated. Hillary Clinton sees the epidemic and its terrific toll because she came to new Hampshire. Not to talk but to listen. And she heard stories like Pam livengood's story. She heard stories like the one I recently heard about a young man full of promise, on his way to college when he suffered a sports injury, got addicted to pain killers,switched to heroin. And now instead of living on the freshman quad, he's living on the streets. Panhandling for his next fix. 19:43:35 Hillary heard how addicts are being turned away from treatment facilities due to a lack of resources. Hillary heard from law enforcement, stretched to their limit, dealing with substance abuse. She knows that drug counselors and police officers and others on the front lines of the battle are heroes. 19:43:58 They're doing amazing work. But they need our help. More than 47,000 americans died from drug overdoses in 2014. Hillary Clinton knows we cannot continue on this path. She knows because during this campaign she listened in New Hampshire and across the country. She listened. She learned. And she put together a plan to treat this like the health emergency that it is. And to deploy the necessary resources to fight it. Her plan would invest in some very simple goals, empower communities to prevent drug use among teenagers, ensure every person suffering from addiction can obtain comprehensive treatment, ensure that all first responders carry narcan, which can stop overdoses from becoming fatal and prioritize treatment over prison for low-level and nonviolent drug offenses so we can end the era of mass incarceration. 19:45:10 Early this year, I introduced an emergency funding bill in the senate to pay for policing, prevention, treatment and recovery. But sadly, it was defeated by Republicans. Donald Trump certainly doesn't have a plan to deal with this health epidemic that's gripped our country. In fact, Donald Trump doesn't seem to know what's happening outside of Trump tower. And he seems completely uninterested in finding out. How can trump represent America when he doesn't even take the time to know America? We need a president who listens, who learns, who has empathy and who wants the same opportunities for all children that she's had. Who wants an America where we go forward together. We need president Hillary Clinton. Thank you DEMI LOVATO 19:47:01 Like millions of Americans I'm living with mental illness. But I'm lucky. I had the resources and support to get treatment at a top facility. Unfortunately too many Americans from all walks of life don't get help either because they fear the stigma or cannot afford treatment. Untreated mental illness can lead to devastating consequences, including suicide, substance abuse and long-term medical issues. We can do better. Every one of us can make a difference. By getting educated on this epidemic and its frightening statistics and by breaking the stigma 19:47:38 I urge every politician to support laws that will provide access to better health care and support for everyone. This is not about politics, it's simply the right thing to do. I'm doing my very small part by having the treatment center that saw me through my recovery on tour with me so at least a small group of people even for a brief moment can have the same support that I received. 19:48:07 It may not be a lot but we have to believe every small action counts. I stand here today, as proof that you can live a Normal and empowered life with mental illness. I'm proud to support a presidential candidate who will fight to ensure all people living with mental health conditions get the care they need to lead fulfilling lives. That candidate is Hillary Clinton. [ cheers ] Let's make her the next president of the United States of America. DEMI LOVATO PERFORMANCE JEFF MERKLEY (OREGON) 19:54:09 Hello Philadelphia. And hello Oregon. Wasn't Demi Lovato great? I'm the son of a millwright from a small town in southern Oregon. I was the first in my family to go to college. I live in the same blue collar community I grew up in. And my children go to the same public schools I did. And here is the truth. 19:54:37 Donald Trump got rich by taking advantage of Americans like the hard working Oregonians in my community back home. Making his products overseas, hiring foreign workers instead of Americans for jobs that are right here in the United States. Cheating small business contractors, never paying them what he owed. And scamming people out of their savings through his fraudulent university. 19:55:11 Where I come from, people like Donald Trump are not the problem -- they're not the solution, they are the problem. Last week in Cleveland, Donald Trump claimed he was champion for American workers, but he's never woken up a day in his life worried about American workers. He is no more a champion for American workers than a lion is a champion for a gazelle. When I talk to folks back home again and again, I hear the frustrations of people who watch billionaires get richer while they struggle to find a job, struggle to send their kids to college, struggle to make their rent or their mortgage. Our response to these real challenges should not be to blame, to bully, to belittle, but to rise to the moment with real solutions. 19:56:11 We owe an enormous debt to Bernie Sanders, speaking of solutions. [ Applause ] Bernie Sanders inspired us to reach for bold solutions the challenges we face. Bernie's leadership on Progressive issues, his willingness to fearlessly stand up to the powers that be have galvanized a grassroots movement that is here tonight and will continue long after November and we need it to continue long after November. And now together, working together, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have forged the most progressive platform in our party's history. 19:57:09 And working together we need to join their fight for tuition free college for working americans. For (?) to 100% renewable energy to save our planet from climate change. We need to fight together to overturn citizens united. We need to fight together for passage of the equality act for full opportunity for LGBTQ Americans. We need to fight together with bernie and hillary to end profiling and mass incarceration for our communities of color. And we need to fight for trade policies that put american workers first, which means as Hillary has said, we must say no to bad trade deals and that includes the TPP. 19:58:28 Together -- >> [ inaud. Chant ] --together, we must fight for a government of, by, and for the people. Not a government for the powerful, not a government for the privileged. But a government for the people. And that is exactly what we're going to do when we follow the vision of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and elect her, Hillary Clinton, and Tim Kaine in November. [ cheers and applause ] 19:59:08 We must be united in this battle. Whether you spent this year feeling the bern or you spent this year ready for Hillary, all of us are ready for an America that rejects discrimination and embraces diversity, that celebrates voter empowerment not voter suppression, that creates opportunity for all of us not just the lucky few. So let's work together, as Bernie and Hillary have, and make sure that next January, on the west steps of the capital, it is Hillary Clinton that we are celebrating to become the next president of the United States of America. [ cheers ] Thank you so much, God bless you, and goodnight. Thank you. 20:02:16 [ 'SHE'S WITH US' VIDEO ] KARLA (11 YRS. OLD) AND FRANCISCA ORTIZ 20:03:44 KARLA: Thank you very much for coming here today. I really appreciate it. And today I'm going to tell you guys the story about my parents, about their deportation of immigration. And I'm a daughter of immigrant parents. Valiente, brave, that's what Hillary Clinton called me when I told her I was worried my parents would be deported. 20:04:15 Even when I was little, my parents were always crying. But I didn't understand why. Soy Americana. (I'm American) I was -- [ cheers ] I was born in Las Vegas, Nevada. My parents came here, looking for a better life, for the American dream. Sueno Americano. But I don't feel brave every day. On most days I'm scared. I'm scared that at any moment, my mom and my dad will be forced to leave. 20:04:58 And I wonder, what if I come home and find it empty? I want to see my parents do -- I want my parents to see me do science experiments and help me find my rare rocks in the desert. I want to grow up to be a lawyer so I can help other families like us. [ cheers and applause ] I have hope. Esperanza. 20:05:32 Hillary Clinton told me that she would do everything she could to help us. She told me that I didn't have to do the worrying because she would do the worrying for me and all of us. 20:05:52 She wants me to have the worries of an 11-year-old, not the weight of the world on my shoulder. 20:06:09 FRANCISCA: Valiente. [ cheers and applause ] [speaking Spanish] 20:06:34 [SHOT OF WOMAN IN AUDIENCE CRYING] 20:06:54 KARLA: [Speaks Spanish] Hillary Clinton for president. Thank you. >> [ chant ] Si se pueda! Si se pueda! 20:07:34 ['TRUMP IN HIS OWN WORDS' VIDEO PLAYS ASTRID SILVA 20:09:12 When I was 4 years old, my mother and I climbed into a raft and we crossed the river to join my father in America, in search of a better life. All I had was a little doll. I grew up like an ordinary girl. My dad worked as a landscaper and my mom stayed at home with my brother and I. But while my friends did ordinary things, I couldn't. Because my parents were afraid that someone might discover I was undocumented. 20:09:41 My family believed so deeply in the promise of this country that we risked everything for the American dream. As an undocumented student, I felt like college was out of reach. But after a journey of ten years, I finally graduated from Nevada state college. [ cheers ] My family and I are here because of people like senator Harry Reid. [ cheers ] Mi abuelito, who put themselves in our shoes and helped us. And while president Obama's immigration action protected me, we live in constant fear that my parents could be taken away from their grandson, Noah. 20:10:33 So, when Donald Trump talks about deporting 11 million people, he's talking about ripping families apart. Separating families like mine and like Karla's. Hillary Clinton understands that this is not who we are as a country. I have seen her comfort children like Karla, who are scared they might lose their parents to deportation. I know she will fight to keep our families together. Nuestras familias. I know she will. LUIS GUTIERREZ (ILLINOIS) 20:11:36 Thank you. Hello, Philadelphia. You know, my parents grew up in San Sebastian, Del Pepino in rural Puerto Rico. They weren't educated. They didn't speak English. But they didn't even have a winter coat. Barely out of their teens, they came to the U.S. When I -- and I was born in the great city of Chicago. [ cheers ] 20:12:20 My parents were born American citizens but when they moved, along with half a million other Puerto ricans in the 1950s, they were greeted with scorn and discrimination. Politicians called them criminals. They said my parents were a dangerous disease and would ruin the country. Sound familiar to you tonight? Nobody spoke up against the bigotry and hatred my parents endured. So you better believe I'm using my voice against the discrimination we hear today. [ cheers and applause ] 20:13:00 I will raise my voice against the bigot who think a judge born in Indiana can't do his job because his parents were born in Mexico. I'll raise my voice against a bully who calls hard-working immigrants criminals and rapists. Someone who promises to round up and deport families, millions of families and then put up a wall between them and us. You have joined me in that fight and so has Hillary Clinton. She stands with us so Americans remain and America remains a welcoming nation. 20:13:53 We don't discriminate because of what you look like, who you love, how you pray, what language your parents speak or where you were born. But let's be clear. My parents, when they came from Puerto Rico, weren't the only ones to confront discrimination. Every generation of newcomers, whoever and whatever they come from, Latin America, Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, they're met with skepticism and suspicion. But every generation proves the skeptics wrong. Immigrants contribute to our communities and make America a great nation. Immigrants die defending our democracy. 20:14:49 And you know what? They give our founding principles meaning in our time. Every time immigrants are labeled as them but over time they become part of us. We, the people. About 11 million undocumented immigrants live, work, pay taxes and raise their families in the United States of America. A lot of their families include U.S. Citizens just like me. But, listen, no matter what your family tree looks like, a fair immigration system is better for all of America. 20:15:35 No matter what others say, it is simply a fantasy that we're going to round up and deport 11 million people. It's a sick, hateful fantasy. But let me tell you what gives me hope. In her heart, Hillary Clinton's dream for America is one where immigrants are allowed to come out of the shadows, get right with the law, pay their taxes and not feel fear that their families are going to be ripped apart. [ applause ] 20:16:13 When Hillary Clinton steps to this podium to accept the nomination, we'll all take a giant step forward. The broad and diverse America that fights for an inclusive and fair nation, our union of black and brown, white and African and Asian people, who love the Earth and know that climate change is real and value education, we will all step up to that podium with her. Listen, we continue the work of our heroes like John Lewis, Chavez and Dr. Martin Luther king. And martyrs like Medgar Evers, who allow me the ability to speak from this podium. We fight for equal rights we believe women deserve equal pay for equal work in this country. [ cheers and applause ] 20:17:18 And we will not stand idly by because we believe that congress has to keep its hands off planned parenthood. We believe that people should be able to love who they love and marry who they want to marry in the United States of America. And we believe that when you send your children to school or young people are having fun at a nightclub, or you walk a beat as a police officer or you walk down the street in your neighborhood in Chicago, you shouldn't fear being shot. We will take on the NRA with Hillary as president of the United States. 20:18:17 Yes. We believe in a country where this son of uneducated parents born in Puerto Rico can speak to this nation on this podium in the city where the United States of America was born. [ Speaking Spanish ] With Hillary, our nation will be greater, better and stronger. [ Speaking Spanish ] Si se puede.[ Crowd chanting, si se puede ] JASON AND JARRON COLLINS 20:19:32 JARRON: Thank you. I'm Jarron Collins. And alongside my kind and brilliant wife, Elsa, we have three children that are raised here in America. I want my kids to know that anything is possible here. I want them to know that any more than any star athlete, the president of the United States is a role model to millions of children. So when it comes to Donald Trump, how do you tell your kids not to be a bully if their president is one? [ cheers ] How do you tell your kids to respect their heritage? My wife is Mexican-american, if their president disparages it? How do you tell your daughters they are empowered if their president reduces women to their physical appearance? 20:20:28 My parents, my family and all the great coaches I've had in my life have taught me the importance of working hard, playing fair and, most importantly, the ability to lead and bring people together to accomplish great things. That sounds like Hillary Clinton to me. [ cheers and applause ] And now, it is with great pride I introduce the first publicly gay athlete to play in any of the four major American sports leagues, my less handsome twin brother, Jason Collins. 20:21:09 JASON: Thank you, Jarron. I'll get you back for that one later. My dream was to play in the NBA and live my authentic life as a proud gay man at the same time. I was able to accomplish both of those goals because of the people who have supported me throughout my life. Before I came out to the world on the cover of "Sports Illustrated" I came out privately to the Clinton family. I have known their family for almost 20 years. I knew that they would accept me for who I was and that they would help pave a path for others to do the same. 20:21:52 I am forever grateful for their words of wisdom back then and their unconditional support. They knew that my sexual orientation made no difference in my ability to play basketball. Just as someone's gender makes no difference in his or her ability to lead our nation. Hillary has defended the lgbt community for years, from co-sponsoring the Matthew Shepard hate crimes prevention act to helping pass the first-ever U.N. Resolution on lgbt human rights, to making sure transgender individuals passports could reflect their true gender. 20:22:40 As both an African-American and a member of the lgbt community, the choice for continued progress is clear.This November, we must elect Hillary Clinton as our next president. Thank you. JESSE LIPSON 20:23:27 So I don't know about you, but Donald Trump's acceptance speech left me with a lot questions. For example, where's this losing country he keeps talking about? The America I live in, the North Carolina I live in -- [ cheers ] -- is a creative engine where the innovative spirit is alive and well. Where nearly all net new jobs are created by startups. Where you can still make something from nothing like I did. 20:24:04 I taught myself how to build software on nights and weekends. When I was 26, I started my company with just $100 in advertising. Today we're in more than 100 countries and we've created more than 800 jobs in Raleigh. [Cheers and applause] 20:24:26 Donald, I'm also a businessman, you build skyscrapers, I build in the cloud, but it's clear you don't understand something simple about business. 20:24:40 Nothing scares away investment like hate. [ applause ] Disgusting laws like north Carolina's attack on lgbt Americans are costing my state hundreds of millions of dollars. It cost us the NBA all-star game and it is also costing us talented programmers who are ready to build the future. I've seen venture capitalists who refuse to invest in our state. Republicans may think they are telling people which bathroom to go into, but they are actually telling people which market to stay out of. 20:25:27 When I travel abroad, I hear people talking about legalized discrimination in America, bigotry doesn't just hurt my state, it hurts our entire country. It is not just North Carolina. In Indiana Mike pence approved discrimination against lgbt Americans. [boos] So I guess you could say if bigotry has created one job, the position of Donald Trump's running mate. 20:26:06 Hillary Clinton knows what every great CEO knows, we're stronger together. That's why she supports a federal law protecting workers in the workplace, no matter who they love or who they are. She'll cut taxes and regulations for startups and small businesses so they can hire and grow. She'll invest in breakthrough R&D so the industry and jobs of the future are created here in America. She'll help lift the burden of college debt so young people can chase their dreams. I tell my employees all of the time, focus on solutions not problems. All trump offers are problems. Hillary offers real solutions. 20:27:07 America, there is no question Hillary Clinton must be our next president. [Cheers and applause] Thank you. PAT SPEARMAN 20:29:02 Good evening, Democrats. Good evening, Democrats! I'm a veteran, I'm a minister, I'm an African American, and I am a proud member of the lgbtq community. [Cheers and applause] When I joined our military in 1977 I lived in fear of being discharged. But today, lgbtq members of the military can serve openly and proudly. When I was elected to the Nevada state legislature in 2012, I was one of only two who were openly gay and today I'm one of five. [ cheers ] When Nevada started recognizing same-sex marriage in 2014, we were one of 26 states and today marriage equality is nationwide, that's progress, my friends. [Cheers and applause] 20:30:17 But we can't stop now. We've heard Trump say that he would protect the lgbtq community, but he is against marriage equality and has said he's all for overturning it. Donald Trump says that anyone can use any bathroom in trump towers, but he still supports heinous bathroom bills and he would strip the rights away from transgender Americans. But his worst attack on us was his vice presidential pick. Indiana governor Mike pence. 20:31:08 Governor pence signed a law that lets individuals and businesses deny services to LGBTQ Americans and he used religion as a weapon to discriminate. And the state lost millions of dollars as a result. As a lesbian that hurts me, and as a person of faith that offends me and as a legislator working hard to create jobs that baffles me. No matter the cost to our country Donald Trump and Mike pence will strip away the progress we have fought so hard to win. 20:32:00 Why? Because they fear diversity, we celebrate it. They fear progress, we build on it. They fear equality, we'll keep fighting for it. So Democrats, Democrats, are we going to retreat? >> No. SPEARMAN>> Will we keep marching forward? >> Yes. 20:32:24 SPEARMAN>> Hillary Clinton is battle tested. She will fight alongside us for equality in our schools, in our communities, in our workplaces and in our nation. She will make the equality act legal and make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of who you love, who you are, wherever you live or wherever you work once and for all. 20:33:00 This election make no mistake about it, won't be easy. I know we are ready. And in the words of the old negro spiritual, so let's walk together Democrats, don't get weary, let's work together Democrats, don't get weary, let's talk together Democrats, don't get weary, there's a great camp meeting in the promised land of equality. Thank you, and god bless you all. [Cheers and applause] [ VIDEO PLAYS ] BOB CASEY (PENNSYLVANIA) 20:35:50 Welcome to Philadelphia, the place where American independence began, where our Constitution was born. Since the time of William Penn, Pennsylvania has been a commonwealth of creators. Of makers. Of builders who, every day, invent the future. My father, Governor Casey, believed that we must never forget that quote, "the sweat and blood of working men and women who built Pennsylvania forged the industrial revolution in our country and out-produced the world." 20:36:24 With family roots in Scranton and her many visits to the state over the years, Hillary Clinton understands this. She'll work every day to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. But what about Donald Trump? Donald Trump says he stands for workers and that he'll put America first, but that's not how he conducted himself in business. Where are his quote, "tremendous" Trump products made? Dress shirts: Bangladesh; furniture: Turkey; picture frames: India; wine glasses: Slovenia; neckties: China. China. 20:37:09 Why would Donald Trump make his products in every corner of the globe, but not in Altoona, Erie, or here in Philadelphia? [ cheers ] Well, this is what he said: quote, "outsourcing is not always a terrible thing." Wages in America quote "are too high." And then he complained about companies moving jobs overseas because quote, "we don't make things anymore." 20:37:41 Really? Well, tell that to the union workers at All-Clad in Canonsburg, who make the pots and pans found in many of our kitchens. [ cheers and applause ] Tell that -- Tell that to the employees of K'NEX in Hatfield, who create toys that teach our children about engineering and architecture. Tell that to the robotics students at Carnegie Mellon, who are building 21st century robots and cars that drive themselves. 20:38:11 Donald Trump hasn't made anything in his life except a buck on the backs of working people. If he's a champion of working people, I'm the starting center for the 76ers. The man who says he wants to make America great doesn't make anything in America. And it's insulting that he has no plan, no plan to support the men and women who are manufacturing products here at home. All he has are empty promises, like so many he's made and failed to follow through on before. If you believe that outsourcing has been good for working people and has raised incomes for the middle class, then you should vote for Donald Trump. 20:39:03 I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. Hillary believes that we need an economy that works for everyone, not just Donald Trump and those at the top. We need to commit ourselves to making good-paying jobs here at home, so that everyone who works hard can get ahead and stay there. That's why in her first 100 days in office, President Hillary Clinton will put forward the largest investment in good-paying jobs since World War II. 20:39:38 As President, she'll reward businesses that share profits with their employees. She will slap a new "exit tax" on companies that move overseas while rewarding companies that invest here at home. And she'll strengthen our economy by investing $10 billion in new advanced manufacturing jobs that can't be sent overseas. 20:40:02 This November, we have a choice. You can choose a candidate who's only out for himself, who wants to get rid of the federal minimum wage, and who would cut taxes for the richest Americans at the expense of the middle class. Or you can choose Hillary Clinton - a leader with a proven track record of fighting for an economy that works for ALL of us. If you're with her like I am, go to hillaryclinton.com. Thank you. LUKE FEENEY MAYOR OF CHILLICOTHE, OHIO 20:41:04 >> Hello, delegates! Hello, Ohio! I am proud to serve the great people of historic Chillicothe, Ohio's first capital. And I'm proud to be one of the many Ohioans supporting Hillary Clinton. [Cheers and applause] When I think about what's at stake this November, I think about a woman from our hometown named Courtney Lewis. Courtney's dad works at the local paper mill. She dreamed of opening her own business. Not just for her, but for her city. She didn't like seeing her city with those empty buildings downtown. 20:41:52 She wanted to do her part. So, Courtney moved into a vacant storefront and, with two partners, started a local gift shop called Totem Supply Company. Three years later, Totem is a small town success story and it's not the only one. Chillicothe is on the rise. Appalache is on the rise. And it's thanks to small business owners like Courtney. I tell Courtney's story tonight not because it's unique, but because it isn't. 20:42:28 All across the country thousands of entrepreneurs and small business owners are equally ready to drive growth in their communities, all they need is a chance. The last thing Ohioans need is a president who has crushed small businesses by not paying them for the work they did. The last thing Ohio needs is Donald Trump. Hillary's dad was a small business owner, she gets it. Hillary knows America works best when it works for everyone. And she has a plan to make sure that entrepreneurs like Courtney have all the tools they need to succeed. 20:43:12 Less red tape, more access to capital like bigger businesses have. A more even playing field and a wider path to prosperity for all of us. Mayors of small towns across the country need a president who will be a friend to small business, who will be a partner in our resurgence. Hillary knows Americans' success stories start in places like Chillicothe. That's why we're with her. That's why Chillicothe is with her. That's why ohio is with her. 20:43:53 We're with her, because she's with us. And that's why we're going to send Hillary Clinton to the White House this November. Thank you. 20:44:18 [ VIDEO: 'TRUMP IN HIS OWN WORDS'] KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (NEW YORK) 20:46:10 Some people know me as a United States Senator from New York. [ cheers ] But during school drop-off and pick-up, I'm better known as Theo and Henry's mom. Like most working parents, my husband and I juggle a lot. We're fortunate to have flexibility, but some days, we still barely keep it together. 20:46:40 The vast majority of working parents have it much tougher. They're struggling with too little time, too little money, and too little support. And Washington hasn't caught up to their reality. Families today look almost nothing like they did a generation ago. Eight in 10 moms work outside of the home. Four in 10 moms are the primary or sole breadwinners, and many are single. Thanks to marriage equality, more children grow up with two moms or two dads. And yet, today, our policies are stuck in the "Mad Men" era. 20:47:26 We are the only industrialized nation that doesn't guarantee workers paid family leave. Many women can't even get a paid day off to give birth. Most parents work outside the home, yet child care can cost as much as college tuition. Families rely on women's income, but we still don't have equal pay for equal work. This makes no sense, because we know that when families are strong, America is strong. 20:48:07 Hillary Clinton gets it-not just because she's a working mother, and Charlotte and Aidan's grandmother, but because for her, it's about her core values, the idea we have that we have a responsibility to one another. It's about who we are as a nation. It's why after law school, she could have gone to a fancy law firm-but she chose to work at the Children's Defense Fund, where she advocated for children with disabilities. 20:48:47 It's why as America's First Lady she helped create a health insurance program for children so that 8 million kids could get the care they need. And it's why as Secretary of State, she helped women and children to escape violence and poverty-to attend schools, support their families, and reinvest in their communities. 20:49:13 And it's why as President of the United States, she will bring our workplace policies out of the Dark Ages, and always, always, put families first. You see, Hillary Clinton's life -- Hillary Clinton's life's work has been defined by one question: "How can we help those who need it most?" Donald Trump's has been defined by a very different question: "How can I help myself the most?" 20:49:54 Donald Trump actually stood on a debate stage and said that wages are "too high." Hillary knows that in the richest country in the world, it is unacceptable that a mom with two kids working full time still lives in poverty. [ applause ] Donald Trump says that when it comes to paid family leave, "you have to be careful of it." Hillary knows that it's long past time to have guaranteed paid family leave. [ cheers ] 20:50:32 Donald Trump thinks that women should just work harder because-and I'm quoting-"You're gonna make the same if you do as good of a job." Every woman in America knows-that's not true! Hillary believes that women deserve equal pay for equal work. 20:50:58 The choice in this election couldn't be clearer! If you believe in the values that have always made us great-if you believe in keeping America great-then support Hillary Clinton. Thank you and God bless our great nation. AL FRANKEN (MINNESOTA) 20:51:45 Hi everybody. [ cheers ] Hi. Save it for the end. I'm Al Franken. [ cheers ] I'm Al Franken: Minnesotan, Senator, and world-renowned expert on right-wing megalomaniacs: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and now Donald Trump. 20:52:31 Now a little about my qualifications. I got my doctorate in megalomania studies from Trump University. [ laughter ] Sure, I had to empty out my 401(k) and take a reverse mortgage on my house to pay the tuition. But Mr. Trump or, rather, some people who said they'd once met him, convinced me that it was worth it. 20:53:02 And frankly, as a proud alum of Trump U, I think we may be mis-underestimating Donald Trump. Sure, he's scammed a lot of people. But did you know that Trump University's School of Ripping People Off is ranked second in the nation? Right behind Bernie Madoff University? That's no mean feat. 20:53:38 And Trump University is about more than just bilking people. Although, trust me, you will get bilked. It's also about learning directly from success experts like Scott Baio, Mike -- Mike Tyson, and, of course, a life-size cardboard cutout of Mr. Trump himself. 20:54:07 Now, of course, Trump University wouldn't be Trump University without its business school. Their bankruptcy program in particular is known throughout the real estate/investment community for its creativity. The most popular course, Bankruptcy 101, "How to Leave Your Partners Holding the Bag," is taught by the cardboard cutout itself. 20:54:38 The pride of Trump University, of course, is its library, located on a shelf in a closet on the third floor of Trump Tower. All of Mr. Trump's bestsellers are available for sale at a special rate, for students, which is 10% higher than the retail price. Clearly, Donald Trump's enormous, dare I say "huge," success as a businessman qualifies him to be President. And if you believe that, I've got some delicious Trump Steaks to sell you. 20:55:28 In all seriousness, I think rather than voting for someone who's never done anything for anyone other than himself, maybe we should go with the candidate who's spent her entire life working to get important things done for the American people. [ cheers and applause ] I've known Hillary, I've known Hillary for almost a quarter-century. I've never met anyone smarter, tougher, or more ready to lead us forward. I am proud to call Hillary Clinton my friend. And I can't wait to call her Madam President. 20:56:30 Now, we're going to have a lot of fun this week. But when we wake up Friday morning, there will be just 102 days left until the election. And what you - yes, all of you - what you do in those 102 days could determine who wins. And I mean that literally. I won my first race for the Senate by 312 votes. 20:57:07 There's my Minnesota delegation. There are people up there who contacted more than 312 people themselves. And literally I would not be here. The reason--they are, each of them, individually, the reason I'm giving this speech here and not into my bathroom mirror. 20:57:42 My friend, my friend Paul Wellstone - [ cheers ] -- my friend Paul Wellstone used to say, "The future belongs to those who are passionate and work hard." This week is about passion. But starting Friday morning, it's all about work, hard work. 20:58:21 Now, now, many of you have jobs. Many of you have families. Ignore them. Let me tell you something: kids love it when their parents aren't home. They love it. And let me tell you something else. An 8-year-old knows how to use a microwave oven. And let me tell you something else. An 8-year-old can teach a 4-year-old kid how to use a microwave. It's just scientific fact. 20:59:02 Don't worry about your kids. They'll be fine. You have work to do. Get on those phones. Knock on those doors. And tell 'em Al Franken sent you. Thank you. 21:02:22 [ VIDEO PLAYS ] ANASTASIA SOMOZA 21:04:00 I first met Hillary as first lady on a visit to the white house. I was 9 years old and I listened to her and my mom discuss health care and early intervention for children with disabilities. [ cheers and applause ] Over the past 23 years, she has continued to serve as a friend and mentor, championing my inclusion and access to classrooms, higher education and the work force. She has never lost touch with people like me. She has invested in me, she believes in me and in a country where 56 million Americans with disabilities so often feel invisible, Hillary Clinton sees me. 20:05:11 She sees me as a strong woman, a young professional, a hard worker and the proud daughter of immigrants. My father from Nicaragua and my mother from Ireland. She has shown me that all these aspects of my identity are strengths which will help me effect change. I fear the day we elect a president who defines being American in the narrowest possible terms, who shouts, bullies and profits off of vulnerable Americans.

HEAD ON PODIUM SHOT FROM THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION AT THE WELLS FARGO CENTER IN PHILADELPHIA / JOHN PODESTA CLINTON CAMPAIGN CHAIR 19:00:55 >> Hello, Democrats! I want to begin by saying thank you to all of you across the country who have volunteered your time, donated what you could. Signed up at Hillaryclinton.com. You have voted to make Hillary Clinton the nominee of the democratic party. This is your victory! [applause] And to everyone who supported senator Sanders, this is your victory, too! I've known Bernie since I was a young staffer for senator Pat Leahy and he was mayor of Burlington. He stood up to the special interests and fought to give the working people a fair economy and a bigger say. And those are the same values that he brought to this campaign and our party and our country are better for it. 19:01:52 Donald Trump has different values. He built his career by ripping people off, stiffing contractors and skipping out on his bills through bankruptcy. He is too erratic, dangerous and divisive (trust?) to the white house. I'm a fortunate grandson of Italian and Greek immigrants with a blue collar dad and a pink collar mom, I've had the honor to serve two great presidents who fought for working people and met the challenges of their time. 19:02:29 Now, like all of you, I'm working to elect a president who has the experience, vision, values and grit to make progress in these turbulent times. That person is Hillary Clinton. [ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ] Hillary will be a president who gets results. She'll take on powerful special interests in a rigged system to make our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top. And she''ill be a champion for our children and our families. With your hard work, we can build a better future for everyone. Steelworkers and school teachers, farm families and military families, the forgotten middle class and those who have been left out and left behind. And immigrants. 19:03:14 People like my family and yours, who struggled to get here, who built this country and who love America. That's who we're fighting for. That's who this election is about. That's why she picked Tim Kaine as her running mate, a man with a deep core and a passion for service. And if we, and if we work overtime, work overtime for the next 105 days, we will succeed in making history and elect the first woman president of the united States! Thank you. 19:03:58 (VIDEO: 'POSSIBLE NEXT PRESIDENT ON MARRIAGE') TRUMP>> I don't wanna sound too much like a chauvinist, but when I come home and dinner's not ready, I go through the roof, okay. LINDA SANCHEZ (CALIFORNIA) 19:04:28 Buenas noches, good evening everyone. It's great to be here with all of you. My name is Linda Sanchez and I have the honor of representing California's 38th congressional district, and serving as the chairwoman of the congressional hispanic caucus. We are a diverse caucus and we bring in an important perspective to the decisions that shape the future of our country. We embody the promise of the american dream. That you can achieve success in our great country if you are willing to work hard enough for it. The hispanic caucus is made up of 26 talented members who are veterans attorneys, business owners, doctors and engineers just to name a few. 19:05:18 Our caucus is growing and this november we have the opportunity to elect outstanding hispanic candidates from across the country. And with Loretta sanchez and Katrine cortez masto (sp?) we will elect a latina to the US senate. 19:05:50 I'm proud of the hispanic caucus and the work we do everyday to make our country stronger. Take a look. [VIDEO] 19:09:46 We are here at this historic democratic convention to nominate Hillary Clinton, the next president and Tim kaine, the next vice president of the United States. [ cheers and applause ] 19:10:06 I want to share a little bit of my story because it's an American story. It's the story of millions of Latinos and Latinas across this country. I'm the daughter of immigrant parents from Mexico. They came to this country and worked hard every day to provide for me and my brothers and sisters. My father, Ignacio, was an industrial mechanic. And my mother, Maria, became an elementary school teacher after raising a family. They owned their own home. They sent all seven of their children to college. [ cheers ] 19:10:48 My mother and father saved and sacrificed to achieve the American dream for our family. They weren't given their success. They earned it. Donald Trump believes that Mexican immigrants are murderers and rapists. [ boos ] But what about my parents, Donald? Let me tell you what my parents are. They are the only parents in our nation's 265-year history to send not one, but two daughters to the United States congress. [ LORETTA SANCHEZ COMES UP AND GRABS HER SISTER'S HAND ] 19:11:44 Like my parents, Hillary Clinton believes the United States is a country where people of all backgrounds can make a home and a better life. But that America isn't possible if we allow Donald Trump and his Republican party to build a wall that divides us. I stand here tonight as the chair of the congressional hispanic caucus and a proud congresswoman from California, but most importantly, I'm here as a mom. 19:12:13 We all want what's best for our kids. We want our children to grow up to be healthy, successful and kind hearted. Our job is to nurture them, be good role models for them to follow as they grow. Now I will be the first to tell you that being a parent hard. But Donald Trump is making it a whole lot harder. He has taken the low road time and time again. He has been vulgar and he has been intolerant. Or as we say in Spanish, [ speaks Spanish ] 19:12:53 He peddles fear intestine security to divide the great people of this country. Tell me, what kind of example would we set for our children by allowing a bully to sit in the oval office? We know that our children aren't born with hate or racism in their hearts. They learn it from watching the world around them and following the example of the adults in their life. Too many of our children are watching and learning the wrong lessons from Donald Trump. We've seen it at an Indiana basketball game where a group of white students started chanting "Build that wall" to players from a predominantly hispanic high school. 19:13:40 This is the behavior that Donald Trump inspires in our youth. A trump presidency would be a signal to our children that we condone this kind of behavior. Well that is a message I refuse to accept. Who we vote for says a lot about our values. There are few moments in history that have an impact on the trajectory of the world. And I believe that this election is one of those moments. Our children are watching us. Their future depends on the outcome of this race. 19:14:16 Do we want a responsible leader or a loud-mouth bully? Do we want a president who respects women or who calls them names and devalues them? Do we want a president who appreciates the contributions immigrants make to our country or someone who vilifies them? Hillary Clinton is the only choice for president. She is a president we can be proud of. [boos] And, Donald, let me just say this. America is great. It is the country that gave my family the opportunity for a better life, just like all immigrants who came before them. It is because of our diversity that we are the envy of the world. Hillary [ Speaking Spanish ] 19:15:18 Like I said in the video, Hillary Clinton is badass and ready to lead. Let's win in November. MARTY WALSH BOSTON MAYOR 19:16:11 Good evening. Good evening. Thank you, Massachusetts. Thank you. Good evening delegates. My name is Marty Walsh and I'm an alcoholic. On April 23rd, 1995, I hit rock bottom.I woke up with little memory of the night before and even less hope for the days to come. Everybody was losing faith in me. Everybody except my family and the labor movement. I followed my father into the building trades when I was 18 years old. Labor gave my immigrant family a chance and the labor community got me the help I needed and gave me a second chance. 19:17:19 18 years later, I became the mayor of Boston, a city of big dreams and a big heart. As mayor, I work to give everyone a fair shot and a second chance. Whether it's apprenticeships, free community college or help starting a business. There's no doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton is the champion American workers need. She will help workers get the skills, the jobs and the child care they need to support strong families. 19:18:02 She believes in an America that's not just for those with advantages. She believes in an America for those who need a helping hand, people struggling with addiction, moms working two jobs, students in debt, seniors struggling to retire. Workers facing layoffs and people like the carpenters and electrician Donald Trump hired but then refused to pay just because he did. We may not have our names in gold outside any buildings we've worked on. But our sweat, our work, our pride is on the inside of every single one of them. Hillary Clinton knows that. She believes what I learned in my labor family, we are stronger together. This is our choice. Are we going to let Donald Trump stiff the working families so he can make more for himself and the people at the top or are we going to stick together and build an economy that works for everybody in America? 19:19:14 I know where I stand. I stand with the women and men of every race, creed, color who built this country. And I stand as a living example of Hillary Clinton's vision for an America where everyone gets a fair shot and a second chance to achieve their dreams. That's the America I believe in. That's the America I've lived. And that's why America's working people are going to vote and elect Hillary Clinton our next president. I want to thank you and god bless the United States of America. LEE SAUNDERS PRESIDENT OF AFSCME 19:20:24 >> Good evening. I am Lee Saunders, I am proud to be here representing the 1.6 million public service workers of afscme. We keep our community safe and strong, feeding school kids, healing patients, plowing roads and answering 911 calls. Every day, in every way, we never quit putting families first.Hillary Clinton never quits, either. She is an unstoppable champion for working people. She understands collective bargaining rights don't just improve the lives of union members, they strengthen all of us. 19:21:15 We need a president who gets that, who understands that busting unions and cutting public services means families suffer. Let's look at Flint, Michigan, where poisonous policies led directly to poisoned drinking water. Donald Trump wants to tear working people down. He's only in business for himself. I was just in Las Vegas with workers at the trump hotel last week. They voted to form a union, but Donald Trump won't negotiate a contract with them. You can't keep saying you like to make deals, Donald. How about working out a deal with the housekeepers and the food servers to help your business succeed? [ Applause ] 19:22:08 It's no surprise, I guess, how can you be pro worker when you're famous for the catchphrase "You're fired." But this isn't reality television. This is reality. And we need a serious-minded leader who puts families first, not a thin skinned bully who puts himself first. [ Applause ] That's the choice. An unstoppable champion versus an unstable (?). I know whose side I'm on. I'm with her. Afscme is with her. Let's elect Hillary Clinton our next president of the united States. RICHARD TRUMKA PRESIDENT AFL-CIO 19:23:07 >> Hello, Democrats. I'm Rich Trumka president of the afl-cio. [ Applause ]And it's great to be in Philadelphia, a proud, proud union town. See, working people built this stage, and now we'll build a new era of shared prosperity,working people are strong. And Donald Trump is wrong, wrong, wrong. Listen, he thinks he's a tough guy. Well Donald, I worked in the mines with tough guys. I know tough guys. They're friends of mine. And Donald, you're no tough guy, you're a phoney. [ Applause ] [ Cheers ] 19:24:07 Donald Trump has repeatedly outsourced jobs to line his own pocket. He rooted for the housing collapse. He actually said that our wages are too high, not just once, but repeatedly. Donald Trump isn't the solution to America's problems, he is the problem. [ Cheers ] 19:24:30 Working people, we have the solution. We're building a national movement for a better life, no matter the color of our skin, where we were born, who we love, or how we worship. We set the bar high, and Hillary Clinton answered our call. In this election, she is fighting to rewrite the economic rules for all of us. She has a bold plan to invest in manufacturing, infrastructure and jobs. She opposes the job killing trans pacific partnership. [ cheers ] 19:25:14 She'll protect workplace rights, stand up to Wall Street and fight to finally, finally, secure equal pay for equal work. So Democrats, get on your feet. Let's change the rules. Let's take back congress. Let's win a pro-workers supreme court and let's elect Hillary Clinton the next president of the United States. [ Cheers ] LILY ESKELSEN GARCIA PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 19:25:55 >> Wow. Wow. [ Speaking Spanish ] My name is Lily Eskelsen Garcia. And I'm here because I have the honor to be representing the 3 million educators that formed the union of the national education association. My story isn't different from my students' stories. My mom is an immigrant. My dad served in the army. My parents worked hard so that their kids could have a chance to get ahead, and they were so proud of me when I became a teacher. But today too many students in our classrooms feel like they won't get the same chance that I got, especially those from immigrant families. They tell us they're afraid that their parents might be taken away, that they might be deported for not having the right piece of paper. 19:26:56 Hillary Clinton believes in keeping families together. She believes in our dreamers. She believes that educators should be focused on education, not deportation. [ Cheering ] Now, Donald Trump sees things differently. My mom says that if you can't say something nice about somebody, you should at least make it funny. I can't make this funny. Donald Trump sees immigrants as criminals, as drug dealers, as rapists. He says he'd round up families and deport them. He'll build a wall. We're better than that. Our kids deserve better than that. Hillary Clinton doesn't want to divide people with walls of hate. She wants to build bridges to a better future for all of us. That's why America's educators are with her, and why we're going to do everything in our power to build a bridge to a future where Hillary Clinton is the president of the United States of America. Gracias. [ Cheering ] MARY KAY HENRY 19:28:21 >> Hello, sisters and brothers. I'm Mary Kay Henry and I'm proud to stand here on behalf of 2 million members of service employees international union. [ Cheering ] And the millions more who are fighting for 15 in the unions. Our movement will be an unstoppable force in this election, because the stakes could not be higher. We need a president who wants to raise wages in this country, not one that says wages are too high and that there shouldn't even be a federal minimum wage. 19:29:02 That's why we're working to elect Hillary Clinton and champions up and down the ballot who are going to raise wages and help workers join together in unions. Hillary has spent time with workers, who care for children and our seniors, like Lizbeth (?) from Las Vegas. Lizbeth has been a home care provider for 40 years, but still Lizbeth has to rely on food stamps and medicaid just to make ends meet. Hillary Clinton knows that's wrong, and that's why Hillary Clinton is ready to raise wages for home care providers and child care providers, and ensure that they have a strong voice in quality care. We know that economic justice is inextricably linked to winning racial justice, environmental justice, and immigrant justice. 19:30:08 We must elect Hillary Clinton and the champions like her who are going to put families first, and stop the candidates of hatred and greed. Brothers and sisters, I believe that we can win. Do you? Repeat after me. I. I believe. I believe that we. I believe that we can win. I believe that we can win. I believe that we can win. Thank you very much, brothers and sisters. [ Applause ] SEAN MCGARVEY 19:30:58 >> Good evening. I'm proud to be here in my hometown of Philadelphia. I'm even prouder to represent the 3 million members of north America's building trades unions. Trade union members have helped build this great nation. The hoover dam, the golden gate bridge, the freedom towers, the very arena we are in tonight. You name it, we build it. We're proud of our work. But with collapsed bridges, crumbling roads and stressed energy systems we know it's past time to rebuild our nation's infrastructure. And building trades members are ready to do their part. 19:31:41 Hillary Clinton has the boldest infrastructure plan we've seen in generations. She will help us repair roads and bridges and make broadband universal, build new airports and modernize our energy grid. She will do it all while creating good, fair paying jobs with standards that support real apprenticeship programs, which the building trades pioneer to ensure that workers get the skills they need to succeed. And let me be very clear, we cannot rebuild America unless we treat America's workers with respect. 19:32:17 Donald Trump chose the running mate that has not respected workers. As governor Mike pence gave corporations license to pay construction workers less by repealing the prevailing wage law that had been in place for 80 years. That was bad deal for Indiana. It would be a bad deal for America. That's why hardhats, all across America support Hillary Clinton and honorary iron worker Tim kaine, they have our backs and we have theirs. Now let's get them elected. God bless you and thank you. RANDI WEINGARTEN PRESIDENT AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS 19:32:55 Brothers and sisters, I am proud to be here representing the 1.6 million members of the AFT. Last week, last week we saw a festival of fear, every day was full of hate and bigotry. Why? To hide that trump's plans like many of his businesses are completely bankrupt. Donald made millions while he ripped off workers and small businesses with his unfair business practices. 19:33:41 Remember, he ended up bankrupting not one, not two, not three, but four of his companies. And his economic ideas will make millionaires like him richer at the expense of the middle class. Just look at Trump University to see how he operates. Salespeople were told to exploit people's fears -- and let me be very careful -- I quote, "a single parent that may need money for food into useless high cost seminars." Instead of an education, students lost thousands of dollars and got nothing in return. That's Trump in a nutshell. Manipulating people's fears to enrich himself. He is completely unqualified to be in the Oval Office. 19:34:44 So thankfully we have a different choice and it's a great one, Hillary Clinton. Hillary's worked her entire life to level the playing field for working families. That starts with public education from pre k to college. She has a plan for universal early childhood education. She'll reset education policy to focus on creativity and critical thinking, not on more testing. And she'll make public universities free for working families, a stark contrast from Trump's for profit scam. 19:35:31 Hillary is the most qualified candidate to run for president in my lifetime. She'll wake up thinking everyday how to help us. The choice couldn't be clearer. We must elect Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. Thank you very much. [ cheers and applause ] PAM LIVENGOOD 19:38:20 Hi. For my 50th birthday, I got a 2-year-old. You see, my daughter and her boyfriend had a beautiful little boy named Francis but they got caught up in drugs. It started with the pain medication she was given after Francis was born. And it just got worse. It's hard to explain just how devastating it is to watch your child struggle with substance abuse. I know my daughter loved Francis but love wasn't enough to take care of him. I started getting calls from child services. And one day, they said Francis would be taken away from my family and put in foster care unless he had family who could take care of him. There was no way we were going to let our grandson end up in foster care. So, Francis lived with my husband, John and I, until he was 5. 19:39:15 His grandfather -- he lives with his grandfather now, who is on disability. And when you're my age, you don't expect to start all over again, raising a grandchild. Today, my daughter is in treatment but she has a long road ahead of her. My story isn't unique. This epidemic has devastated communities all over the country. It doesn't discriminate against age, race, gender or income. It affects all of us. But sometimes it feels like folks in Washington don't hear these stories. Well, last year, Hillary Clinton came to New Hampshire for a round table at my workplace. And she asked if addiction had touched any of us. And as I told my story, Hillary listened. She even took notes. And then she did something else we don't see a lot of in Washington. She took action. 19:40:13 She came up with a plan, one that includes everything from reducing overdoses to expanding access to treatment. To me, that's the kind of leader we need. We need a leader who listens to the voices of ordinary Americans, a leader who treats people with compassion and respect, a leader who believes that, as Americans, we look out for each other. I'm not saying that leader has to be a grandmother but it sure helps. For me, that leader is Hillary Clinton. JEANNE SHAHEEN (NEW HAMPSHIRE) 19:41:15 Thank you. Thank you, delegates. And thank you, Pam Livengood for sharing your family's story here today. I applaud your courage. Democrats stand with you, your family and all families struggling with addiction and president Hillary Clinton will stand with you and we will win this fight together. 19:41:50 The opioid and heroin epidemic is ravaging communities all across this country. It's a crisis that affects old and young, rich and poor, men and women, Democrats and Republicans. And it will take all of us working together to defeat it. Across my home state of New Hampshire the awful toll grows each year, 192 overdoses in 2013, 326 fatalities in 2014. And 433 fatalities in 2015. These stories -- these statistics tell a story of a staggering epidemic, but statistics can't fully capture the profound human toll. 19:42:49 It's not only thousands of individual lives that have been destroyed. Entire communities are being devastated. Hillary Clinton sees the epidemic and its terrific toll because she came to new Hampshire. Not to talk but to listen. And she heard stories like Pam livengood's story. She heard stories like the one I recently heard about a young man full of promise, on his way to college when he suffered a sports injury, got addicted to pain killers,switched to heroin. And now instead of living on the freshman quad, he's living on the streets. Panhandling for his next fix. 19:43:35 Hillary heard how addicts are being turned away from treatment facilities due to a lack of resources. Hillary heard from law enforcement, stretched to their limit, dealing with substance abuse. She knows that drug counselors and police officers and others on the front lines of the battle are heroes. 19:43:58 They're doing amazing work. But they need our help. More than 47,000 americans died from drug overdoses in 2014. Hillary Clinton knows we cannot continue on this path. She knows because during this campaign she listened in New Hampshire and across the country. She listened. She learned. And she put together a plan to treat this like the health emergency that it is. And to deploy the necessary resources to fight it. Her plan would invest in some very simple goals, empower communities to prevent drug use among teenagers, ensure every person suffering from addiction can obtain comprehensive treatment, ensure that all first responders carry narcan, which can stop overdoses from becoming fatal and prioritize treatment over prison for low-level and nonviolent drug offenses so we can end the era of mass incarceration. 19:45:10 Early this year, I introduced an emergency funding bill in the senate to pay for policing, prevention, treatment and recovery. But sadly, it was defeated by Republicans. Donald Trump certainly doesn't have a plan to deal with this health epidemic that's gripped our country. In fact, Donald Trump doesn't seem to know what's happening outside of Trump tower. And he seems completely uninterested in finding out. How can trump represent America when he doesn't even take the time to know America? We need a president who listens, who learns, who has empathy and who wants the same opportunities for all children that she's had. Who wants an America where we go forward together. We need president Hillary Clinton. Thank you DEMI LOVATO 19:47:01 Like millions of Americans I'm living with mental illness. But I'm lucky. I had the resources and support to get treatment at a top facility. Unfortunately too many Americans from all walks of life don't get help either because they fear the stigma or cannot afford treatment. Untreated mental illness can lead to devastating consequences, including suicide, substance abuse and long-term medical issues. We can do better. Every one of us can make a difference. By getting educated on this epidemic and its frightening statistics and by breaking the stigma 19:47:38 I urge every politician to support laws that will provide access to better health care and support for everyone. This is not about politics, it's simply the right thing to do. I'm doing my very small part by having the treatment center that saw me through my recovery on tour with me so at least a small group of people even for a brief moment can have the same support that I received. 19:48:07 It may not be a lot but we have to believe every small action counts. I stand here today, as proof that you can live a Normal and empowered life with mental illness. I'm proud to support a presidential candidate who will fight to ensure all people living with mental health conditions get the care they need to lead fulfilling lives. That candidate is Hillary Clinton. [ cheers ] Let's make her the next president of the United States of America. DEMI LOVATO PERFORMANCE JEFF MERKLEY (OREGON) 19:54:09 Hello Philadelphia. And hello Oregon. Wasn't Demi Lovato great? I'm the son of a millwright from a small town in southern Oregon. I was the first in my family to go to college. I live in the same blue collar community I grew up in. And my children go to the same public schools I did. And here is the truth. 19:54:37 Donald Trump got rich by taking advantage of Americans like the hard working Oregonians in my community back home. Making his products overseas, hiring foreign workers instead of Americans for jobs that are right here in the United States. Cheating small business contractors, never paying them what he owed. And scamming people out of their savings through his fraudulent university. 19:55:11 Where I come from, people like Donald Trump are not the problem -- they're not the solution, they are the problem. Last week in Cleveland, Donald Trump claimed he was champion for American workers, but he's never woken up a day in his life worried about American workers. He is no more a champion for American workers than a lion is a champion for a gazelle. When I talk to folks back home again and again, I hear the frustrations of people who watch billionaires get richer while they struggle to find a job, struggle to send their kids to college, struggle to make their rent or their mortgage. Our response to these real challenges should not be to blame, to bully, to belittle, but to rise to the moment with real solutions. 19:56:11 We owe an enormous debt to Bernie Sanders, speaking of solutions. [ Applause ] Bernie Sanders inspired us to reach for bold solutions the challenges we face. Bernie's leadership on Progressive issues, his willingness to fearlessly stand up to the powers that be have galvanized a grassroots movement that is here tonight and will continue long after November and we need it to continue long after November. And now together, working together, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have forged the most progressive platform in our party's history. 19:57:09 And working together we need to join their fight for tuition free college for working americans. For (?) to 100% renewable energy to save our planet from climate change. We need to fight together to overturn citizens united. We need to fight together for passage of the equality act for full opportunity for LGBTQ Americans. We need to fight together with bernie and hillary to end profiling and mass incarceration for our communities of color. And we need to fight for trade policies that put american workers first, which means as Hillary has said, we must say no to bad trade deals and that includes the TPP. 19:58:28 Together -- >> [ inaud. Chant ] --together, we must fight for a government of, by, and for the people. Not a government for the powerful, not a government for the privileged. But a government for the people. And that is exactly what we're going to do when we follow the vision of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and elect her, Hillary Clinton, and Tim Kaine in November. [ cheers and applause ] 19:59:08 We must be united in this battle. Whether you spent this year feeling the bern or you spent this year ready for Hillary, all of us are ready for an America that rejects discrimination and embraces diversity, that celebrates voter empowerment not voter suppression, that creates opportunity for all of us not just the lucky few. So let's work together, as Bernie and Hillary have, and make sure that next January, on the west steps of the capital, it is Hillary Clinton that we are celebrating to become the next president of the United States of America. [ cheers ] Thank you so much, God bless you, and goodnight. Thank you. 20:02:16 [ 'SHE'S WITH US' VIDEO ] KARLA (11 YRS. OLD) AND FRANCISCA ORTIZ 20:03:44 KARLA: Thank you very much for coming here today. I really appreciate it. And today I'm going to tell you guys the story about my parents, about their deportation of immigration. And I'm a daughter of immigrant parents. Valiente, brave, that's what Hillary Clinton called me when I told her I was worried my parents would be deported. 20:04:15 Even when I was little, my parents were always crying. But I didn't understand why. Soy Americana. (I'm American) I was -- [ cheers ] I was born in Las Vegas, Nevada. My parents came here, looking for a better life, for the American dream. Sueno Americano. But I don't feel brave every day. On most days I'm scared. I'm scared that at any moment, my mom and my dad will be forced to leave. 20:04:58 And I wonder, what if I come home and find it empty? I want to see my parents do -- I want my parents to see me do science experiments and help me find my rare rocks in the desert. I want to grow up to be a lawyer so I can help other families like us. [ cheers and applause ] I have hope. Esperanza. 20:05:32 Hillary Clinton told me that she would do everything she could to help us. She told me that I didn't have to do the worrying because she would do the worrying for me and all of us. 20:05:52 She wants me to have the worries of an 11-year-old, not the weight of the world on my shoulder. 20:06:09 FRANCISCA: Valiente. [ cheers and applause ] [speaking Spanish] 20:06:34 [SHOT OF WOMAN IN AUDIENCE CRYING] 20:06:54 KARLA: [Speaks Spanish] Hillary Clinton for president. Thank you. >> [ chant ] Si se pueda! Si se pueda! 20:07:34 ['TRUMP IN HIS OWN WORDS' VIDEO PLAYS ASTRID SILVA 20:09:12 When I was 4 years old, my mother and I climbed into a raft and we crossed the river to join my father in America, in search of a better life. All I had was a little doll. I grew up like an ordinary girl. My dad worked as a landscaper and my mom stayed at home with my brother and I. But while my friends did ordinary things, I couldn't. Because my parents were afraid that someone might discover I was undocumented. 20:09:41 My family believed so deeply in the promise of this country that we risked everything for the American dream. As an undocumented student, I felt like college was out of reach. But after a journey of ten years, I finally graduated from Nevada state college. [ cheers ] My family and I are here because of people like senator Harry Reid. [ cheers ] Mi abuelito, who put themselves in our shoes and helped us. And while president Obama's immigration action protected me, we live in constant fear that my parents could be taken away from their grandson, Noah. 20:10:33 So, when Donald Trump talks about deporting 11 million people, he's talking about ripping families apart. Separating families like mine and like Karla's. Hillary Clinton understands that this is not who we are as a country. I have seen her comfort children like Karla, who are scared they might lose their parents to deportation. I know she will fight to keep our families together. Nuestras familias. I know she will. LUIS GUTIERREZ (ILLINOIS) 20:11:36 Thank you. Hello, Philadelphia. You know, my parents grew up in San Sebastian, Del Pepino in rural Puerto Rico. They weren't educated. They didn't speak English. But they didn't even have a winter coat. Barely out of their teens, they came to the U.S. When I -- and I was born in the great city of Chicago. [ cheers ] 20:12:20 My parents were born American citizens but when they moved, along with half a million other Puerto ricans in the 1950s, they were greeted with scorn and discrimination. Politicians called them criminals. They said my parents were a dangerous disease and would ruin the country. Sound familiar to you tonight? Nobody spoke up against the bigotry and hatred my parents endured. So you better believe I'm using my voice against the discrimination we hear today. [ cheers and applause ] 20:13:00 I will raise my voice against the bigot who think a judge born in Indiana can't do his job because his parents were born in Mexico. I'll raise my voice against a bully who calls hard-working immigrants criminals and rapists. Someone who promises to round up and deport families, millions of families and then put up a wall between them and us. You have joined me in that fight and so has Hillary Clinton. She stands with us so Americans remain and America remains a welcoming nation. 20:13:53 We don't discriminate because of what you look like, who you love, how you pray, what language your parents speak or where you were born. But let's be clear. My parents, when they came from Puerto Rico, weren't the only ones to confront discrimination. Every generation of newcomers, whoever and whatever they come from, Latin America, Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, they're met with skepticism and suspicion. But every generation proves the skeptics wrong. Immigrants contribute to our communities and make America a great nation. Immigrants die defending our democracy. 20:14:49 And you know what? They give our founding principles meaning in our time. Every time immigrants are labeled as them but over time they become part of us. We, the people. About 11 million undocumented immigrants live, work, pay taxes and raise their families in the United States of America. A lot of their families include U.S. Citizens just like me. But, listen, no matter what your family tree looks like, a fair immigration system is better for all of America. 20:15:35 No matter what others say, it is simply a fantasy that we're going to round up and deport 11 million people. It's a sick, hateful fantasy. But let me tell you what gives me hope. In her heart, Hillary Clinton's dream for America is one where immigrants are allowed to come out of the shadows, get right with the law, pay their taxes and not feel fear that their families are going to be ripped apart. [ applause ] 20:16:13 When Hillary Clinton steps to this podium to accept the nomination, we'll all take a giant step forward. The broad and diverse America that fights for an inclusive and fair nation, our union of black and brown, white and African and Asian people, who love the Earth and know that climate change is real and value education, we will all step up to that podium with her. Listen, we continue the work of our heroes like John Lewis, Chavez and Dr. Martin Luther king. And martyrs like Medgar Evers, who allow me the ability to speak from this podium. We fight for equal rights we believe women deserve equal pay for equal work in this country. [ cheers and applause ] 20:17:18 And we will not stand idly by because we believe that congress has to keep its hands off planned parenthood. We believe that people should be able to love who they love and marry who they want to marry in the United States of America. And we believe that when you send your children to school or young people are having fun at a nightclub, or you walk a beat as a police officer or you walk down the street in your neighborhood in Chicago, you shouldn't fear being shot. We will take on the NRA with Hillary as president of the United States. 20:18:17 Yes. We believe in a country where this son of uneducated parents born in Puerto Rico can speak to this nation on this podium in the city where the United States of America was born. [ Speaking Spanish ] With Hillary, our nation will be greater, better and stronger. [ Speaking Spanish ] Si se puede.[ Crowd chanting, si se puede ] JASON AND JARRON COLLINS 20:19:32 JARRON: Thank you. I'm Jarron Collins. And alongside my kind and brilliant wife, Elsa, we have three children that are raised here in America. I want my kids to know that anything is possible here. I want them to know that any more than any star athlete, the president of the United States is a role model to millions of children. So when it comes to Donald Trump, how do you tell your kids not to be a bully if their president is one? [ cheers ] How do you tell your kids to respect their heritage? My wife is Mexican-american, if their president disparages it? How do you tell your daughters they are empowered if their president reduces women to their physical appearance? 20:20:28 My parents, my family and all the great coaches I've had in my life have taught me the importance of working hard, playing fair and, most importantly, the ability to lead and bring people together to accomplish great things. That sounds like Hillary Clinton to me. [ cheers and applause ] And now, it is with great pride I introduce the first publicly gay athlete to play in any of the four major American sports leagues, my less handsome twin brother, Jason Collins. 20:21:09 JASON: Thank you, Jarron. I'll get you back for that one later. My dream was to play in the NBA and live my authentic life as a proud gay man at the same time. I was able to accomplish both of those goals because of the people who have supported me throughout my life. Before I came out to the world on the cover of "Sports Illustrated" I came out privately to the Clinton family. I have known their family for almost 20 years. I knew that they would accept me for who I was and that they would help pave a path for others to do the same. 20:21:52 I am forever grateful for their words of wisdom back then and their unconditional support. They knew that my sexual orientation made no difference in my ability to play basketball. Just as someone's gender makes no difference in his or her ability to lead our nation. Hillary has defended the lgbt community for years, from co-sponsoring the Matthew Shepard hate crimes prevention act to helping pass the first-ever U.N. Resolution on lgbt human rights, to making sure transgender individuals passports could reflect their true gender. 20:22:40 As both an African-American and a member of the lgbt community, the choice for continued progress is clear.This November, we must elect Hillary Clinton as our next president. Thank you. JESSE LIPSON 20:23:27 So I don't know about you, but Donald Trump's acceptance speech left me with a lot questions. For example, where's this losing country he keeps talking about? The America I live in, the North Carolina I live in -- [ cheers ] -- is a creative engine where the innovative spirit is alive and well. Where nearly all net new jobs are created by startups. Where you can still make something from nothing like I did. 20:24:04 I taught myself how to build software on nights and weekends. When I was 26, I started my company with just $100 in advertising. Today we're in more than 100 countries and we've created more than 800 jobs in Raleigh. [Cheers and applause] 20:24:26 Donald, I'm also a businessman, you build skyscrapers, I build in the cloud, but it's clear you don't understand something simple about business. 20:24:40 Nothing scares away investment like hate. [ applause ] Disgusting laws like north Carolina's attack on lgbt Americans are costing my state hundreds of millions of dollars. It cost us the NBA all-star game and it is also costing us talented programmers who are ready to build the future. I've seen venture capitalists who refuse to invest in our state. Republicans may think they are telling people which bathroom to go into, but they are actually telling people which market to stay out of. 20:25:27 When I travel abroad, I hear people talking about legalized discrimination in America, bigotry doesn't just hurt my state, it hurts our entire country. It is not just North Carolina. In Indiana Mike pence approved discrimination against lgbt Americans. [boos] So I guess you could say if bigotry has created one job, the position of Donald Trump's running mate. 20:26:06 Hillary Clinton knows what every great CEO knows, we're stronger together. That's why she supports a federal law protecting workers in the workplace, no matter who they love or who they are. She'll cut taxes and regulations for startups and small businesses so they can hire and grow. She'll invest in breakthrough R&D so the industry and jobs of the future are created here in America. She'll help lift the burden of college debt so young people can chase their dreams. I tell my employees all of the time, focus on solutions not problems. All trump offers are problems. Hillary offers real solutions. 20:27:07 America, there is no question Hillary Clinton must be our next president. [Cheers and applause] Thank you. PAT SPEARMAN 20:29:02 Good evening, Democrats. Good evening, Democrats! I'm a veteran, I'm a minister, I'm an African American, and I am a proud member of the lgbtq community. [Cheers and applause] When I joined our military in 1977 I lived in fear of being discharged. But today, lgbtq members of the military can serve openly and proudly. When I was elected to the Nevada state legislature in 2012, I was one of only two who were openly gay and today I'm one of five. [ cheers ] When Nevada started recognizing same-sex marriage in 2014, we were one of 26 states and today marriage equality is nationwide, that's progress, my friends. [Cheers and applause] 20:30:17 But we can't stop now. We've heard Trump say that he would protect the lgbtq community, but he is against marriage equality and has said he's all for overturning it. Donald Trump says that anyone can use any bathroom in trump towers, but he still supports heinous bathroom bills and he would strip the rights away from transgender Americans. But his worst attack on us was his vice presidential pick. Indiana governor Mike pence. 20:31:08 Governor pence signed a law that lets individuals and businesses deny services to LGBTQ Americans and he used religion as a weapon to discriminate. And the state lost millions of dollars as a result. As a lesbian that hurts me, and as a person of faith that offends me and as a legislator working hard to create jobs that baffles me. No matter the cost to our country Donald Trump and Mike pence will strip away the progress we have fought so hard to win. 20:32:00 Why? Because they fear diversity, we celebrate it. They fear progress, we build on it. They fear equality, we'll keep fighting for it. So Democrats, Democrats, are we going to retreat? >> No. SPEARMAN>> Will we keep marching forward? >> Yes. 20:32:24 SPEARMAN>> Hillary Clinton is battle tested. She will fight alongside us for equality in our schools, in our communities, in our workplaces and in our nation. She will make the equality act legal and make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of who you love, who you are, wherever you live or wherever you work once and for all. 20:33:00 This election make no mistake about it, won't be easy. I know we are ready. And in the words of the old negro spiritual, so let's walk together Democrats, don't get weary, let's work together Democrats, don't get weary, let's talk together Democrats, don't get weary, there's a great camp meeting in the promised land of equality. Thank you, and god bless you all. [Cheers and applause] [ VIDEO PLAYS ] BOB CASEY (PENNSYLVANIA) 20:35:50 Welcome to Philadelphia, the place where American independence began, where our Constitution was born. Since the time of William Penn, Pennsylvania has been a commonwealth of creators. Of makers. Of builders who, every day, invent the future. My father, Governor Casey, believed that we must never forget that quote, "the sweat and blood of working men and women who built Pennsylvania forged the industrial revolution in our country and out-produced the world." 20:36:24 With family roots in Scranton and her many visits to the state over the years, Hillary Clinton understands this. She'll work every day to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. But what about Donald Trump? Donald Trump says he stands for workers and that he'll put America first, but that's not how he conducted himself in business. Where are his quote, "tremendous" Trump products made? Dress shirts: Bangladesh; furniture: Turkey; picture frames: India; wine glasses: Slovenia; neckties: China. China. 20:37:09 Why would Donald Trump make his products in every corner of the globe, but not in Altoona, Erie, or here in Philadelphia? [ cheers ] Well, this is what he said: quote, "outsourcing is not always a terrible thing." Wages in America quote "are too high." And then he complained about companies moving jobs overseas because quote, "we don't make things anymore." 20:37:41 Really? Well, tell that to the union workers at All-Clad in Canonsburg, who make the pots and pans found in many of our kitchens. [ cheers and applause ] Tell that -- Tell that to the employees of K'NEX in Hatfield, who create toys that teach our children about engineering and architecture. Tell that to the robotics students at Carnegie Mellon, who are building 21st century robots and cars that drive themselves. 20:38:11 Donald Trump hasn't made anything in his life except a buck on the backs of working people. If he's a champion of working people, I'm the starting center for the 76ers. The man who says he wants to make America great doesn't make anything in America. And it's insulting that he has no plan, no plan to support the men and women who are manufacturing products here at home. All he has are empty promises, like so many he's made and failed to follow through on before. If you believe that outsourcing has been good for working people and has raised incomes for the middle class, then you should vote for Donald Trump. 20:39:03 I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. Hillary believes that we need an economy that works for everyone, not just Donald Trump and those at the top. We need to commit ourselves to making good-paying jobs here at home, so that everyone who works hard can get ahead and stay there. That's why in her first 100 days in office, President Hillary Clinton will put forward the largest investment in good-paying jobs since World War II. 20:39:38 As President, she'll reward businesses that share profits with their employees. She will slap a new "exit tax" on companies that move overseas while rewarding companies that invest here at home. And she'll strengthen our economy by investing $10 billion in new advanced manufacturing jobs that can't be sent overseas. 20:40:02 This November, we have a choice. You can choose a candidate who's only out for himself, who wants to get rid of the federal minimum wage, and who would cut taxes for the richest Americans at the expense of the middle class. Or you can choose Hillary Clinton - a leader with a proven track record of fighting for an economy that works for ALL of us. If you're with her like I am, go to hillaryclinton.com. Thank you. LUKE FEENEY MAYOR OF CHILLICOTHE, OHIO 20:41:04 >> Hello, delegates! Hello, Ohio! I am proud to serve the great people of historic Chillicothe, Ohio's first capital. And I'm proud to be one of the many Ohioans supporting Hillary Clinton. [Cheers and applause] When I think about what's at stake this November, I think about a woman from our hometown named Courtney Lewis. Courtney's dad works at the local paper mill. She dreamed of opening her own business. Not just for her, but for her city. She didn't like seeing her city with those empty buildings downtown. 20:41:52 She wanted to do her part. So, Courtney moved into a vacant storefront and, with two partners, started a local gift shop called Totem Supply Company. Three years later, Totem is a small town success story and it's not the only one. Chillicothe is on the rise. Appalache is on the rise. And it's thanks to small business owners like Courtney. I tell Courtney's story tonight not because it's unique, but because it isn't. 20:42:28 All across the country thousands of entrepreneurs and small business owners are equally ready to drive growth in their communities, all they need is a chance. The last thing Ohioans need is a president who has crushed small businesses by not paying them for the work they did. The last thing Ohio needs is Donald Trump. Hillary's dad was a small business owner, she gets it. Hillary knows America works best when it works for everyone. And she has a plan to make sure that entrepreneurs like Courtney have all the tools they need to succeed. 20:43:12 Less red tape, more access to capital like bigger businesses have. A more even playing field and a wider path to prosperity for all of us. Mayors of small towns across the country need a president who will be a friend to small business, who will be a partner in our resurgence. Hillary knows Americans' success stories start in places like Chillicothe. That's why we're with her. That's why Chillicothe is with her. That's why ohio is with her. 20:43:53 We're with her, because she's with us. And that's why we're going to send Hillary Clinton to the White House this November. Thank you. 20:44:18 [ VIDEO: 'TRUMP IN HIS OWN WORDS'] KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (NEW YORK) 20:46:10 Some people know me as a United States Senator from New York. [ cheers ] But during school drop-off and pick-up, I'm better known as Theo and Henry's mom. Like most working parents, my husband and I juggle a lot. We're fortunate to have flexibility, but some days, we still barely keep it together. 20:46:40 The vast majority of working parents have it much tougher. They're struggling with too little time, too little money, and too little support. And Washington hasn't caught up to their reality. Families today look almost nothing like they did a generation ago. Eight in 10 moms work outside of the home. Four in 10 moms are the primary or sole breadwinners, and many are single. Thanks to marriage equality, more children grow up with two moms or two dads. And yet, today, our policies are stuck in the "Mad Men" era. 20:47:26 We are the only industrialized nation that doesn't guarantee workers paid family leave. Many women can't even get a paid day off to give birth. Most parents work outside the home, yet child care can cost as much as college tuition. Families rely on women's income, but we still don't have equal pay for equal work. This makes no sense, because we know that when families are strong, America is strong. 20:48:07 Hillary Clinton gets it-not just because she's a working mother, and Charlotte and Aidan's grandmother, but because for her, it's about her core values, the idea we have that we have a responsibility to one another. It's about who we are as a nation. It's why after law school, she could have gone to a fancy law firm-but she chose to work at the Children's Defense Fund, where she advocated for children with disabilities. 20:48:47 It's why as America's First Lady she helped create a health insurance program for children so that 8 million kids could get the care they need. And it's why as Secretary of State, she helped women and children to escape violence and poverty-to attend schools, support their families, and reinvest in their communities. 20:49:13 And it's why as President of the United States, she will bring our workplace policies out of the Dark Ages, and always, always, put families first. You see, Hillary Clinton's life -- Hillary Clinton's life's work has been defined by one question: "How can we help those who need it most?" Donald Trump's has been defined by a very different question: "How can I help myself the most?" 20:49:54 Donald Trump actually stood on a debate stage and said that wages are "too high." Hillary knows that in the richest country in the world, it is unacceptable that a mom with two kids working full time still lives in poverty. [ applause ] Donald Trump says that when it comes to paid family leave, "you have to be careful of it." Hillary knows that it's long past time to have guaranteed paid family leave. [ cheers ] 20:50:32 Donald Trump thinks that women should just work harder because-and I'm quoting-"You're gonna make the same if you do as good of a job." Every woman in America knows-that's not true! Hillary believes that women deserve equal pay for equal work. 20:50:58 The choice in this election couldn't be clearer! If you believe in the values that have always made us great-if you believe in keeping America great-then support Hillary Clinton. Thank you and God bless our great nation. AL FRANKEN (MINNESOTA) 20:51:45 Hi everybody. [ cheers ] Hi. Save it for the end. I'm Al Franken. [ cheers ] I'm Al Franken: Minnesotan, Senator, and world-renowned expert on right-wing megalomaniacs: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and now Donald Trump. 20:52:31 Now a little about my qualifications. I got my doctorate in megalomania studies from Trump University. [ laughter ] Sure, I had to empty out my 401(k) and take a reverse mortgage on my house to pay the tuition. But Mr. Trump or, rather, some people who said they'd once met him, convinced me that it was worth it. 20:53:02 And frankly, as a proud alum of Trump U, I think we may be mis-underestimating Donald Trump. Sure, he's scammed a lot of people. But did you know that Trump University's School of Ripping People Off is ranked second in the nation? Right behind Bernie Madoff University? That's no mean feat. 20:53:38 And Trump University is about more than just bilking people. Although, trust me, you will get bilked. It's also about learning directly from success experts like Scott Baio, Mike -- Mike Tyson, and, of course, a life-size cardboard cutout of Mr. Trump himself. 20:54:07 Now, of course, Trump University wouldn't be Trump University without its business school. Their bankruptcy program in particular is known throughout the real estate/investment community for its creativity. The most popular course, Bankruptcy 101, "How to Leave Your Partners Holding the Bag," is taught by the cardboard cutout itself. 20:54:38 The pride of Trump University, of course, is its library, located on a shelf in a closet on the third floor of Trump Tower. All of Mr. Trump's bestsellers are available for sale at a special rate, for students, which is 10% higher than the retail price. Clearly, Donald Trump's enormous, dare I say "huge," success as a businessman qualifies him to be President. And if you believe that, I've got some delicious Trump Steaks to sell you. 20:55:28 In all seriousness, I think rather than voting for someone who's never done anything for anyone other than himself, maybe we should go with the candidate who's spent her entire life working to get important things done for the American people. [ cheers and applause ] I've known Hillary, I've known Hillary for almost a quarter-century. I've never met anyone smarter, tougher, or more ready to lead us forward. I am proud to call Hillary Clinton my friend. And I can't wait to call her Madam President. 20:56:30 Now, we're going to have a lot of fun this week. But when we wake up Friday morning, there will be just 102 days left until the election. And what you - yes, all of you - what you do in those 102 days could determine who wins. And I mean that literally. I won my first race for the Senate by 312 votes. 20:57:07 There's my Minnesota delegation. There are people up there who contacted more than 312 people themselves. And literally I would not be here. The reason--they are, each of them, individually, the reason I'm giving this speech here and not into my bathroom mirror. 20:57:42 My friend, my friend Paul Wellstone - [ cheers ] -- my friend Paul Wellstone used to say, "The future belongs to those who are passionate and work hard." This week is about passion. But starting Friday morning, it's all about work, hard work. 20:58:21 Now, now, many of you have jobs. Many of you have families. Ignore them. Let me tell you something: kids love it when their parents aren't home. They love it. And let me tell you something else. An 8-year-old knows how to use a microwave oven. And let me tell you something else. An 8-year-old can teach a 4-year-old kid how to use a microwave. It's just scientific fact. 20:59:02 Don't worry about your kids. They'll be fine. You have work to do. Get on those phones. Knock on those doors. And tell 'em Al Franken sent you. Thank you.

HOUSE FLOOR DEBATE: The House meets for Legislative Business. VOTE expected late afternoon on Iraq Resolution Consideration of H.Con.Res.63 - Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq (Reps. Skelton, Lantos, Jones (NC) - Armed Services, Foreign Affairs) (Continuing Consideration) H.Res. 161 -Providing for consideration of H.R. 976 under Suspension of the Rules (Rules) Suspensions (1 bill): 1) H.R. 976 - Small Business Tax Relief (Reps. Rangel, McCrery - Ways and Means) 11:00:06.7 terrorists free rein and a base to expand their influence around the world. these are the same radical islamist militants who bombed the world trade center in 1993 and the khobar centers in 1996 and the embassies in kenya and 11:00:21.8 tanzania in 1998, and the u.s.s. cole in 2000. we can't forget the slaughter of 3,000 innocent american citizens on our soil. last year a couple arrested in britain planned to use their 6-month-old baby as a human 11:00:37.6 bomb to destroy a civilian airliner over the atlantic ocean. we must recognize we are dealing with radical, maniacal monsters who will not respond to diplomatic niceties. mr. speaker, we all know that 11:00:52.2 the vast majority of americans do not support an immediate withdrawal from iraq. just as they do not support a never-ending deployment of u.s. forces there. they want us -- they expect us to work together and with the president to find a way to win the war on terror while 11:01:08.7 bringing our troops home as soon as possible. we should be past the point of political posturing when it comes to iraq. yet this resolution is more of the name -- same. once again placing politics over policy. 11:01:22.9 instead of encouraging substantive discussion on options in iraq, the majority has once again shut us out of the process and refused to consider any alternative to their point of view. that's truly unfortunate because this nonbinding 11:01:39.4 resolution does nothing to increase the accountability of the iraqi government or to provide for our troops or even propose a new course in iraq. we all agree that this administration has made mistakes in iraq. most harmful i believe has been 11:01:57.0 the slow pace of training iraqi troops and security forces to take responsibility for their own country. early lapses in this area are a principal reason why our troops remain in iraq today. but the administration has 11:02:11.9 taken action to accelerate this training and better prepare iraqi forces. so now it's time for the iraqi government to demonstrate that it has the ability to confront the problems facing their country, both politically and militarily. 11:02:27.1 that is why it's so important that we hold the iraqi government accountable for what they say they are going to do and require them to take the lead in securing their nation. the iraqi government and the iraqi people must recognize that they, not american troops, are responsible for the future 11:02:43.6 of their country. with that being said, we must continue to support our troops and commanders on the ground by giving them the resources they need to be successful. it would be a tragic mistake to cut off funding or limit support for our troops fighting 11:03:00.4 against terrorists abroad. we also must be very careful about the message we send to our allies and our enemies and most importantly to our troops in the field who have performed with great courage. the bipartisan iraqi study group has stated that it could 11:03:18.1 support a shorter redeployment or surge of american combat forces to stabilize baghdad or to speed up the training and e -- eequipping mission if the u.s. commander in iraq determines such steps would be 11:03:32.1 effective. that's a quote from the iraqi report. well, general petraeus says it can be effective. clearly the path forward must include military and chill strategy benchmarks so that we are in a position to measure the progress and commitment of 11:03:47.4 the iraqi government. but we must also be willing to give our troops who have sacrificed so much for our nation the opportunity and the resources to be successful and provide the short-term support needed to achieve increased stability in iraq. there are serious consequences 11:04:04.7 to our national security if we fail in iraq. cutting off funding, limiting military options, or pushing for immediate withdrawal will only make our future more dangerous. it is time to stop the politics, stop the games, stop 11:04:20.7 the finger pointing and do what is best for america. let's put partisanship aside and discuss concrete plans on how we can defeat radical terrorists and protect our nation from those who mean us 11:04:35.1 great harm. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. mrs. tauscher: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the democratic side has nine minutes remaining. the the gentlewoman from 11:04:51.1 florida has 13 minutes remaining. mrs. tauscher: mr. speaker, pursuant to section 2 of the -- house resolution 157, and as a designee of the majority leader, i request that the time of the debate be enlarged by one hour equally divided and controlled by the leaders or 11:05:07.7 their designees. the speaker pro tempore: under the rule that will be the order. mrs. tauscher: at this time i'm very proud to yield five minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. rothman, a member of the defense appropriations subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. rothman: i thank the 11:05:22.6 gentlelady. mr. speaker, i join my colleagues in expressing my deepest appreciation and gratitude to the men and women of our armed forces. to the families of those who have died, who have been wounded, and who are presently in harm's way. my prayers and all of my 11:05:39.8 efforts as a united states congressman are devoted to ensuring the well-being and support of our military as they fight to protect our nation, to honoring their memories, and to helping them when they return to our country. mr. speaker, after we gotioned 11:05:57.0 saddam hussein -- deposed saddam hussein and removed him from power t. became clear to most americans and most people around the world that so much of what ourp president -- our president had told us about iraq was not true. there were no weapons of mass 11:06:13.4 destruction in iraq. saddam had no intention of sending iraqi agents to slaughter americans on our shores. and saddam had precious little if any contact with foreign terrorists or anyone else who 11:06:29.0 wanted to do harm to america. mr. speaker, now after nearly four years and the death of more than 3,100 american service men and women, after more than 23,000 american men 11:06:44.6 and women have been wounded, and after the united states has spent almost one half a trillion u.s. taxpayer dollars in iraq, i believe we have met our moral obligation to the people of iraq. 11:06:59.2 we have given the iraqi people an opportunity over nearly four years to decide whether they will live together with themselves in peace, neighbor to neighbor, iraqi sunni, shiah, and curd. 11:07:15.6 the fact is, mr. speaker, the iraqi people have not yet decided they want to live together with one another in iraq in peace. our having our united states' brave young men and women standing there being shot at, being blown up is not encouraging the iraqis to live 11:07:33.5 together in peace. not only are our troops dying and being wounded, but 80% of the iraqi people say they want us to leave their country immediately. mr. speaker, president bush implies that al qaeda will take 11:07:50.9 over iraq if we leave. in my opinion that is nonsense. today you have less than 1,500 al qaeda in iraq. iraq as a population of 25 million people. 11:08:07.5 today you have not only iraqi shiites killing al qaeda sunnis, you have iraqi sunnis killing al qaeda sunnis. they don't like foreigners in iraq whether they be sunnis and especially if they are al qaeda 11:08:23.9 or americans. mr. speaker, the only hope that our enemies have to destroy the united states is to have us remain bogged down in the swamp of the iraqi civil war. are we smart enough to pull 11:08:40.5 ourselves out of that swamp of the iraqi civil war? or are we going to continue to allow our nation to have our soldiers bled, our resources taken away, our equipment destroyed, taking our attention 11:08:56.9 away from the other military threats and realities in this very hostile world? i believe that the united states' vital national interest will only be served if we withdraw all of our troops out of iraq as quickly as possible 11:09:15.7 for the safety of our troops being upper most in our mind. then we can leave several thousand in the region just in case. we can more importantly encourage the regional players through diplomacy to come 11:09:29.0 together to help the iraqis decide to live in peace. 11:09:34.3 mr. speaker, leaving iraq civil war will serve america's vital national interest by allowing us to rebuild what is now a depleted u.s. army and u.s. marines. a military that is not fully up to its strategic requirements 11:09:48.2 to deal with all the possible threats in the world. we need to focus -- refocus on afghanistan and the resurgence of the taliban. we need to be prepared militarily for the potential threats from north korea, iran, and, yes, even the people's 11:10:04.6 republic of china. it is also important that we take these resources that we have been spending in iraq not only to rebuild our military, but to spend the money here at home. there's al qaeda in 60 nations in the world, they have pledged 11:10:21.8 to come to america to harm us. yet we have spent more money in iraq since 9/11 than we have spent on our homeland security needs. believe it or not, mr. speaker, that is the truth and that has to change. may i have an additional 45 seconds? 11:10:37.3 mrs. tauscher: i don't have any time. mr. rothman: i will be voting for this resolution. iran and syria and saudi arabia have an interest in stabilizing iraq. they will not permit the destruction of that country. they are afraid of refugees leaving -- 11:10:53.5 the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rotman: we need to vote for this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker, on regular order. i'm so honored to yield three minutes to the gentleman from 11:11:08.6 indiana, mr. pence, the ranking member of the subcommittee on middle east and south asia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. pence: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. and would ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: 11:11:24.2 without objection. mr. pence: mr. speaker, i have listened to this debate all week and i must say i admire the seriousness and the civility of most if not all of those who have come to this 11:11:40.2 floor in this historic week to address the issue and express themselves on this resolution. but i rise respectfully to urge my colleagues in both parties to vote no on this no confidence resolution. 11:11:57.6 i support the president's call for a surge of 21,500 forces in baghdad because the president has not just asked for more troops for more troops' sake. 11:12:13.3 despite what has been said again and again on this floor, mr. speaker, this is a new strategy. it involves new tactics and new rules of engagement on the ground. and this surge of forces in baghdad designed to quell 11:12:30.9 violence in that capital city and enable a political solution to take hold was part and parcel of the recommendations of the iraq study group. which said, as americans could see for themselves on page 74 of the iraq study group, and as 11:12:49.4 chairman lee hamilton of indiana said before the foreign affairs committee, the iraq study group concluded that a temporary surge, and they used the word surge, a temporary surge of forces in baghdad 11:13:04.9 would be acceptable to them to quell violence. but while -- i must tell you that many of my colleagues have no confidence in the president's new way forward in iraq. i say with respect i have no confidence in the ability of 11:13:20.3 congress to conduct war. it was napoleon who said hundreds of years ago, quote, i would rather face 20 brilliant generals than one mediocre one. i would assure you today, mr. 11:13:35.9 speaker, that our enemies would rather face 435 commander in chief rather than one. our forefathers rejected war by committee when they enshrined the power to conduct war 11:13:52.4 exclusively in article 2 of the constitution of the united states. in article 1, where this house finds its home, is the power to declare war. it is the power to appropriate funding, and to set essentially military rules of conduct by 11:14:08.6 statute. but the ability and the conduct of the war of the commander in chief is exclusively vested in the president of the united states. in that document upon which we all swear our oath of allegiance. 11:14:23.6 and so i stand with our commander in chief, but also in a very profound sense, mr. speaker -- i stand with the 11:14:33.5 constitution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mr. pence: embrace our constitution as written. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. tauscher: i'm proud to yield five minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley, a chief deputy whip. the speaker pro tempore: the 11:14:46.3 gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. crowley: i thank my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from california. and i rise to thank our young men and women in our armed services and their families. those who have understood the sacrifices that they have made on behalf of our great nation. 11:15:03.8 but, mr. speaker, i also rise to speak out in strong opposition to president bush's misguided escalation of troops. in the iraq war and commend the democratic leadership of the 11:15:20.2 house for holding a real debate. since speaker pelosi took the gavel the democratic majority has delivered on its pledge of oversight and accountability. democrats have changed the direction of the discussion and have changed this war. 11:15:35.2 to lead us to the ultimate goal of all americans that is to bring our troops home. for too long congress has taken a bag seat on the president's handling on this war. this majority has held more 11:15:51.7 hearings than the republican-controlled congress since the war began. this debate is not about trying to embarrass our president for political purposes. the american people have demanded a change in direction. the president has failed to recognize the will of the people and many of the top 11:16:07.5 military and foreign policy thinkers around the country who view this escalation with little t -- hope of success. our constituents spoke on election day and have been more 11:16:23.7 vocal about the way this war has been managed. many in this country want to see a de-esca legislation of the forces not the increase the president has proposed. the president created this problem and is now trying to 11:16:39.6 disengage from iraq without causing the country to be engulfed in further outbreak of violence. we have seen some of the most horrific bombings that cost the lives of many iraqis and downing of u.s. helicopters. 11:16:54.2 over 3,000 of our young mirm have lost their lives, tens of thousands have been physically and mentally maimed and hundreds of thousands of iraqi citizens, the vast majority, have been tried to live normal lives have been killed or 11:17:10.3 injure. this is not how this war was to be conducted. four years ago when the president came to the congress for authorization he stated iraq posed a clear and present danger, invading iraq was part of the greater war op terror and if saddam hussein was not 11:17:28.2 toppled he would attack our allies and maybe our own soil. after seeing the death and destruction al qaeda did to my city and our nation on 9/11, i wanted to trust the president and the president's men and women. 11:17:42.3 when i sat across the table from condoleezza rice in the white house and then c.i.a. director george tenet, i thought i could trust them. because of the false intelligence they gave i voted for authorization of this war. as the only member of this 11:17:59.0 congress to lose a rell tif on 9/11 and as someone who has lost 125 constituents to the attacks of the twin towers i do believe america must always act to defeat threats before those threats about against us. 11:18:13.8 as they say in life there are no do-overs. if i could turn back time i'm sure most of the members of this house would never have given this president this authority to wage this war in iraq. 11:18:29.6 this war has cost us a fortune from our national treasury, a fortune in american lives lost and ruined, our fortune in the ability as a congress to trust our commander in chief and president. we have an opportunity to stand as a group and say what our 11:18:46.2 constituents want us to say. what the army generals want us to say. to say what many of them, those men and women in our armed services in uniform on the frontline want us to say, mr. president rgs adding more troops is not the answer, to 11:19:02.8 fight what has become a civil war is not the answer. the answer we need to have is to begin troops home, to create condition frs the iraqi people to stand up and secure their own country. 11:19:17.5 the iraq study group sent out a plan we support and the president continues to think history will judge him favorably. it has become abundantly clear 11:19:31.1 these forces are not as strong as we have been led to believe. we need to look at redeploying our troops and removing american citizens from harm's way in baghdad and anbar 11:19:47.6 province and forcing the iraqi military to secure these areas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. crowley: i have more that i will submit for the record. i want to see our young men and 11:20:02.8 women home as soon as possible and teend putting them in harm's way. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm honored to yield four minutes to my florida colleague, mr. stearns, a senior veteran of the foreign 11:20:19.1 affairs committee. mr. stearns: ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. stearns: i thank my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the international affairs committee. i want to have the opportunity 11:20:33.6 to speak. i have spoken earlier, but i thought i would bring some simple common sense to my colleagues that perhaps was best brought forward by david broder in the "washington post." david broder is more sympathetic to the democrat 11:20:50.1 point of view than the republicans. but he makes three points that i will echo in my conversation today. basically, we're at the end of the debate, but we're all moving towards a decision. and most of us have already decided. 11:21:05.0 i have some simple common sense i would bring to the attention of my colleagues. when general petraeus was unanimously supported by the senate it was with the idea that he would bring his new thought, his new strategy to this plan in iraq. so don't you think as members 11:21:23.0 of this body we should give general petraeus an opportunity to implement his plan and not immediately come forward with the resolution that says that it is a disapproving of the decision to deploy more troops 11:21:39.2 to iraq? when we deployed more troops for the iraqi elections, why didn't you complain then? that happened twice before. when we deployed more troops to ratify the iraqi constitution, 11:21:54.3 why didn't you complain back then? that went up to almost 160,000. so now you are coming against a simple new strategy with the best we have in america who actually has written the manual 11:22:09.9 on how to do it. you are not even willing to give him a chance. no breathing space. this nonbinding resolution shows your motives which are to eventually reduce all funding for iraq. my third point is you are so 11:22:25.8 willing to do this, you are not even willing to look at what could happen with this new strategy. let's say it works. are you still going to offer these resolutions to cut off funds even though this strategy works? 11:22:39.5 general petraeus is successful? no matter what you seem hell bent on reducing funds for iraq yet we didn't hear any time before when we increased the surge for the iraqi elections or the ratification of the constitution. 11:22:57.5 you know, in a way, bush went to your retreat with a willingness to listen to your ideas. he is showing bipartisanship. in fact he has a quote here which i think illustrates what the american people are saying. what really matters, quote, is 11:23:13.1 what happens on the ground. i can talk all day long but really what really matters to the american people is to see progress. so he realizes also that he must show progress. we are asking for -- the speaker pro tempore: the 11:23:27.2 gentleman's time has expired. mr. stearns: to have a chance -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. skelton: i yield five minutes to my friend, the gentlelady from new york, the chairman of the the small -- the chair woman of the small 11:23:46.2 business committee for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for five minutes. ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. mr. speaker, i rise today first and foremost to praise the 11:24:02.6 courage, performance and commitment of our troops stationed in iraq and elsewhere. we are immensely grateful for their sacrifices. because of this war in iraq today the lives of 135,000 military families are 11:24:19.6 disrupted. and 125,000 civilian contractor families are divided. nearly 4,000 u.s. soldiers and civilian contractors have 11:24:29.6 already given their lives. we have lost over 140 young new york military men and women in iraq. i voted against this war from day one. it was a mistake then and it is a mistake today. 11:24:44.4 this week we have a chance to act. escalation is wrong and we must make it -- take it upon ourselves to make things right by seeking a political solution to this war. this administration's flawed 11:25:00.6 foreign policy has damminged our relationship with our allies. the public opposes this war, iraqis oppose this war, the world opposes this war and this congress should speak loudly against this war, too. 11:25:16.7 our military has been stretched to the brink of breakdown. our actions in iraq have set back the war on terror. and made problems in the middle east much worse. this war has distracted us from 11:25:31.9 our responsibilities at home, too. poverty is raging. millions have lost their jobs and health insurance. families struggle to pay for the cost of transportation, energy and housing, yet we choose to spend $8 billion of 11:25:49.6 hard-earned money every month in iraq not at home. while the cost of the war escalates our most important social programs for our kids, the elderly and the poor get slashed to pay for it. we have dug a deep hole of debt 11:26:05.9 to finance this war in iraq. and we will ask the children of working families to pay off that debt. these priorities are misplaced. we should be investing in our chirp, not borrowing against their future. 11:26:21.4 our young men and women return from iraq with all sorts of health problems, both physical and psychological. the trauma of this war will affect the lives of our veterans forever. this resolution expresses our 11:26:36.9 commitment to supporting our veterans' needs. we must honor the sacrifices of our veterans, that they have made for this nation. we must provide for them from the moment they get home to their families. 11:26:50.9 i believe this war is more wrong today than ever before. we must stand forcefully for what is right for our troops, for the victims of this war, and for the priorities we are neglecting at home. lest this body the world a 11:27:08.4 powerful mental that the united states is changing course in iraq. we must end this war, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. king: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, 11:27:23.3 mr. gingrey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. gingrey: thank you. i rise for the second time during this 36-hour marathon to strongly oppose this, i want to almost say meaningless 11:27:41.4 resolution, mr. speaker. but make no mistake about it, this is not a meaningless russian. the consequences of failure in iraq are drastic. let me just read to you what some of those are. number one, collapse of a 11:27:58.1 democratic iraqi government likely, very likely leading to mass killings and genocide in the nation. al qaeda and other terrorist groups would use this defeat to boost recruitment, they would use iraq as a staging ground 11:28:14.7 for deadly attacks paid for with iraqi oil revenue. iran and syria would exert tremendous influence over the region. you think they are bad actors now, you just wait until this scenario plays out. 11:28:29.9 and indeed and they have said that israel would be pushed into the sea. mr. speaker, the real democratic plan is coming later. and if you don't believe me, i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle just read a recent 11:28:47.7 article this week in roll call. i'm not going to stand up here and read it to the members. you can read it. but the progressive caucus of the house democratic conference, the out of iraq caucus of the house democrat conference led by ms. woolsey 11:29:04.4 and ms. waters basically say that this is just the first step. they say that in this op-ed article. this resolution is not meaningless. it is a first step, my colleagues, toward cutting off funding for the troops. 11:29:19.1 and pulling the rug out from under them. what does this say, then, to our fighting -- brave fighting 11:29:30.3 men and women who are trying to defend this country. we have heard, look, we can't afford this war anymore. it is costing too much in lives and money. 11:29:43.2 we are making too big a commitment there and we neeped to bring our troops home because some other conflict may break out in this world. i say mr. speaker and to my colleagues, what is more important than the current war? what indeed are we going to save our troops for? 11:29:59.6 working the rope lines at fourth of july parades, helping senior citizens cross the street. we have got to stop this and stop it now. this idea -- listen to what -- listen to what the terrorists themselves say about the mental 11:30:15.3 that that would send. this is a quote, mr. speaker, from osama bin laden himself. hostility toward america is a religious duty, and i'm confident that muslims will be able to end the -- the speaker pro tempore: the 11:30:31.5 gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri. mr. king: extra 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. gingrey: thank you, mr. speaker. and i am confident that muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower 11:30:47.9 that is america. his top deputy, bin laden's top deputy, says the jihad in iraq requires several incremental goals. the first stage, expel the americans from iraq. make no mistake about this, what we are doing with this 11:31:05.1 resolution is not a salute to g.i. joe, it's a capitulation to jihadist joe. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, it's my privilege to yield five minutes to my friend from california, the gentleman who 11:31:21.3 is also the chairman of the education and labor committee, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for all of his hard work in struggle with this issue and the protection of our 11:31:38.2 troops and our force strength. but i rise in strong support of this bipartisan resolution regarding the iraq war. i rise in strong support of this resolution to say to the president, no more. i rise in strong support of this resolution to say to the 11:31:53.7 president, your policy is wrong. yes, you have tried the surge before, and the surge is not -- has not brought peace to iraq t. has not brought an end to the insurgency, it has not brought an end to the sectarian war that is going on in that country every day. 11:32:08.5 yes, this is the fourth time the president has tried this policy and it has not worked many of those times. when we passed this bipartisan resolution, the president should pause because at that moment the president will not have the support of the united states house of representatives 11:32:26.5 and at that moments the president will also not have the support of the people of the united states. and the president better think long and hard about he really believes that he should commit these troops, continue to commit these troops without the 11:32:42.2 authority of the people, without the authority of this congress. mr. speaker, members of the house, american men and women have been fighting in iraq, they will soon begin their fifth year. for five years they have done all that we have asked them. but what we have asked them to 11:32:57.4 do cannot be accomplished by the military. we have known for some time that iraq now requires a political solution and it requires the iraqi government, the iraqi people, the iraqi society, and the communities to take hold of their country and to decide whether they want a 11:33:14.1 future of continued sectarian violence or whether they want an orderly society. they must make that decision. the president has had it wrong for many, many months, for many years. he has continued to say that as the iraqis stand up we will 11:33:29.6 stand down. mr. president, you have it wrong. as we begin to stand down, they will begin to stand up. the fact that our military troops are on the streets of baghdad and anbar province and elsewhere enables people to continue a level of violence 11:33:45.9 that randomly and wantonly takes the lives of men, women, and children, innocent bystanders for almost no good reason at all. no good reason at all. it allows that to continue because each side knows if it gets out of control the american troops will ride to 11:34:00.8 the rescue, the helicopters will come, and the missiles will fly. we are the enablers of the continuation of this violence. once they have to take responsibility for their actions, once we leave, this is no longer an insurgency, this is crime on crime, iraqi 11:34:16.4 against iraqi. and somebody's got to take the responsibility for that, and that will not be us. we will not be able to bring it to an end. the iraqi government will be. the time has come for our 11:34:27.9 troops to leave. the time has come for us to understand that we cannot cure what is wrong in iraq. but for these troops that are there and for the troops that are being sent in spite of the will of the american people and the will of the congress, we ought to understand that they ought to be fully equipped. 11:34:43.7 we should not repeat the history of this administration and this deployment where young men and women were sent into this theater without proper body equipment, without proper armor, without a proper understanding and without a proper training. members come to this floor now 11:34:59.4 for many hours and said what is the message you are sending to your troops? what is the message congress is sending? what was the message this congress sent to the troops when allowed this president to go to war without enough troops to secure the peace? what was the message of this congress when it allowed them 11:35:15.2 to go to combat without proper vehicle armor? what was the message of the congress that allowed them to go into combat without proper protective armor? what was the message when it allowed the president to continue his failed course with no adjustment over the last four years? and what was the message we 11:35:30.9 sent to the troops when it allowed the president to effectively draft american volunteers by continuing their tours, shortening their time at home, shortening their time with their families and sending them back without proper training, shortened training, and proper equipment. we cannot do that to the 11:35:45.3 troops. and the message of this resolution is we are not going to do that. we are not going to do that. we are going to make a pledge to you that we will not let you fight and die forever, with no plan to get you out, with no exit plan for you, with no change in the policy that has 11:36:01.3 led so tragically to so many deaths and so many wounded. that's what this resolution is about. and that's the message we must send to the troops, and that's the message we must send to the iraqi people. that they must take responsibility. 11:36:15.9 this surge is not an election day surge. this isn't a constitutional day surge. this is a surge for the purpose, this is an escalation for the purposes of door-to-door combat. street by street, block by block, house by house. yet today we see general skew maker saying in the -- 11:36:37.9 shoemaker saying, these people will not have -- will not have enough interpreters, they will not have civil affairs soldiers, they will not have enough translators. now we are putting them again where they are in the greatest 11:36:50.4 -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. miller: this congress is agreeing to go forward and repeat history and put them at risk when it's not necessary. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. king: mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. speaker, i thank 11:37:05.2 the gentleman for yielding me the time. this is serious matter. we have been discussing this now for days here in the house. but i want to tell you that i'm opposed to this resolution. because it doesn't do anything. i want to see our troops home. 11:37:22.5 i want to see our troops safe. i would venture to say that with the exception of maybe mr. murtha, i have seen and visited more wounded troops, soldiers and marines, in our military 11:37:37.8 hospitals than anybody in this chamber. and i don't want them to be in harm's way any longer. the problem is i have strong recollections of september 11. and even before september 11 i remember the bombing of the 11:37:54.3 u.s.s. cole where our military, our sailors were killed and wounded. i remember the bombings of the american embassies in kenya and tanzania. i remember the bombings of the khobar towers where american airmen were housed in saudi 11:38:09.6 arabia. i remember the bombing of the marine barracks in lebanon, the hostage taking by terrorists, and held hostage for 444 days. i remember all of that, but what i remember that i will never, ever get out of my mind 11:38:28.4 is september 11, being on the highway immediately next to the pentagon when the airplane hit the pentagon and killed many of our friends and colleagues there at the pentagon. i remember going to ground zero 11:38:42.9 just a few days after september 11 to deliver satellite telephones to the police and the firefighters because their existing communications didn't work because of all of the confusion, because of the 11:39:01.6 disruption in the communications lines. i remember the smoke was still rising, the dust was still flying. and i remember the american people demanded that something be done, they were tired of us being subjected to terrorist 11:39:17.0 attacks. americans being killed, and nothing being done about it. the american people demanded that something be done. and they demanded through our 11:39:27.9 congress that something be done. the president was under the pressure and his demand that something be done. congress debated that at the time and 2/3 of the members who were there at the time voted to 11:39:42.2 give the president legal, lawful authority to do whatever had to be done. this congress should be prepared to do whatever has to be done to eliminate the terrorist threat. 11:39:57.9 i don't care whether it's in iraq, whether it's in afghanistan, whether it's in somalia, whether it's in mogadishu, wherever it is we have got to protect americans from the threat of terrorism. and from terrorist attacks. and we need to support our 11:40:15.4 troops who are out there on the frontline making sure that we at home are being protected. these soldiers have been promised by the commander in chief that they are going to have some reinforcements, that they are going to have some 11:40:29.8 help to fight this fight. the aggressive fight that is now finally taking place. when the maliki government was finally pressured to allow us to attack the targets that were real targets, to allow us to go whether they were politically 11:40:45.6 harmful to the maliki government or not. and things have changed. what about the soldiers in the field who were expected that they would get some reinforcements? and that maybe with those reinforcements they might get 11:40:59.6 an extra night's sleep? what about the soldier who had hoped that reinforcements would allow him to sit down to a hot lunch rather than having to grab an m.r.e. and eating that m.r.e. on the run? what about the soldiers in the field who hoped that 11:41:16.1 reinforcements would allow them to find time to read their mail or send a letter to their loved ones back home? mr. speaker, this is a serious issue. mr. speaker, if this house is serious about congress bringing 11:41:34.3 home our troops, then do it right. this doesn't bring any troop home. this doesn't provide any safety or security for our troops. this doesn't provide anything to help with the mission in the global war on terror. 11:41:49.0 if you want to do it right, bring a resolution out here to the floor that does it right, that brings them home, that stops whatever it is that we are doing there in iraq. here's the problem. there's a lot of problems. but you know, if you know 11:42:05.7 anything about what our military troops are doing -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. king: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to -- one additional minute to the gentleman from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the 11:42:20.1 gentleman from florida is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. young: you know that once you get into a battle, once you get into a fight, once you get into a war it's easy to get into the war. you can almost slip into it without recognizing that you are getting into it. but once you are in the fight, 11:42:38.0 getting out is not easy. once you are in the battle, you have several options. you win, or you lose, or you surrender, or you retreat. or you negotiate. who do we negotiate with? 11:42:55.0 negotiating would be nice if we can end this by negotiations. who do you negotiate with? bin laden? you can't even find, if in fact, he's alive. the problem here is, once you get into the fight, we did it 11:43:08.0 with the support of the american people, and we did it with the support of this congress, once you get into the fight it's just not that easy to get out of it unless you win or you lose. winning is better than losing. the speaker pro tempore: the 11:43:23.5 gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. >> i yield five minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from texas, mr. lampson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. lampson: mr. speaker, to -- today is indeed a day for 11:43:41.3 thoughtfulness and courage in this house. as we debate the future of our involvement in iraq, we must not forget that our troops are engaged in armed conflict a half a world away. it is their future and their sacrifice which necessitates 11:43:55.4 this debate today. now is the time when this hallowed institution must dig deeply within its own conscience and rise above the politics and the platitudes which have plagued us for far too long. the american public andure troops demand and expect no 11:44:12.4 less from us. yet no simple solutions face us. let's look first at the decisions we have made. we were advised the conflict in iraq would require more troops, a longer engagement, and an exit strategy. we did not heed that advice and 11:44:28.3 now we face an escalating insurgency of civil war. it's cost more than $380 and climbing fast. we have not been good stewards of taxpayers' money as there 11:44:42.6 has been much corruption and waste in our spending. we were told of imminent success in afghanistan and we pulled out our troops in order to provide an earlier surge in iraq, we were wrong. and we have seen a rise in 11:44:57.7 violence in both countries. we must break this pattern. we can ill afford any further misjudgments. because it is our obligation in this deliberative body to consider every option available. we stand here today to engage 11:45:13.6 in the first substantive discussion of the policies we need to implement in order to succeed in iraq and bring our troops home. it's abundantly clear that iraq has been and remains deeply embedded in the conscience of the american people, as this world watches, we must 11:45:30.1 demonstrate from the well of this house that democracy flourishes only when honest and open debate occurs. this difficult decision, i believe this body has two primary obligations to the american people, one, to fully 11:45:46.4 sut our troops with resources they need to accomplish the missions they are assigned, two, to ensure full accountability for the vital resources we have sent to iraq. this house has neglected both of these obligations for too 11:46:02.2 long. it is time to exercise responsibilities for the troops, the american public and the world. i stand here today in opposition to the proposed troop surge. we all agree that cutting off funding for our troops currently serving in iraq is an 11:46:20.2 untenable option that will send the wrong message. i will never vote to leave our troops stranded. but the question facing us now is how can we vote to put 20,000 additional troops in 11:46:35.8 harm's way without resources and a clear and detaled plan. i cannot support this proposed surge because i stand support of our troops. the current struggle continues to rest with the brave men and women in the armed services. it is no longer fair to our 11:46:51.4 troops to rubber stamp this war. i want them to know that we were deliberative in our decision. i fear the surge will not by itself be sufficient today. it is time for members of both parties to listen to the 11:47:07.3 experts for whose opinion we have asked yet have ignored. our military leaders past and present, the bipartisan members of the iraq study group, and soldiers returning from iraq. it is time for a strategic change in course in iraq, one including diplomacy and 11:47:23.9 education and an honest reconstruction effort. these actions partnered with the actions of the military will show our dedication to improving the lives of all iraqis and making their nation one of peace, freedom, and democracy. 11:47:38.7 i'm not here today to criticize the president or to engage in partisan grand standing. this war is not a partisan issue. i have no doubt that one day the actions of our nation will help bring peace and democracy to the middle east. however, the strategy we are 11:47:57.2 here to debate today remains flawed and too many questions remain unanswered. while my loyalty to and my confidence in our troops remains steadfast, this congress and this nation must today seek a new direction. 11:48:14.1 i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. king: mr. speaker, i am proud to yield seven minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the state of washington, mr. reichert. 11:48:28.5 the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from from the state of washington is recognized for seven minutes. mr. reichert: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i support the troops wholeheartedly and without reservation. i cannot support a resolution that simply opposes a new strategy without offering an 11:48:46.1 alternative plan to win. there is too much at stake. many of you know i was a cop in the seattle area for 33 years. i was the sheriff for eight years. as the sheriff, i had an opportunity to attend a remarkable ceremony. 11:49:02.9 every year a group of naturalized american citizens gathered to remember the circumstances of their arrival in the united states. a group comprised of police officers from vietnam, men that fought side by side our american soldiers. 11:49:20.2 these vietnamese officers assumed the greatest risks, risking their lives and 11:49:27.2 endangering their families to join the united states in their fight for freedom. quhep the united states pulled out of street -- when the united states pulled out of vietnam, there were dire consequences for these men who risked everything to fight with 11:49:41.1 the united states. the officers were rounded up. some were imprisonened for 15 years or more and some were executed. those who managed to flee and escape death made their way to the united states and they left everything in vietnam and made 11:49:58.2 new lives in the united states and they were able to enjoy the freedoms that they had fought for but not in the country that they had hoped for. let me just take a moment to set the staming for this 11:50:13.7 ceremony. as the sheriff i sat down at a round table with many of these vietnamese soldiers and police officers and they came in their uniforms that they brought along with them. those that were able to escape. 11:50:29.8 those that spent 15 to 17 years in a prison camp where they were beaten, where they were tortured, where they lost their freedom. they lost their dignity. but they never gave up hope. when they came here to the 11:50:45.7 united states of america and they come together on this evening to celebrate their freedom and the american flag is brought into that room, those men stand at attention and they salute. but you know what else they do? 11:51:03.1 they cry. when the american flag is brought in they cry. because they lost their freedom but now they know what it is like to have it back. 11:51:21.4 it is a dramatic scene. if we leave too soon in iraq what happened to those vietnamese officers could certainly happen to those iraqi 11:51:34.1 soldiers who bravely fight side by side with our troops today. and i don't use this example as way of comparing this conflict with vietnam as some have done. i believe the two wars are very different. 11:51:47.3 i use it because it could happen again. i never want to attend an event where former iraqi soldiers are attending a similar ceremony. the fact is we are engaged in a global war with people intent on killing us, killing 11:52:04.8 americans and regardless of how we got into iraq, iraq is now the central front of this war. i understand there are many who think we should not have entered raug. we know there was fally intelligence that led us into 11:52:20.2 -- faulty intelligence that led us into iraq, but the war is upon us nonetheless. i am elected to deal with what is happening now. the consequences of declaring an end to the war in iraq without victory would be felt 11:52:34.8 for decades. our enemies around the world would be emboldened, iran and al qaeda would declare victory. our allies in iraq would certainly face bloodshed and our allies around the world would question our resolve to 11:52:50.6 help protect them. our troops are clear about their dedication to their mission. they want to succeed. american soldiers dutyfully responded when we asked them to go to iraq and o.s.u. the dictator, establish an infrastructure and train the 11:53:05.6 iraqis so they are able to protect themselves. now we must do what the troops have asked of us. they have given us their service and in too many cases they have given us their lives. we must give them the opportunity for victory. our current strategy in iraq is 11:53:23.5 failing. and yet failure is not an option. not only for the united states security, but also for the security of the iraqi soldiers and police officers that still fight today side by side with our troops. in november, the american 11:53:38.6 people told us that they wanted a new strategy not because they wanted to lose, but because they want to win. and now we have a new strategy before us. is this new plan going to work? i don't know. 11:53:56.1 no one in this body that will vote on this resolution a nonbinding resolution, knows whether or not this plan will work. but what i do know is we must find a way to achieve victory. and simply saying no to a plan 11:54:10.2 without offering an alternative won't work and it sends a terrible message to our enemies and to our soldiers. this is an historic war. america is engaged in a war for our freedom on a scale we have 11:54:27.0 never experienced before. i understand the dissension, the questions and the uncertainty. i understand the cost is high and the way is unclear. as a cop, i've lost partners. i've lost friends. 11:54:42.2 in the line of duty. i know the pain that causes. i understand the loss. it's sad. it's tragic. and you never forget. but we must remain focused, ladies and gentlemen, please 11:54:59.7 don't let those sacrifices be in vain. madam speaker, or mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution and let's send a message to our enemies and our troops alike, we will always support our young men and women who put their lives 11:55:15.8 on the line for freedom. and they we will give them what it takes to succeed in the missions we have given them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. it is -- mr. klein: it is my honor to yield to the gentleman 11:55:34.5 from indiana, mr. hill. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana for five minutes. mr. hill: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hill: our brave men and women in iraq have answered every call, accomplished every task, won every battle. 11:55:51.4 our brave men and women in iraq have fought valiantly. they have executed their mission with quiet dignity and with honor that is worthy of our praise. in looking back at all our military has done, there has been no task that these brave 11:56:07.7 men and women haven't accomplished. ney have risen to every occasion. however, we are not here to just applaud our troops' performance. we are here to ask if the surge direction the president is 11:56:21.9 taking us is the right direction for these brave troops? is it the right direction for our country? and is it the right direction for the people of iraq? the answer is unequivocally no. for the last four years of this conflict, the president has 11:56:38.6 relied on the judgment of his military to execute this war and to follow their advice. now at this critical hour, he has chosen to ignore their expertise and advice. the join chiefs have unanimously disagreed with the 11:56:54.2 surge. general james conway, commander of the marine corps is quoted as saying, we do not believe that just adding numberings -- numbers for the sake of adding numbers is necessarily the way 11:57:10.1 to go. general john abizaid has met with every divisional commander and asked if we were to bring more american troops now does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success. they all said no. general colin powell has said 11:57:25.3 the surge will not work. general wesley clark, ambassador holbrook, oliver north, michael vicker, richard hoss have all said the surge will not work. and the list goes on and on and on. 11:57:41.3 why does the president, mr. speaker, choose to ignore expert after expert soldier after soldier who say the surge will not work? even general petraeus has said, and i quote, the way ahead will be neither quick nor easy and 11:58:00.1 undoubtedly there will be tough days. we have a determined, adaptive barbaric enemy. he will try to wait us out. any such endeavors is a test of wills and there are no guarantees. 11:58:13.6 mr. speaker, former secretary of state james baker has said there is no magic bullet to solve the problem of iraq, no single answer, no quick fix. from this microphone over the last two days my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 11:58:29.7 have tried to frame this debate about success and failure in iraq. that debate is for another day. today and tomorrow the debate is about the wisdom or the lack of wisdom for the surge. the president and the members of his party today need to 11:58:46.1 listen to the experts who if they had relied upon in the past to do otherwise cast doubts about who the president is listening to. mr. speaker, i firmly believe that this surge in the troops is the wrong policy at the wrong time in the wrong war. the actions that need to be 11:59:03.1 taken to help the iraq people and ultimately bring our brave men and women home safely is not as simple as rushing more troopts to the frontlines. mr. speaker, a while ago i heard my good friend and colleague from indiana speak 11:59:18.7 about how the iraq study group said that a surge is something that probably is necessary. but there's more to the story 11:59:27.3 than a military surge. they recommended economic surge, and diplomatic surges, not just military. i talked to one of the iraq study members just yesterday who told me that a military surge by itself will not work. 11:59:42.4 the military has done all it can do and they have done it very well. now is the time to move in a different direction, mr. speaker. vote for this resolution. vote no to the surge. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the 11:59:57.3 gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. king: mr. speaker, it is my privilege to yield four minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from oklahoma, mr. sullivan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for four minutes.

HOUSE FLOOR DEBATE: The House meets for Legislative Business. VOTE expected late afternoon on Iraq Resolution Consideration of H.Con.Res.63 - Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq (Reps. Skelton, Lantos, Jones (NC) - Armed Services, Foreign Affairs) (Continuing Consideration) H.Res. 161 -Providing for consideration of H.R. 976 under Suspension of the Rules (Rules) Suspensions (1 bill): 1) H.R. 976 - Small Business Tax Relief (Reps. Rangel, McCrery - Ways and Means) 11:00:06.7 terrorists free rein and a base to expand their influence around the world. these are the same radical islamist militants who bombed the world trade center in 1993 and the khobar centers in 1996 and the embassies in kenya and 11:00:21.8 tanzania in 1998, and the u.s.s. cole in 2000. we can't forget the slaughter of 3,000 innocent american citizens on our soil. last year a couple arrested in britain planned to use their 6-month-old baby as a human 11:00:37.6 bomb to destroy a civilian airliner over the atlantic ocean. we must recognize we are dealing with radical, maniacal monsters who will not respond to diplomatic niceties. mr. speaker, we all know that 11:00:52.2 the vast majority of americans do not support an immediate withdrawal from iraq. just as they do not support a never-ending deployment of u.s. forces there. they want us -- they expect us to work together and with the president to find a way to win the war on terror while 11:01:08.7 bringing our troops home as soon as possible. we should be past the point of political posturing when it comes to iraq. yet this resolution is more of the name -- same. once again placing politics over policy. 11:01:22.9 instead of encouraging substantive discussion on options in iraq, the majority has once again shut us out of the process and refused to consider any alternative to their point of view. that's truly unfortunate because this nonbinding 11:01:39.4 resolution does nothing to increase the accountability of the iraqi government or to provide for our troops or even propose a new course in iraq. we all agree that this administration has made mistakes in iraq. most harmful i believe has been 11:01:57.0 the slow pace of training iraqi troops and security forces to take responsibility for their own country. early lapses in this area are a principal reason why our troops remain in iraq today. but the administration has 11:02:11.9 taken action to accelerate this training and better prepare iraqi forces. so now it's time for the iraqi government to demonstrate that it has the ability to confront the problems facing their country, both politically and militarily. 11:02:27.1 that is why it's so important that we hold the iraqi government accountable for what they say they are going to do and require them to take the lead in securing their nation. the iraqi government and the iraqi people must recognize that they, not american troops, are responsible for the future 11:02:43.6 of their country. with that being said, we must continue to support our troops and commanders on the ground by giving them the resources they need to be successful. it would be a tragic mistake to cut off funding or limit support for our troops fighting 11:03:00.4 against terrorists abroad. we also must be very careful about the message we send to our allies and our enemies and most importantly to our troops in the field who have performed with great courage. the bipartisan iraqi study group has stated that it could 11:03:18.1 support a shorter redeployment or surge of american combat forces to stabilize baghdad or to speed up the training and e -- eequipping mission if the u.s. commander in iraq determines such steps would be 11:03:32.1 effective. that's a quote from the iraqi report. well, general petraeus says it can be effective. clearly the path forward must include military and chill strategy benchmarks so that we are in a position to measure the progress and commitment of 11:03:47.4 the iraqi government. but we must also be willing to give our troops who have sacrificed so much for our nation the opportunity and the resources to be successful and provide the short-term support needed to achieve increased stability in iraq. there are serious consequences 11:04:04.7 to our national security if we fail in iraq. cutting off funding, limiting military options, or pushing for immediate withdrawal will only make our future more dangerous. it is time to stop the politics, stop the games, stop 11:04:20.7 the finger pointing and do what is best for america. let's put partisanship aside and discuss concrete plans on how we can defeat radical terrorists and protect our nation from those who mean us 11:04:35.1 great harm. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. mrs. tauscher: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the democratic side has nine minutes remaining. the the gentlewoman from 11:04:51.1 florida has 13 minutes remaining. mrs. tauscher: mr. speaker, pursuant to section 2 of the -- house resolution 157, and as a designee of the majority leader, i request that the time of the debate be enlarged by one hour equally divided and controlled by the leaders or 11:05:07.7 their designees. the speaker pro tempore: under the rule that will be the order. mrs. tauscher: at this time i'm very proud to yield five minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. rothman, a member of the defense appropriations subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. rothman: i thank the 11:05:22.6 gentlelady. mr. speaker, i join my colleagues in expressing my deepest appreciation and gratitude to the men and women of our armed forces. to the families of those who have died, who have been wounded, and who are presently in harm's way. my prayers and all of my 11:05:39.8 efforts as a united states congressman are devoted to ensuring the well-being and support of our military as they fight to protect our nation, to honoring their memories, and to helping them when they return to our country. mr. speaker, after we gotioned 11:05:57.0 saddam hussein -- deposed saddam hussein and removed him from power t. became clear to most americans and most people around the world that so much of what ourp president -- our president had told us about iraq was not true. there were no weapons of mass 11:06:13.4 destruction in iraq. saddam had no intention of sending iraqi agents to slaughter americans on our shores. and saddam had precious little if any contact with foreign terrorists or anyone else who 11:06:29.0 wanted to do harm to america. mr. speaker, now after nearly four years and the death of more than 3,100 american service men and women, after more than 23,000 american men 11:06:44.6 and women have been wounded, and after the united states has spent almost one half a trillion u.s. taxpayer dollars in iraq, i believe we have met our moral obligation to the people of iraq. 11:06:59.2 we have given the iraqi people an opportunity over nearly four years to decide whether they will live together with themselves in peace, neighbor to neighbor, iraqi sunni, shiah, and curd. 11:07:15.6 the fact is, mr. speaker, the iraqi people have not yet decided they want to live together with one another in iraq in peace. our having our united states' brave young men and women standing there being shot at, being blown up is not encouraging the iraqis to live 11:07:33.5 together in peace. not only are our troops dying and being wounded, but 80% of the iraqi people say they want us to leave their country immediately. mr. speaker, president bush implies that al qaeda will take 11:07:50.9 over iraq if we leave. in my opinion that is nonsense. today you have less than 1,500 al qaeda in iraq. iraq as a population of 25 million people. 11:08:07.5 today you have not only iraqi shiites killing al qaeda sunnis, you have iraqi sunnis killing al qaeda sunnis. they don't like foreigners in iraq whether they be sunnis and especially if they are al qaeda 11:08:23.9 or americans. mr. speaker, the only hope that our enemies have to destroy the united states is to have us remain bogged down in the swamp of the iraqi civil war. are we smart enough to pull 11:08:40.5 ourselves out of that swamp of the iraqi civil war? or are we going to continue to allow our nation to have our soldiers bled, our resources taken away, our equipment destroyed, taking our attention 11:08:56.9 away from the other military threats and realities in this very hostile world? i believe that the united states' vital national interest will only be served if we withdraw all of our troops out of iraq as quickly as possible 11:09:15.7 for the safety of our troops being upper most in our mind. then we can leave several thousand in the region just in case. we can more importantly encourage the regional players through diplomacy to come 11:09:29.0 together to help the iraqis decide to live in peace. 11:09:34.3 mr. speaker, leaving iraq civil war will serve america's vital national interest by allowing us to rebuild what is now a depleted u.s. army and u.s. marines. a military that is not fully up to its strategic requirements 11:09:48.2 to deal with all the possible threats in the world. we need to focus -- refocus on afghanistan and the resurgence of the taliban. we need to be prepared militarily for the potential threats from north korea, iran, and, yes, even the people's 11:10:04.6 republic of china. it is also important that we take these resources that we have been spending in iraq not only to rebuild our military, but to spend the money here at home. there's al qaeda in 60 nations in the world, they have pledged 11:10:21.8 to come to america to harm us. yet we have spent more money in iraq since 9/11 than we have spent on our homeland security needs. believe it or not, mr. speaker, that is the truth and that has to change. may i have an additional 45 seconds? 11:10:37.3 mrs. tauscher: i don't have any time. mr. rothman: i will be voting for this resolution. iran and syria and saudi arabia have an interest in stabilizing iraq. they will not permit the destruction of that country. they are afraid of refugees leaving -- 11:10:53.5 the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rotman: we need to vote for this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker, on regular order. i'm so honored to yield three minutes to the gentleman from 11:11:08.6 indiana, mr. pence, the ranking member of the subcommittee on middle east and south asia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. pence: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. and would ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: 11:11:24.2 without objection. mr. pence: mr. speaker, i have listened to this debate all week and i must say i admire the seriousness and the civility of most if not all of those who have come to this 11:11:40.2 floor in this historic week to address the issue and express themselves on this resolution. but i rise respectfully to urge my colleagues in both parties to vote no on this no confidence resolution. 11:11:57.6 i support the president's call for a surge of 21,500 forces in baghdad because the president has not just asked for more troops for more troops' sake. 11:12:13.3 despite what has been said again and again on this floor, mr. speaker, this is a new strategy. it involves new tactics and new rules of engagement on the ground. and this surge of forces in baghdad designed to quell 11:12:30.9 violence in that capital city and enable a political solution to take hold was part and parcel of the recommendations of the iraq study group. which said, as americans could see for themselves on page 74 of the iraq study group, and as 11:12:49.4 chairman lee hamilton of indiana said before the foreign affairs committee, the iraq study group concluded that a temporary surge, and they used the word surge, a temporary surge of forces in baghdad 11:13:04.9 would be acceptable to them to quell violence. but while -- i must tell you that many of my colleagues have no confidence in the president's new way forward in iraq. i say with respect i have no confidence in the ability of 11:13:20.3 congress to conduct war. it was napoleon who said hundreds of years ago, quote, i would rather face 20 brilliant generals than one mediocre one. i would assure you today, mr. 11:13:35.9 speaker, that our enemies would rather face 435 commander in chief rather than one. our forefathers rejected war by committee when they enshrined the power to conduct war 11:13:52.4 exclusively in article 2 of the constitution of the united states. in article 1, where this house finds its home, is the power to declare war. it is the power to appropriate funding, and to set essentially military rules of conduct by 11:14:08.6 statute. but the ability and the conduct of the war of the commander in chief is exclusively vested in the president of the united states. in that document upon which we all swear our oath of allegiance. 11:14:23.6 and so i stand with our commander in chief, but also in a very profound sense, mr. speaker -- i stand with the 11:14:33.5 constitution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mr. pence: embrace our constitution as written. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. tauscher: i'm proud to yield five minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley, a chief deputy whip. the speaker pro tempore: the 11:14:46.3 gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. crowley: i thank my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from california. and i rise to thank our young men and women in our armed services and their families. those who have understood the sacrifices that they have made on behalf of our great nation. 11:15:03.8 but, mr. speaker, i also rise to speak out in strong opposition to president bush's misguided escalation of troops. in the iraq war and commend the democratic leadership of the 11:15:20.2 house for holding a real debate. since speaker pelosi took the gavel the democratic majority has delivered on its pledge of oversight and accountability. democrats have changed the direction of the discussion and have changed this war. 11:15:35.2 to lead us to the ultimate goal of all americans that is to bring our troops home. for too long congress has taken a bag seat on the president's handling on this war. this majority has held more 11:15:51.7 hearings than the republican-controlled congress since the war began. this debate is not about trying to embarrass our president for political purposes. the american people have demanded a change in direction. the president has failed to recognize the will of the people and many of the top 11:16:07.5 military and foreign policy thinkers around the country who view this escalation with little t -- hope of success. our constituents spoke on election day and have been more 11:16:23.7 vocal about the way this war has been managed. many in this country want to see a de-esca legislation of the forces not the increase the president has proposed. the president created this problem and is now trying to 11:16:39.6 disengage from iraq without causing the country to be engulfed in further outbreak of violence. we have seen some of the most horrific bombings that cost the lives of many iraqis and downing of u.s. helicopters. 11:16:54.2 over 3,000 of our young mirm have lost their lives, tens of thousands have been physically and mentally maimed and hundreds of thousands of iraqi citizens, the vast majority, have been tried to live normal lives have been killed or 11:17:10.3 injure. this is not how this war was to be conducted. four years ago when the president came to the congress for authorization he stated iraq posed a clear and present danger, invading iraq was part of the greater war op terror and if saddam hussein was not 11:17:28.2 toppled he would attack our allies and maybe our own soil. after seeing the death and destruction al qaeda did to my city and our nation on 9/11, i wanted to trust the president and the president's men and women. 11:17:42.3 when i sat across the table from condoleezza rice in the white house and then c.i.a. director george tenet, i thought i could trust them. because of the false intelligence they gave i voted for authorization of this war. as the only member of this 11:17:59.0 congress to lose a rell tif on 9/11 and as someone who has lost 125 constituents to the attacks of the twin towers i do believe america must always act to defeat threats before those threats about against us. 11:18:13.8 as they say in life there are no do-overs. if i could turn back time i'm sure most of the members of this house would never have given this president this authority to wage this war in iraq. 11:18:29.6 this war has cost us a fortune from our national treasury, a fortune in american lives lost and ruined, our fortune in the ability as a congress to trust our commander in chief and president. we have an opportunity to stand as a group and say what our 11:18:46.2 constituents want us to say. what the army generals want us to say. to say what many of them, those men and women in our armed services in uniform on the frontline want us to say, mr. president rgs adding more troops is not the answer, to 11:19:02.8 fight what has become a civil war is not the answer. the answer we need to have is to begin troops home, to create condition frs the iraqi people to stand up and secure their own country. 11:19:17.5 the iraq study group sent out a plan we support and the president continues to think history will judge him favorably. it has become abundantly clear 11:19:31.1 these forces are not as strong as we have been led to believe. we need to look at redeploying our troops and removing american citizens from harm's way in baghdad and anbar 11:19:47.6 province and forcing the iraqi military to secure these areas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. crowley: i have more that i will submit for the record. i want to see our young men and 11:20:02.8 women home as soon as possible and teend putting them in harm's way. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm honored to yield four minutes to my florida colleague, mr. stearns, a senior veteran of the foreign 11:20:19.1 affairs committee. mr. stearns: ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. stearns: i thank my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the international affairs committee. i want to have the opportunity 11:20:33.6 to speak. i have spoken earlier, but i thought i would bring some simple common sense to my colleagues that perhaps was best brought forward by david broder in the "washington post." david broder is more sympathetic to the democrat 11:20:50.1 point of view than the republicans. but he makes three points that i will echo in my conversation today. basically, we're at the end of the debate, but we're all moving towards a decision. and most of us have already decided. 11:21:05.0 i have some simple common sense i would bring to the attention of my colleagues. when general petraeus was unanimously supported by the senate it was with the idea that he would bring his new thought, his new strategy to this plan in iraq. so don't you think as members 11:21:23.0 of this body we should give general petraeus an opportunity to implement his plan and not immediately come forward with the resolution that says that it is a disapproving of the decision to deploy more troops 11:21:39.2 to iraq? when we deployed more troops for the iraqi elections, why didn't you complain then? that happened twice before. when we deployed more troops to ratify the iraqi constitution, 11:21:54.3 why didn't you complain back then? that went up to almost 160,000. so now you are coming against a simple new strategy with the best we have in america who actually has written the manual 11:22:09.9 on how to do it. you are not even willing to give him a chance. no breathing space. this nonbinding resolution shows your motives which are to eventually reduce all funding for iraq. my third point is you are so 11:22:25.8 willing to do this, you are not even willing to look at what could happen with this new strategy. let's say it works. are you still going to offer these resolutions to cut off funds even though this strategy works? 11:22:39.5 general petraeus is successful? no matter what you seem hell bent on reducing funds for iraq yet we didn't hear any time before when we increased the surge for the iraqi elections or the ratification of the constitution. 11:22:57.5 you know, in a way, bush went to your retreat with a willingness to listen to your ideas. he is showing bipartisanship. in fact he has a quote here which i think illustrates what the american people are saying. what really matters, quote, is 11:23:13.1 what happens on the ground. i can talk all day long but really what really matters to the american people is to see progress. so he realizes also that he must show progress. we are asking for -- the speaker pro tempore: the 11:23:27.2 gentleman's time has expired. mr. stearns: to have a chance -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. skelton: i yield five minutes to my friend, the gentlelady from new york, the chairman of the the small -- the chair woman of the small 11:23:46.2 business committee for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for five minutes. ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. mr. speaker, i rise today first and foremost to praise the 11:24:02.6 courage, performance and commitment of our troops stationed in iraq and elsewhere. we are immensely grateful for their sacrifices. because of this war in iraq today the lives of 135,000 military families are 11:24:19.6 disrupted. and 125,000 civilian contractor families are divided. nearly 4,000 u.s. soldiers and civilian contractors have 11:24:29.6 already given their lives. we have lost over 140 young new york military men and women in iraq. i voted against this war from day one. it was a mistake then and it is a mistake today. 11:24:44.4 this week we have a chance to act. escalation is wrong and we must make it -- take it upon ourselves to make things right by seeking a political solution to this war. this administration's flawed 11:25:00.6 foreign policy has damminged our relationship with our allies. the public opposes this war, iraqis oppose this war, the world opposes this war and this congress should speak loudly against this war, too. 11:25:16.7 our military has been stretched to the brink of breakdown. our actions in iraq have set back the war on terror. and made problems in the middle east much worse. this war has distracted us from 11:25:31.9 our responsibilities at home, too. poverty is raging. millions have lost their jobs and health insurance. families struggle to pay for the cost of transportation, energy and housing, yet we choose to spend $8 billion of 11:25:49.6 hard-earned money every month in iraq not at home. while the cost of the war escalates our most important social programs for our kids, the elderly and the poor get slashed to pay for it. we have dug a deep hole of debt 11:26:05.9 to finance this war in iraq. and we will ask the children of working families to pay off that debt. these priorities are misplaced. we should be investing in our chirp, not borrowing against their future. 11:26:21.4 our young men and women return from iraq with all sorts of health problems, both physical and psychological. the trauma of this war will affect the lives of our veterans forever. this resolution expresses our 11:26:36.9 commitment to supporting our veterans' needs. we must honor the sacrifices of our veterans, that they have made for this nation. we must provide for them from the moment they get home to their families. 11:26:50.9 i believe this war is more wrong today than ever before. we must stand forcefully for what is right for our troops, for the victims of this war, and for the priorities we are neglecting at home. lest this body the world a 11:27:08.4 powerful mental that the united states is changing course in iraq. we must end this war, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. king: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, 11:27:23.3 mr. gingrey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. gingrey: thank you. i rise for the second time during this 36-hour marathon to strongly oppose this, i want to almost say meaningless 11:27:41.4 resolution, mr. speaker. but make no mistake about it, this is not a meaningless russian. the consequences of failure in iraq are drastic. let me just read to you what some of those are. number one, collapse of a 11:27:58.1 democratic iraqi government likely, very likely leading to mass killings and genocide in the nation. al qaeda and other terrorist groups would use this defeat to boost recruitment, they would use iraq as a staging ground 11:28:14.7 for deadly attacks paid for with iraqi oil revenue. iran and syria would exert tremendous influence over the region. you think they are bad actors now, you just wait until this scenario plays out. 11:28:29.9 and indeed and they have said that israel would be pushed into the sea. mr. speaker, the real democratic plan is coming later. and if you don't believe me, i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle just read a recent 11:28:47.7 article this week in roll call. i'm not going to stand up here and read it to the members. you can read it. but the progressive caucus of the house democratic conference, the out of iraq caucus of the house democrat conference led by ms. woolsey 11:29:04.4 and ms. waters basically say that this is just the first step. they say that in this op-ed article. this resolution is not meaningless. it is a first step, my colleagues, toward cutting off funding for the troops. 11:29:19.1 and pulling the rug out from under them. what does this say, then, to our fighting -- brave fighting 11:29:30.3 men and women who are trying to defend this country. we have heard, look, we can't afford this war anymore. it is costing too much in lives and money. 11:29:43.2 we are making too big a commitment there and we neeped to bring our troops home because some other conflict may break out in this world. i say mr. speaker and to my colleagues, what is more important than the current war? what indeed are we going to save our troops for? 11:29:59.6 working the rope lines at fourth of july parades, helping senior citizens cross the street. we have got to stop this and stop it now. this idea -- listen to what -- listen to what the terrorists themselves say about the mental 11:30:15.3 that that would send. this is a quote, mr. speaker, from osama bin laden himself. hostility toward america is a religious duty, and i'm confident that muslims will be able to end the -- the speaker pro tempore: the 11:30:31.5 gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri. mr. king: extra 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. gingrey: thank you, mr. speaker. and i am confident that muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower 11:30:47.9 that is america. his top deputy, bin laden's top deputy, says the jihad in iraq requires several incremental goals. the first stage, expel the americans from iraq. make no mistake about this, what we are doing with this 11:31:05.1 resolution is not a salute to g.i. joe, it's a capitulation to jihadist joe. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, it's my privilege to yield five minutes to my friend from california, the gentleman who 11:31:21.3 is also the chairman of the education and labor committee, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for all of his hard work in struggle with this issue and the protection of our 11:31:38.2 troops and our force strength. but i rise in strong support of this bipartisan resolution regarding the iraq war. i rise in strong support of this resolution to say to the president, no more. i rise in strong support of this resolution to say to the 11:31:53.7 president, your policy is wrong. yes, you have tried the surge before, and the surge is not -- has not brought peace to iraq t. has not brought an end to the insurgency, it has not brought an end to the sectarian war that is going on in that country every day. 11:32:08.5 yes, this is the fourth time the president has tried this policy and it has not worked many of those times. when we passed this bipartisan resolution, the president should pause because at that moment the president will not have the support of the united states house of representatives 11:32:26.5 and at that moments the president will also not have the support of the people of the united states. and the president better think long and hard about he really believes that he should commit these troops, continue to commit these troops without the 11:32:42.2 authority of the people, without the authority of this congress. mr. speaker, members of the house, american men and women have been fighting in iraq, they will soon begin their fifth year. for five years they have done all that we have asked them. but what we have asked them to 11:32:57.4 do cannot be accomplished by the military. we have known for some time that iraq now requires a political solution and it requires the iraqi government, the iraqi people, the iraqi society, and the communities to take hold of their country and to decide whether they want a 11:33:14.1 future of continued sectarian violence or whether they want an orderly society. they must make that decision. the president has had it wrong for many, many months, for many years. he has continued to say that as the iraqis stand up we will 11:33:29.6 stand down. mr. president, you have it wrong. as we begin to stand down, they will begin to stand up. the fact that our military troops are on the streets of baghdad and anbar province and elsewhere enables people to continue a level of violence 11:33:45.9 that randomly and wantonly takes the lives of men, women, and children, innocent bystanders for almost no good reason at all. no good reason at all. it allows that to continue because each side knows if it gets out of control the american troops will ride to 11:34:00.8 the rescue, the helicopters will come, and the missiles will fly. we are the enablers of the continuation of this violence. once they have to take responsibility for their actions, once we leave, this is no longer an insurgency, this is crime on crime, iraqi 11:34:16.4 against iraqi. and somebody's got to take the responsibility for that, and that will not be us. we will not be able to bring it to an end. the iraqi government will be. the time has come for our 11:34:27.9 troops to leave. the time has come for us to understand that we cannot cure what is wrong in iraq. but for these troops that are there and for the troops that are being sent in spite of the will of the american people and the will of the congress, we ought to understand that they ought to be fully equipped. 11:34:43.7 we should not repeat the history of this administration and this deployment where young men and women were sent into this theater without proper body equipment, without proper armor, without a proper understanding and without a proper training. members come to this floor now 11:34:59.4 for many hours and said what is the message you are sending to your troops? what is the message congress is sending? what was the message this congress sent to the troops when allowed this president to go to war without enough troops to secure the peace? what was the message of this congress when it allowed them 11:35:15.2 to go to combat without proper vehicle armor? what was the message of the congress that allowed them to go into combat without proper protective armor? what was the message when it allowed the president to continue his failed course with no adjustment over the last four years? and what was the message we 11:35:30.9 sent to the troops when it allowed the president to effectively draft american volunteers by continuing their tours, shortening their time at home, shortening their time with their families and sending them back without proper training, shortened training, and proper equipment. we cannot do that to the 11:35:45.3 troops. and the message of this resolution is we are not going to do that. we are not going to do that. we are going to make a pledge to you that we will not let you fight and die forever, with no plan to get you out, with no exit plan for you, with no change in the policy that has 11:36:01.3 led so tragically to so many deaths and so many wounded. that's what this resolution is about. and that's the message we must send to the troops, and that's the message we must send to the iraqi people. that they must take responsibility. 11:36:15.9 this surge is not an election day surge. this isn't a constitutional day surge. this is a surge for the purpose, this is an escalation for the purposes of door-to-door combat. street by street, block by block, house by house. yet today we see general skew maker saying in the -- 11:36:37.9 shoemaker saying, these people will not have -- will not have enough interpreters, they will not have civil affairs soldiers, they will not have enough translators. now we are putting them again where they are in the greatest 11:36:50.4 -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. miller: this congress is agreeing to go forward and repeat history and put them at risk when it's not necessary. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. king: mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. speaker, i thank 11:37:05.2 the gentleman for yielding me the time. this is serious matter. we have been discussing this now for days here in the house. but i want to tell you that i'm opposed to this resolution. because it doesn't do anything. i want to see our troops home. 11:37:22.5 i want to see our troops safe. i would venture to say that with the exception of maybe mr. murtha, i have seen and visited more wounded troops, soldiers and marines, in our military 11:37:37.8 hospitals than anybody in this chamber. and i don't want them to be in harm's way any longer. the problem is i have strong recollections of september 11. and even before september 11 i remember the bombing of the 11:37:54.3 u.s.s. cole where our military, our sailors were killed and wounded. i remember the bombings of the american embassies in kenya and tanzania. i remember the bombings of the khobar towers where american airmen were housed in saudi 11:38:09.6 arabia. i remember the bombing of the marine barracks in lebanon, the hostage taking by terrorists, and held hostage for 444 days. i remember all of that, but what i remember that i will never, ever get out of my mind 11:38:28.4 is september 11, being on the highway immediately next to the pentagon when the airplane hit the pentagon and killed many of our friends and colleagues there at the pentagon. i remember going to ground zero 11:38:42.9 just a few days after september 11 to deliver satellite telephones to the police and the firefighters because their existing communications didn't work because of all of the confusion, because of the 11:39:01.6 disruption in the communications lines. i remember the smoke was still rising, the dust was still flying. and i remember the american people demanded that something be done, they were tired of us being subjected to terrorist 11:39:17.0 attacks. americans being killed, and nothing being done about it. the american people demanded that something be done. and they demanded through our 11:39:27.9 congress that something be done. the president was under the pressure and his demand that something be done. congress debated that at the time and 2/3 of the members who were there at the time voted to 11:39:42.2 give the president legal, lawful authority to do whatever had to be done. this congress should be prepared to do whatever has to be done to eliminate the terrorist threat. 11:39:57.9 i don't care whether it's in iraq, whether it's in afghanistan, whether it's in somalia, whether it's in mogadishu, wherever it is we have got to protect americans from the threat of terrorism. and from terrorist attacks. and we need to support our 11:40:15.4 troops who are out there on the frontline making sure that we at home are being protected. these soldiers have been promised by the commander in chief that they are going to have some reinforcements, that they are going to have some 11:40:29.8 help to fight this fight. the aggressive fight that is now finally taking place. when the maliki government was finally pressured to allow us to attack the targets that were real targets, to allow us to go whether they were politically 11:40:45.6 harmful to the maliki government or not. and things have changed. what about the soldiers in the field who were expected that they would get some reinforcements? and that maybe with those reinforcements they might get 11:40:59.6 an extra night's sleep? what about the soldier who had hoped that reinforcements would allow him to sit down to a hot lunch rather than having to grab an m.r.e. and eating that m.r.e. on the run? what about the soldiers in the field who hoped that 11:41:16.1 reinforcements would allow them to find time to read their mail or send a letter to their loved ones back home? mr. speaker, this is a serious issue. mr. speaker, if this house is serious about congress bringing 11:41:34.3 home our troops, then do it right. this doesn't bring any troop home. this doesn't provide any safety or security for our troops. this doesn't provide anything to help with the mission in the global war on terror. 11:41:49.0 if you want to do it right, bring a resolution out here to the floor that does it right, that brings them home, that stops whatever it is that we are doing there in iraq. here's the problem. there's a lot of problems. but you know, if you know 11:42:05.7 anything about what our military troops are doing -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. king: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to -- one additional minute to the gentleman from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the 11:42:20.1 gentleman from florida is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. young: you know that once you get into a battle, once you get into a fight, once you get into a war it's easy to get into the war. you can almost slip into it without recognizing that you are getting into it. but once you are in the fight, 11:42:38.0 getting out is not easy. once you are in the battle, you have several options. you win, or you lose, or you surrender, or you retreat. or you negotiate. who do we negotiate with? 11:42:55.0 negotiating would be nice if we can end this by negotiations. who do you negotiate with? bin laden? you can't even find, if in fact, he's alive. the problem here is, once you get into the fight, we did it 11:43:08.0 with the support of the american people, and we did it with the support of this congress, once you get into the fight it's just not that easy to get out of it unless you win or you lose. winning is better than losing. the speaker pro tempore: the 11:43:23.5 gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. >> i yield five minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from texas, mr. lampson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. lampson: mr. speaker, to -- today is indeed a day for 11:43:41.3 thoughtfulness and courage in this house. as we debate the future of our involvement in iraq, we must not forget that our troops are engaged in armed conflict a half a world away. it is their future and their sacrifice which necessitates 11:43:55.4 this debate today. now is the time when this hallowed institution must dig deeply within its own conscience and rise above the politics and the platitudes which have plagued us for far too long. the american public andure troops demand and expect no 11:44:12.4 less from us. yet no simple solutions face us. let's look first at the decisions we have made. we were advised the conflict in iraq would require more troops, a longer engagement, and an exit strategy. we did not heed that advice and 11:44:28.3 now we face an escalating insurgency of civil war. it's cost more than $380 and climbing fast. we have not been good stewards of taxpayers' money as there 11:44:42.6 has been much corruption and waste in our spending. we were told of imminent success in afghanistan and we pulled out our troops in order to provide an earlier surge in iraq, we were wrong. and we have seen a rise in 11:44:57.7 violence in both countries. we must break this pattern. we can ill afford any further misjudgments. because it is our obligation in this deliberative body to consider every option available. we stand here today to engage 11:45:13.6 in the first substantive discussion of the policies we need to implement in order to succeed in iraq and bring our troops home. it's abundantly clear that iraq has been and remains deeply embedded in the conscience of the american people, as this world watches, we must 11:45:30.1 demonstrate from the well of this house that democracy flourishes only when honest and open debate occurs. this difficult decision, i believe this body has two primary obligations to the american people, one, to fully 11:45:46.4 sut our troops with resources they need to accomplish the missions they are assigned, two, to ensure full accountability for the vital resources we have sent to iraq. this house has neglected both of these obligations for too 11:46:02.2 long. it is time to exercise responsibilities for the troops, the american public and the world. i stand here today in opposition to the proposed troop surge. we all agree that cutting off funding for our troops currently serving in iraq is an 11:46:20.2 untenable option that will send the wrong message. i will never vote to leave our troops stranded. but the question facing us now is how can we vote to put 20,000 additional troops in 11:46:35.8 harm's way without resources and a clear and detaled plan. i cannot support this proposed surge because i stand support of our troops. the current struggle continues to rest with the brave men and women in the armed services. it is no longer fair to our 11:46:51.4 troops to rubber stamp this war. i want them to know that we were deliberative in our decision. i fear the surge will not by itself be sufficient today. it is time for members of both parties to listen to the 11:47:07.3 experts for whose opinion we have asked yet have ignored. our military leaders past and present, the bipartisan members of the iraq study group, and soldiers returning from iraq. it is time for a strategic change in course in iraq, one including diplomacy and 11:47:23.9 education and an honest reconstruction effort. these actions partnered with the actions of the military will show our dedication to improving the lives of all iraqis and making their nation one of peace, freedom, and democracy. 11:47:38.7 i'm not here today to criticize the president or to engage in partisan grand standing. this war is not a partisan issue. i have no doubt that one day the actions of our nation will help bring peace and democracy to the middle east. however, the strategy we are 11:47:57.2 here to debate today remains flawed and too many questions remain unanswered. while my loyalty to and my confidence in our troops remains steadfast, this congress and this nation must today seek a new direction. 11:48:14.1 i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. king: mr. speaker, i am proud to yield seven minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the state of washington, mr. reichert. 11:48:28.5 the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from from the state of washington is recognized for seven minutes. mr. reichert: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i support the troops wholeheartedly and without reservation. i cannot support a resolution that simply opposes a new strategy without offering an 11:48:46.1 alternative plan to win. there is too much at stake. many of you know i was a cop in the seattle area for 33 years. i was the sheriff for eight years. as the sheriff, i had an opportunity to attend a remarkable ceremony. 11:49:02.9 every year a group of naturalized american citizens gathered to remember the circumstances of their arrival in the united states. a group comprised of police officers from vietnam, men that fought side by side our american soldiers. 11:49:20.2 these vietnamese officers assumed the greatest risks, risking their lives and 11:49:27.2 endangering their families to join the united states in their fight for freedom. quhep the united states pulled out of street -- when the united states pulled out of vietnam, there were dire consequences for these men who risked everything to fight with 11:49:41.1 the united states. the officers were rounded up. some were imprisonened for 15 years or more and some were executed. those who managed to flee and escape death made their way to the united states and they left everything in vietnam and made 11:49:58.2 new lives in the united states and they were able to enjoy the freedoms that they had fought for but not in the country that they had hoped for. let me just take a moment to set the staming for this 11:50:13.7 ceremony. as the sheriff i sat down at a round table with many of these vietnamese soldiers and police officers and they came in their uniforms that they brought along with them. those that were able to escape. 11:50:29.8 those that spent 15 to 17 years in a prison camp where they were beaten, where they were tortured, where they lost their freedom. they lost their dignity. but they never gave up hope. when they came here to the 11:50:45.7 united states of america and they come together on this evening to celebrate their freedom and the american flag is brought into that room, those men stand at attention and they salute. but you know what else they do? 11:51:03.1 they cry. when the american flag is brought in they cry. because they lost their freedom but now they know what it is like to have it back. 11:51:21.4 it is a dramatic scene. if we leave too soon in iraq what happened to those vietnamese officers could certainly happen to those iraqi 11:51:34.1 soldiers who bravely fight side by side with our troops today. and i don't use this example as way of comparing this conflict with vietnam as some have done. i believe the two wars are very different. 11:51:47.3 i use it because it could happen again. i never want to attend an event where former iraqi soldiers are attending a similar ceremony. the fact is we are engaged in a global war with people intent on killing us, killing 11:52:04.8 americans and regardless of how we got into iraq, iraq is now the central front of this war. i understand there are many who think we should not have entered raug. we know there was fally intelligence that led us into 11:52:20.2 -- faulty intelligence that led us into iraq, but the war is upon us nonetheless. i am elected to deal with what is happening now. the consequences of declaring an end to the war in iraq without victory would be felt 11:52:34.8 for decades. our enemies around the world would be emboldened, iran and al qaeda would declare victory. our allies in iraq would certainly face bloodshed and our allies around the world would question our resolve to 11:52:50.6 help protect them. our troops are clear about their dedication to their mission. they want to succeed. american soldiers dutyfully responded when we asked them to go to iraq and o.s.u. the dictator, establish an infrastructure and train the 11:53:05.6 iraqis so they are able to protect themselves. now we must do what the troops have asked of us. they have given us their service and in too many cases they have given us their lives. we must give them the opportunity for victory. our current strategy in iraq is 11:53:23.5 failing. and yet failure is not an option. not only for the united states security, but also for the security of the iraqi soldiers and police officers that still fight today side by side with our troops. in november, the american 11:53:38.6 people told us that they wanted a new strategy not because they wanted to lose, but because they want to win. and now we have a new strategy before us. is this new plan going to work? i don't know. 11:53:56.1 no one in this body that will vote on this resolution a nonbinding resolution, knows whether or not this plan will work. but what i do know is we must find a way to achieve victory. and simply saying no to a plan 11:54:10.2 without offering an alternative won't work and it sends a terrible message to our enemies and to our soldiers. this is an historic war. america is engaged in a war for our freedom on a scale we have 11:54:27.0 never experienced before. i understand the dissension, the questions and the uncertainty. i understand the cost is high and the way is unclear. as a cop, i've lost partners. i've lost friends. 11:54:42.2 in the line of duty. i know the pain that causes. i understand the loss. it's sad. it's tragic. and you never forget. but we must remain focused, ladies and gentlemen, please 11:54:59.7 don't let those sacrifices be in vain. madam speaker, or mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution and let's send a message to our enemies and our troops alike, we will always support our young men and women who put their lives 11:55:15.8 on the line for freedom. and they we will give them what it takes to succeed in the missions we have given them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. it is -- mr. klein: it is my honor to yield to the gentleman 11:55:34.5 from indiana, mr. hill. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana for five minutes. mr. hill: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hill: our brave men and women in iraq have answered every call, accomplished every task, won every battle. 11:55:51.4 our brave men and women in iraq have fought valiantly. they have executed their mission with quiet dignity and with honor that is worthy of our praise. in looking back at all our military has done, there has been no task that these brave 11:56:07.7 men and women haven't accomplished. ney have risen to every occasion. however, we are not here to just applaud our troops' performance. we are here to ask if the surge direction the president is 11:56:21.9 taking us is the right direction for these brave troops? is it the right direction for our country? and is it the right direction for the people of iraq? the answer is unequivocally no. for the last four years of this conflict, the president has 11:56:38.6 relied on the judgment of his military to execute this war and to follow their advice. now at this critical hour, he has chosen to ignore their expertise and advice. the join chiefs have unanimously disagreed with the 11:56:54.2 surge. general james conway, commander of the marine corps is quoted as saying, we do not believe that just adding numberings -- numbers for the sake of adding numbers is necessarily the way 11:57:10.1 to go. general john abizaid has met with every divisional commander and asked if we were to bring more american troops now does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success. they all said no. general colin powell has said 11:57:25.3 the surge will not work. general wesley clark, ambassador holbrook, oliver north, michael vicker, richard hoss have all said the surge will not work. and the list goes on and on and on. 11:57:41.3 why does the president, mr. speaker, choose to ignore expert after expert soldier after soldier who say the surge will not work? even general petraeus has said, and i quote, the way ahead will be neither quick nor easy and 11:58:00.1 undoubtedly there will be tough days. we have a determined, adaptive barbaric enemy. he will try to wait us out. any such endeavors is a test of wills and there are no guarantees. 11:58:13.6 mr. speaker, former secretary of state james baker has said there is no magic bullet to solve the problem of iraq, no single answer, no quick fix. from this microphone over the last two days my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 11:58:29.7 have tried to frame this debate about success and failure in iraq. that debate is for another day. today and tomorrow the debate is about the wisdom or the lack of wisdom for the surge. the president and the members of his party today need to 11:58:46.1 listen to the experts who if they had relied upon in the past to do otherwise cast doubts about who the president is listening to. mr. speaker, i firmly believe that this surge in the troops is the wrong policy at the wrong time in the wrong war. the actions that need to be 11:59:03.1 taken to help the iraq people and ultimately bring our brave men and women home safely is not as simple as rushing more troopts to the frontlines. mr. speaker, a while ago i heard my good friend and colleague from indiana speak 11:59:18.7 about how the iraq study group said that a surge is something that probably is necessary. but there's more to the story 11:59:27.3 than a military surge. they recommended economic surge, and diplomatic surges, not just military. i talked to one of the iraq study members just yesterday who told me that a military surge by itself will not work. 11:59:42.4 the military has done all it can do and they have done it very well. now is the time to move in a different direction, mr. speaker. vote for this resolution. vote no to the surge. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the 11:59:57.3 gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. king: mr. speaker, it is my privilege to yield four minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from oklahoma, mr. sullivan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for four minutes.

TVU 20 2020 CANDIDATES GALIVANTS FERRY SC STUMP HEAD ON ABC UNI 091619 2020 KLOBUCHAR 182256 Thank you. Thank you, South Carolina, thank you john It is so great to be here. What a beautiful, beautiful sight, with all of you. So many democrats gathered in one place. I want to thank Sally Howard, the Holiday family, and the PD farms general store for hosting this world famous stuff. I guess this is your year 143, and that is pretty impressive. I want to thank a number of people. One of them is not here -- two who aren't here I want to start with Congressman Cliburn, who is such a champion for your state. 182333 Also I got to see Joe cutting him, which was incredible, earlier today. We're so proud of him, and someone else I got to meet just a little bit. I visited him a few times when I was here to help candidates over the last decade, and that's Fritz Hollings who we miss so much. And there's a funny Minnesota- South Carolina connection, and that is that my mentor Paul Wellstone who sadly died in a plane crash. He used to tell the story of his very first speech on the Senate floor. He was so proud of himself and Senator Hollings comes over and approaches him. 182414 He was there, and Senator Hollings in his inimitable way, says to Paul Wellstone "Young man, you remind me of Hubert Humphrey. " [laughter] Paul is overjoyed. He's so honored and he says, "OhSenator Hollings, Thank you so much." 182432 And he says, Hollings says, Let me finish young man. You talk too much. So I want to thank my opponents who are here tonight, Buttigieg, Biden and de Blasio okay what do they have in common? B. B names, and I say one thing. "A" comes before "B". But I am going first. 182459 I'm going first a good story about going first, a bit involving the south, and this was the first time I ever got invited to the White House. I hadn't even been there on a tour. I was the local prosecutor in Hennepin County Minnesota, and I got invited because I'd done work on hate crimes. Very important. Bill Clinton was the president, he was unveiling the big hate crimes bill, the Matthew Shepard Bill, and I got invited and at the last minute they invited me to introduce the President. This very formal thing in the East Room, never even been there, standing outside with my little piece of paper. 182533 I've got Bill Clinton on one side, I've got Janet Reno on the other side, the band starts playing Hail to the Chief you know, do do dodo. I start walking in and all of a sudden I feel this big hand on my shoulder and his voice says, "I know you're gonna do great out there, but when they play that song. I usually go first." This is a true story. That is a true story. President Clinton remembers that story. 182600 He will -- you can ask him, and I can tell you this, my friends in South Carolina, that might have been my first time in the White House, but it won't be my last. 182616 Our states actually have more in common than you might think. You know, you've got southern hospitality. We've got Minnesota-nice. You in South Carolina are home to the world's largest roller-skate. Minnesota is home to the world's largest hockey puck. You have a former governor who hiked the Appalachian Trail. We don't have a governor that hiked that trail...Oh, that's right you don't either. 182646 You have the Rice Museum in Georgetown, and we have the world's only---world's only museum entirely devoted to Spam or as we call it the gugen-ham. And we share something else and that is a tradition of independent voters, people that maybe will change and vote differently from time to time, which is what we're betting on in this election. For people like Jamie, and if you don't believe me about Minnesota---I have three words for you, Governor Jesse Ventura. All right. 182721 So, what do we need to do in this election? Well what you did in the first congressional district, over there. You did the right thing when you elected Joe Cunningham, right? And we made the House of Representatives the people's house again. And we need to bring those voters with us, so that gets to my argument here for my candidacy. And that is that in 2020, we don't just need to win, my friends, we need to win big. We need to win big. We need to win big in the White House, why? Because that is how we bring back the US Senate. 182801 That's how we win here in South Carolina in the senate race, and that is how we send Mitch Mcconnell packing , by winning big. That's how we do it. That's how we do it. And I can tell you right now, I don't want to be the president for just half the country. I want to be the president for all the country, and you want to have someone heading up that ticket that understands rural, that is able to bring along not just our fired up base that we see out here, but also independents and moderate Republicans, and I've done it every place, every race, every time. 182838 Yes, South Carolina democrats, I have won Michele Bachmann's district three times. Okay. You do this by winning big. I think you all know how high the stakes are, what a big deal this is, how we can't afford to lose because right now we have a president who is running this country like a game show. Right? He would rather lie than lead. He seems to only care about himself all the time, his own business interests. I said the other day, I sent out a tweet that did better than all his tweets a few weekends ago, and I said, "What's the difference between Donald Trump and Greenland? Greenland is not for sale." 182928 And you know why he does that stuff? You know why he brings up things like Greenland, why he talked -- He wants to distract us. Right and he does it in the meanest ways. He uses immigrants, as political pawns. He belittles people including in his own party that don't always agree with him, destroying our democracy with dark money and voter suppression and allowing a foreign country to make mincemeat out of our democracy. 182954 Well, I think we can be different. I think we need a candidate that understands that what unites us as a country, whether it's the south, the Midwest, whether it's the east, whether it's the West, that what unites us is bigger than what divides us. That's what we need and that was the message I sent out if any of you watched the debate. Right. That was what I was saying to people. That we need to do. Now, we've got a president right now, where literally when he goes on TV, you know how you used to watch your president maybe with someone you didn't vote for someone you don't agree with, but when he was on TV or when she will be on TV, you listened out of respect. 183035 Right, you listened because they had a message for the nation. You had your kids listen. You had your grandkids listen. Well we are at a point in our country right now, when parents see that President coming up at a rally or somewhere else what did they do? They turn the volume down. They can't even hear what he says, and I will promise you this, when I'm president you will not turn the volume down and you will be proud of the President of the United States. 183100 And my message to you out there is that if you feel stuck in the middle of the extremes in our politics or you are tired of the noise and the nonsense. You have a home with me. Because, South Carolina, the stakes are high. We have a president who literally said there were two sides after Charlottesville. Well there are not two sides when one side is the Klu Klux Klan. There is only one side and that is the American side. 183130 We have a president that has let all these tax cuts go to the wealthy. Right? Think of what he's done. How he's built up this debt, make that argument to your friends, independent, moderate, republican, friends that he has added to the debt daily. That he gave us a tax bill that those republicans voted for that added a trillion dollars to the debt. So you asked what party has been fiscally responsible when you look back through time. 183159 When you look at President Clinton and President Obama, it is not the Republican Party, and it is not - It is not Donald Trump. He is literally right now, treating our farmers and we are in a big rural community here, treating our farmers and treating our workers, like they are poker chips in one of his bankrupt casinos and if we're not careful, he is going to bankrupt the country. 183225 And one thing that I think we need to emphasize more and we haven't even been asked a question about world issues in a big way in the debate. I think we have to be the party, this time, of rural America. You know why? It is the democratic party that is worried about your rural hospitals that are closing in South Carolina. right? it is the democratic party that is standing up for education. It is the democratic party that's standing up for no lead in your water and yes, it is a democratic party that standing up when it comes to climate change. That's what we need to do. 183301 I am proud to have the support of Collin Peterson, who heads up the Agriculture Committee in the House of Representatives, and that is because I'm the only candidate that was up on that stage at that debate, who asked to be on the Agriculture Committee and has served on it through many farm bills, who has stood up for farmers, who stood up---and this will help South Carolina---for that exemption to allow hemp to be grown as we move forward with our agriculture community in this state. 183332 I believe that food doesn't just magically end up at the table, right? It doesn't. Someone works hard and someone makes that food, and that's why we have to work so hard to make sure that we have a president that looks out for rural America. And when it comes to climate change, this is my plan. On day one, I will sign us back into the international climate change agreement. [applause] We can do that. We can do that, South Carolina. We can do that without Congress. Day Two, bring back the Clean Power rules, day three bring back the gas mileage standards, day four, five, and six introduce sweeping legislation, and on day seven, you're supposed to rest but I won't. 183413 Gun safety, you ever proud hunting state. I come from a proud hunting state. Well we have reached the point in our country where the majority of hunters actually want to see background checks. The majority of Trump voters want to see background checks. And that's why, when we go back to Washington, when I go back tonight, we've got to push Mitch McConnell to allow that bill, and closing the Charleston loophole and closing the boyfriend loophole to get on for a vote, because if we get a vote, we win. The public is with us. That's what we need to do. [applause] 183452 So, what do you tell those voters in South Carolina who voted for Donald Trump? And you know some of them are ready to change. You tell them, we don't want a whiner in the White House, out of South Carolina. Literally, what has he done? He came in and our economy was resilient because of our strong workers, because of our union workers, because of our businesses, and we got out of that hole that we were in, and he inherits that economy. What does he do? He gloats about it, pretends he had something to do with it. And then, when things get challenging, when the long term outlook's bad, when because of his trade war we have an all time trade deficit of $791 billion. 183532 What does he do then? He blames other people. He blames the head of the Federal Reserve. He blames his own people that want to see some change in the trade agreements. He blames the President Obama, seriously, he did that. He blames the entire country of Denmark, right. That is what a whiner does, and you got to explain to these people who voted for him---a lot of them thought we were going to get infrastructure. We haven't gotten infrastructure. A lot of them thought they were going to get change. It hasn't happened. 183601 So this is how I think we beat this guy. One, we cross the river of our divides. That's why I announced in the middle of the Mississippi River, in the middle of a blizzard with four inches of snow on my head, because I wanted to make that point. Secondly, we have an optimistic economic agenda for this country where we bring people with us. We bring down the cost of health care, and the way I think you do it is with a public option. So we have a way to compete with the insurance companies. 183631 We take on pharmaceutical prices by allowing our seniors to negotiate Medicare to get a better deal. I lead that bill in the Senate. And yes we bring in less expensive drugs from other countries like Canada. In Minnesota, we can see Canada from our porch. All right, so I see those prices over there, and we bring in less expensive drugs from other countries. That's what we do. We take on climate change, we take on the challenges, we take on education. 183701 My mom she taught second grade until she was 70 years old. I am a proud product of the public schools. My daughter went to public schools, and my mom was a teacher. We need to respect our teachers, and the way we do that is by increasing teacher pay. We need to make it easier for kids to go to college, free two year Community College along for refinancing. If millionaires can refinance their yacht, students should be able to refinance their student loans. 183733 That's what we need. Last thing I want to talk about here is voting rights because all of these things we've talked about that are so important for South Carolina: infrastructure, doing something about health care and by the way that includes mental health and addiction and check out on our website, Amy Klobuchar.com, for my own personal experience with my dad had three DWIs. Right. 183756 The week before I got married, or a few weeks before I got married, he got that last one, and he had a choice. Was he going to be, go to jail, or was he going to go to treatment. He picked treatment, and he had insurance that covered that. And because of that, in his words and his faith and his friends and his family, he was pursued by grace. Everyone in this country should have the same right to be pursued by grace. What do we do about voting so that everyone has a seat at the table so we don't have a situation where 53,000 ballots and 53,000 voter registrations, were held back in Georgia? 183833 Where if they had changed those voting laws in Georgia and made it easier to vote, Stacey Abrams would have been the governor of Georgia. What do we do about South Carolina, what do we do about North Carolina, where the court actually said that they had discriminated with surgical precision. Well what do we do? We reauthorize the voting rights act. That's what we do with a new president and a new senate. We pass my bill to allow every kid to automatically register when they turn 18 in this country. 183803 And we pass a citizen amendment, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. That;s what we do, Democrats. I am someone that comes at this race with grit. I don't come with a lot of money, my family - my husband grew up in a trailer home. 5 brothers in 1 trailer home, that was something. Triple bunk beds, okay? 183930 His mom had 4 boys, she wanted to have girls, she got pregnant again and had identical twin boys. That's true story. My husband, as was mentioned, I'm the granddaughter of --(?) --- I'm the daughter of a union teacher and a newspaper man. I'm the first woman elected to the SEnate from the state of Minnesota, and a candidate for President of the United States. That's what shared dreams are about in this country. And if we want to win, as I said, if we want to win big, we've got to make sure we win those states. 184001 The states of Pennsylvania that we lost last time. I'm going on this blue wall tour after we leave here. The state of Wisconsin, right? The state of Michigan. Those are states that we lost and we have to do so well that we bring Jamie and we bring Joe Cunningham and we win in the state of South Carolina. So how do we do this? We do this by uniting by a candidate and not giving up. And if every moment that you feel like you want to give up because this guy says something that you can't believe in the morning or he tweets something out to divide people, and you want to put the blanket over your head, you remember the March that we are on. 184039 You remember that the day after the inauguration, that dark day, that millions of people across this country, including in this state, peacefully marched. You remember that day. And you remember that day after that, 6,000 women signed up to run for office. That happened. And then, on day 9 when that mean spirited refugee order, what happened? People spontaneously showed up at the airport to protest that order. They showed up at non-international airports on a Saturday night. 184113 And then you fast forward to my favorite march, the March for Science with my favorite sign. What do we want? Science. When do we want it? After peer review. [laughter] Then you go to the summer, where the fighting 48 democrats stood together. 184129 Then three republicans joined us cause we stood together and we defeated their effort to repeal the Affordable CAre act and push people off their insurance when they had pre-existing conditions. We did that. They didn't go to the fall (?) The first glimmers of hope, this is a year ago, last fall, when there were those races in Virginia and in New Jersey and legislative districts an we put out this diverse set of candidates that no one thought was going to win in these red districts. This is a lesson to you, South Carolina. And you know what happened? 184157 They won. And my favorite victory was in New JErsey where a guy the day of the women's march said I hope they're home in time to make dinner. That guy got defeated by an Afrifacn American woman. That happened. Then you go to the spring where after that tragedy in Parkland, people joined with the people of Charleston, they joined with the people all over this country. And those kids, they stood up there in Florida. They became icons. 184228 And kids all across the country talked to their dads and their grandpas and said We love hunting to, and our family, but we can have universal background check.s we can do something about magazine limits, and those kids didn't just talk. They marched. And then they voted in record levels in the midterm. And then comes the midterm, with the election of Joe Cunningham when we made the House of Representatives the people's House again. That is the march that we are on. That's the march that's going to lead us right into November of 2020. 184255 And South Carolina Democrats, I want to lead this March because I know how important it is to win in states like yours because I have the track record to do it. And because you, at my side, are the people that have made this arc of justice even shorter. You are the welders that got us through this. Let's go ahead. Let's win this race and let's send Donald Trump back to where he came from Thank you, South Carolina! ### BUTTIGIEG 184814 Thank you, you know how to make a guy from South Bend feel welcome in South Carolina. I appreciate it. And thank you to Walter and all of the organizers like him who are empowering the ground game that is going to help us win this election. Everytime I come to this state I think about the first time that I saw those tall trees. It was out the windows of the bus that was taking me to Fort Jackson. I was a Navy guy so I wasn't exactly sure what I was supposed to be doing in Fort Jackson, but when you sign up for the needs of the Navy are what comes first. And for some reason, the Navy decided they needed me to go do army stuff. 184857 So they sent me here to South Carolina. In other words, the first time I came here it was in order to prepare to serve. And now, I am here once again prepared to serve and asking for your help in making that happen [applause]. Friends, I'm running for President because I believe that our country is running out of time. Our country's in a crisis. The American people are divided, discouraged, and doubtful at the very moment we need to be rising to meet some of the toughest challenges we've ever known. 184935 And everyday, we've got a President tweeting out a new outrage in order to distract us from the fact that he's not capable of doing the job. Within a decade, we're going to reach a point of no return on our climate. And yet, the President thinks you can change the weather by taking out a Sharpie and rewriting the map [applause] Our economy is so out of whack that the stock market and the gross domestic product are going up at the same time that life expectancy is going down in this country. 185009 That shouldn't even be possible. And yet, when we first got news that we might have a recession coming, we spent the whole week talking about whether we were going to keep upsetting Denmark over a proposal to buy Greenland. We oughta be more worried about how to buy groceries at a time like this. And if you think this first time has been problematic, imagine what would happen if we had to get through a second one. [boos/groans] 185042 What's he gonna do? Pick a fight with Switzerland, maybe? Move the White House ot the Trump Tower. I don't know. We can't let it happen because our infrastructure, our health, our safety cannot wait. 185101 And if that doesn't happen the world will finish doing what it's already starting to do, which is to prepare for a century without American leadership and we just can't let that happen. Now, the chaos is so mesmerizing that it has us all doing one of two things, I think. Either we can't watch anymore and we get depressed, and we just tune out, or we can't look away, which is how we respond sometimes when there's a wreck. We can't look away. 185132 But we've got to do something different from either of those things. We got to recognize the urgency of the moment and we got to summon the courage to act. Because what's at stake in 2020 isn't just the outcome of one election, I believe it is the future of the American project, and that depends on us. That means we got to summon the courage to change the trajectory of this country not four years from now, not 10 years from now, but right now. 185202 These problems have been brewing for years. Certainly where I come from growing up in the so called rust belt in northern Indiana, passing collapsing Studebaker factories and empty houses on the way to school, not knowing that was unusual in a city until I moved away to go to college. I've seen how politics affects us in our everyday life, how a chain of events that starts in one of those big white buildings in WAshington winds up reaching into our lives, into our home, our paychecks, our family. 185235 There are people in my life who have been saved by the Affordable Care Act. And people I cared about killed by the opioid crisis. My family's finances were saved by the existence of Medicare, and right now, they're under pressure because of the existence of 6 figure student debt. The very course of my life was changed by orders that sent me to a foreign war and my marriage exists by the grace of a single vote on the US Supreme Court. 185308 All politics is personal. Nothin about politics is theory, not for me and not for my city. But instead of a politics that is about our day to day lives, right now in Washington, we're seeing a politics that's about the day to day drama of the politicians. About who's up nad who's down. And who looked good in a committee meeting and who got the best zinger off in the debate. 185232 We're sending politicians to Washington in order to fight for us and when they get there, they seem more interested in the part about fighting than the part about us. That's got to change. We can't let our political leaders keep pitting us against each other. They speak of patriotism. But we know that patriotism lies in speaking up for what you believe, not telling somebody who disagrees with you to go back to where they came from. 185403 Especially iof where they came from is Michigan. They speak of faith, but what faith would condone, a budget that cuts food going to hungry hungry children. 185425 What faith condones taking children out of the arms of their parents at the American Border? What ever happened to "I was a stranger and you welcomed me"? Let's talk about faith. [applause] They speak of freedom. We know that freedom is more than just the freedom from taxes for a company like Amazon. We're talking about freedom to organize for a good day's pay for a good day's work, which is why we stand with organized labor. 185459 We're talking about the freedom to be treated equally regardless of your race, or who you are or your gender and yes, freedom means the freedom to control your own body and make your own medical decisions. Not have politicians do it for you. Don't let them divide us around the very values that are supposed to hold our country together. Cause rihgt now we see an America gripped in a crisis of belonging. 185527 Prices so profound that people are self medicating and deaths from dispair are on the rise. That wall on the border is never going to get built, but real walls are being built within our families and our communities and our churches to where Thanksgiving dinner is starting to feel like a minefield. Our anxiety is going up and our trust in our fellow Americans is going down. Instead of having each other's backs, they've got us at each other's throats. 185555 But there's good news. And that is in a few short months you all have the chance to change it. You have a thumb on the scale on the future of this country, and the future of this party. You get to vote, not only to defeat this president, but to do something about the conditions that got him here in the first place because under ordinary circumstances, someone like him never gets within cheating distance in the Oval Office to begin with. We have a chance to do something about that. 185627 You get a chance to be part of an American majority that will come together to deal with our challenges, not just diehard Democrats, but people coming across the aisle, I see one right there, independants, people who were under no illusions about this president but may have voted, just to do anything for a change now we got to actually make sure that change is in the American interest. And that's not going to happen if we act like Donald Trump is just an aberration, it just happened out of the blue. It's not going to happen if we try too hard to play it safe. 185658 Or pretend that we can go back to normal. It's also not going to happen if we water down our values of paper over our differences so you got to squint hard just to tell the difference between a Democrat and Republican. Nor will it happen if we get so trapped in the purity tests that we turn off half the country before we even get to next November. This is the time to unify the American people. This is a time for ideas that are bold enough to get the job done andcapable of bringing us together. 185727 And if you think about it, that's how Democrats win. From john f kennedy to Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton to Barack Obama. We win when we offer leadership from a new generation with new ideas, calling America to be better than it's been. That's where we are at our best (?) And that means, offering that new generation with a politics that is grounded in our everyday lives. So when I'm the nominee, this president can call us socialists all he wants. 185802 But I worked in the private sector and I partnered with the private sector to bring jobs and investment into our community. We know what it takes to create economic growth. When I am your nominee, this president will do all we can to paint us as the party of Washington, but I spent my career in South Bend, Indiana, serving a city that was told that we were dying and bringing real solutions to improve real people's lives. When I'm the nominee this president can talk tough, throw himself military parades, hug the flag every now and then. 185835 But I've faced worse kinds of incoming than a tweet full of typos. And I don't mind reminding a guy who was getting ready for season seven of Celebrity Apprentice while I was out here figuring out how to use a rifle, I don't mind having a debate with him about who's going to be a better commander in chief. 185907 When I'm the nominee we're gonna work to make sure not only that we win but then we deserve to win and set the stage for a presidency, that will put forward solutions, bold enough to actually meet the challenges of our time. I want you to picture that presidency with me. 185929 Of what you imagine what would it be like to have a presidency that offers Vision Without decisiveness. A president who gets up in the morning, not thinking about who hurt his feelings on cable, but about how to make your life better. I want you to picture what it would be like to turn on the news and see what's coming out of the White House and feel your blood pressure going down instead of up. 190000 And that means delivering for the American people, bold and unifying means things like what I call Medicare for All Who Want It. (points) And thank you to those who are raising their voices on the affordability of prescription drugs right now. 190028 Soo the way I see it, when we create that public alternative, empowered to negotiate drug prices, and available to every American. It's going to be better. It's going to be better than those private options out there, but if I'm right, then you're going to be able to decide that on your own. So instead of kicking you off your plan, we're going to create a new one. Let you vote with your feet, and let you decide if and when that's the right thing to do. 190050 Instead of showing tax cuts on the wealthiest, we're going to build an economy that actually works for everyone. And that means lifting wages, empowering workers, respecting unions and investing in rural economies that are not getting enough support right now. We're going to see to it that we treat mental health in such a way that it is a routine to get seen by a psychologist as it is to go in for a physical, and we're going to break the stigma around dealing with addiction too. 190127 I want you to picture a presidency where your head of environmental protection actually believes in climate change and feels responsible for protecting the environment. And where we make dealing with climate into a national project that enlists the energies of every American. Whether you live in a city or work on a farm or serve in the military. It's going to take all of us. 190156 And as your president, you can expect me to appoint a secretary of education who actually believes in public education. I think it;s about time. We will tackle systemic racism with the Douglass Plan for black america as ambitious a shte marshall that rebuilt Europe, but this time right here at home to make sure that systemic racism does not ruin the prospects of a future generation. 190237 And that means not only tearing down things like the prison industrial complex but building up things like entrepreneurship in the black community that's creating jobs and opportunity for the next generation. And thinking back to my time in uniform and how I learned to trust and repsect and like people with totally different backgrounds, from different regions and with different politics than mine. 190304 We're going to create a million paid national volunteer service opportunities a year that Americans can sign up for, serve, get to know each other, and make a difference in their country. Because what we need more than anything is that fabric, that bonding, and you shouldn't have to go to war in order to get it. We need to come together as one. 190330 And I believe that is the purpose of the Presidents. I think that's what the presidency is for. The function of the presidency is not the glorification of the President, it is the unification the people around dealing with the biggest challenges that we face. And as much as we need to get better policies in this country, the presidency is about more than that. 190357 I don't think we appreciated the unwritten job of the presidency and still be -- until we started having to live without it. But that is the moral leadership, the responsibility to call us to our highest values. That is part of what the presidency is for. That is how we build up a sense of belonging in a country where right now we're feeling only isolation. I keep thinking about a young woman in Iowa, maybe 13 years old who came up to me recently and told me what this campaign meant to her. 190426 She told me because of this campaign, I feel like I can be myself now I feel like I can go to school, and be who I am, and talk about my values and share my beliefs and not be ashamed. And I thought I knew exactly what she was about to say. Because so many young people inspire me by expressing that, when I have shared the truth of who I am, it's made it easier for them to do the same. But then she said something I wasn't expecting. She went on she said, I know that I can come forward, I don't have to be ashamed that I have autism. 190458 And I thought, Now we're getting somewhere as a campaign. Because everyone means everyone. And we got to build up a country where everyone belongs, everyone can contribute. And everyone ought to be proud to be who they are. That's what we have the opportunity to do, to enlist all of us in a better vision for what this country can be. To knit back together one country, one American story where every one of us belongs. 190527 And if we do that, the future doesn't have to be such a bleak place. So here, at an event that traces its roots, to just a little while after the Civil War, we got to remember that some of our dark moments sometimes bring out the best in us. What is good in America, dare I say what is great in America. And I can't wait to tell our future children what we did now, to give them a better world. To tell them, we set up an economy where we protect workers as well as jobs and see to it, that a rising tide really does lift all boats. 190600 Starting in 2020. I'll tell them, you woulnd't believe, once upon a time we got to where the electoral college could overturn the American people twice in my lifetime. But then we had the vision to see to it that in this country, we give the presidency to whoever gets the most votes. We're going to tell them displayed tweeted about a day where your race had no bearing on your health, or your wealth, or life expectancy or your relationship with law enforcement in this country. Once upon a time to change your learning active shooter drills before they learn how to read. But then we saw on the courage to get weapons of war off of our streets. I'll take such pride in telling them how we beat the odds and God ahead of climate change before it ruin their opportunities in life. running for office is an act of hope. And so it's helping somebody run for office not naive hope. It is the hope of those who cannot afford to go back. It is the hope of those who insist on something better than trying to be great again, because there is no again in the real world. It is about some realize that the future is where we are going to spend every minute of the rest of our lives. So we better make sure that it is better than the present. We believe we can do that believing is so much better. So are you ready to make sure that that's a reality. Show pick up and change something man. asking your support in this journey with open our hearts and with fire in our belly. Let's go forward all the way to the White House and beyond. Thank you. And now we got Joe 36 years go by himself is a leader in Beijing some of our nation's most important United States chobani continued his leadership on the board issues facing the nation fighting to raise living standards of middle class Americans finally reduce gun violence fighting to address violence against women. And through the Cancer Moonshot be level headed is to output cancer as we know it. This is my favorite. BIDEN 191124 Great to be back at the stump. I'm Joe Biden, I'm Jill Biden's husband. Folk,s before I begin, on a slightly serious note, I know that our friend, your friend, my friend, Jim Fiverr (?) was going to be doing some introductions today. But he couldn't be here. He was -- I know, you all know him not only as a great congressman, he;s a great husband, great dad. And he's leading his family through a very, very tough time right now. 191157 And I think I can speak for all of us when I say that all of us, all of us here are for him. And of course we're praying for Jim and miss Emily. Folks, you know, I can't come to South Carolina without thinking of my buddy Fritz Hollings. He;s the guy, as they say up my way he's the guy that brung me to the dance. I didn't want to go to the Senate after the accident involving my family when I got elected when I was 29. 191233 And he and he gathered up 5 other senators, 4 other senators and came up amd talked me into coming and I remember him saying Joe, only 1700 and two people ever been sworn in, your wife worked like the devil to get you here, and you owe it to her. And just come and stay for six months. 191256 Six months turned into a long, long time. You know, he was, you know some people are their state. You can look at them and you can pick which state they're from before you know where they're from. Fritz was South Carolina through and through. And he always made it a point to come to this great event and encouraged me to do it. I did very early on. And for the Holiday family. I want to say thank you. Thank you, thank you, because they have kept this tradition, which should never die. 191328 Should never die. And Russel has been a great friend to my sisters as well and Sally Howard for organizing this event. I telll you what, it seems to get better and bigger every year I'm here. You know, yesterday I had an incredible honor of speaking at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama. It was the 56th anniversary of the murder of those four lovely young women. 191358 And we're getting dressed to be in the choir. It was there in remembrance of the bombing that stole their lives. But more than five decades after that horrible day, for all the progress we've made. We also have to acknowledge that there can be no realizations of the American dream, without grappling -- continuing to grapple with the original sin of slavery brought to these shores over 400 years ago. 191429 A century long campaign of violence, four centuries worth, that, in fact, fear and trauma brought upon black people this country. Domestic terrorism and white supremacy have been the antagonists of our highest ideals from our very beginning. Lynch mobs, arsonist, bomb makers, lone gunmen, and we all now realize that violence, violence does not live in the past. If you give it oxygen, it comes back. The same poisonous ideology that lit the fuse at the 16 Street, pulled the trigger at Mother Emanuel, and by the way, the pastor at Mother Emanuel was there at the 16th Street Church. 191516 It also has unleashed anti semitism in Pittsburgh and Poway. We saw a white supremacist gun down innocent Latinos in El Paso parking lot with a military style weapon, declaring it would stop, quote, "the Hispanic invasion of America---of Texas." You know, the President's words matter. They matter. They can move markets, they can send our brave women and men to war, that can bring peace. They can appeal to the better angels of our nature. But they can also unleash the deepest, darkest forces in this nation. 191557 When he said after Charlottesville---when President Trump said and that's what he's done, he's unleashed those darkest forces. When he said after Charlottesville there were, quote, "very fine people on both sides," he gave license and safe harbor to hate, to white supremacists, neo nazis and the KKK. And in doing so, he assigned the moral equivalence between those spewing hate to those who have the courage, like all of you, to stand against it. I said at the time that we're in a battle to the soul of this nation. 191633 I said it the day I announced and I say it again here today, we are in the battle for the soul of this nation. That's why I'm running for president united states. [applause] The country can overcome with difficulty four years of Donald Trump, but give him eight years in the White House with his administration, I believe will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation. 191704 In both clear language and in code, this President has fanned the flames of white supremacy in this nation. Our children are listening. Our children are listening. And our silence is complicity. That's why we must speak out, all of us. When President Obama was president, our children could indeed look up to him. No parent walked up and turn the TV off while he was on the television. 191740 Is President Trump the role model we want for generations to come? [crowd answers "No"] Look, he's trafficking some of the ugliest forces that have long run through the history of this country. So this just can't be a campaign to beat Donald Trump, this has to be a movement grounded in the values and ideals that define this nation at it's best. This has to be a moment, that we stand up and let the world know who we are and what we believe. 191814 And Democrats. The Democrats have an obligation to do more than just win. The New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote about a year ago. He said it was "an invisible Moral fabric that holds up every society. And it's being shredded." It's being shredded. It's being shredded by this president. Not only by his embrace of prejudice in America, but his embrace of the Vlademir Putin, his embrace of Dictators around the world. 191849 When he stands on the world stage across from, on the same podium with the guy who allegedly is the elected president---he is elected President but I---he's a kleptomaniac. The guy named Vladimir Putin. And he says the whole world, "I believe Putin did not interfere in our elections. I don't believe our intelligence agencies." It does us Irreparable damage around the world. 191924 Ladies and gentlemen. The fabric of the society, we all know, is made up of honesty, decency, treating everyone with dignity and respect, giving everyone a fair shot, leaving everyone behind. Demonizing no one---not for the poor and the powerless, the immigrant, the other. Folks. Leading by the power of our example. We're the most powerful military [FEED PAUSES] 192005 ...we understand, we keep our word, that we're a part of something bigger than just ourselves. Folks, the second reason I'm running is to restore the backbone of America---the middle class. Folks. I know I'm Called middle class Joe and It's not meant as a compliment. It meant that I'm not sophisticated, but---excuse my expression---I'm pretty darn sophisticated about who built this country. Wall Street did not build this country. Ordinary Americans doing extraordinary things and who had the chance, are the people who built this country 192044 Working families, middle class families in South Carolina and all of America built this country. Folks. The fact of the matter is my dad used to have a saying. He'd say "Joey, a job's about a lot more than a paycheck. It's about your dignity. It's about respect. It's about your place in the community. It's about being able to look your child in the eye and say, 'honey. It's gonna be okay. It's going to be okay.'" Think now. Go back to your old neighborhoods or right here, we you live now. 192116 Ask the people you know. Do they think they could look their child in the eye and say, "Honey, it's gonna be okay." Over half the American people think their children will never have the standard of living they have. We're no longer the wealthiest middle class in the world. This time, when we rebuild the middle class, we gotta bring everybody back, everybody along. Black, White, everybody. Folks, it doesn't matter your race, your gender and ethnicity or religion. 192149 For me, it's all about restoring the dignity of work. Being able to provide for your family. How can you---You all know personally, when you look at your child or your grandchild. You know they have a problem or they had an opportunity, and there's nothing you can do to help them. How can a parent maintain their dignity looking at a child who has a preexisting condition and knowing they can't afford to insure that a child? Or a child lying in the bed. Or a loved one who has only months to live. And the insurance company coming along to say "you've run out of your coverage. Suffer in peace." 192232 How can that be allowed in America? How can you have dignity, in fact, if you cannot deal with that? Folks. That's why, that's why we need health care for everyone. Everyone in America, as a right, not as a privilege. Folks, the same exists with regard to education. The fact of the matter is. Fact of the matter is that a community can maintain its dignity, it its schools are substandard, when the house you live in is the same as the one across the street, but because you're in a minority neighborhood it's value is less because you pay higher car insurance, because you live in a black neighborhood instead of a white neighborhood. 192318 For the same automobile with the same car record. When the poverty rate for black Americans is twice that of the white Americans. Folks. That's why we have to rebuild the middle class. Start by rooting out the systemic racism that exists, brought into our laws, our politics, our research institutions and, in many cases, our hearts. That's why we have to protect the sacred right to vote. The right from with all other rights flow. We need to support Jim Klawburn's (?) Anti-Poverty initiative that changes the way the federal government uplifts persistently impoverished communities by focusing on those who've been left behind the longest. 192356 It's long past time we end the legacy of systemic racism that make up our neighborhoods and our housing patterns neighbors. Employment, and access to transportation. Being middle class is not a number. It's a value set. It's being able to send your kid to a park and know they're gonna come home safely. Being able to send your kids to a school. If they do well, you know they'll be able to go beyond high school if they able. It seems to be---you're able to have, take your geriatric mom home when your dad dies and hope your kids never have to take care of you. 192428 It's a value set. It's not a number. And folks, The Affordable Care Act was a huge step forward in this country. We made historic progress by extending health insurance to 20 million americans who didn't have it before. And the most important part, for the first time, we provided protections for over 100 million Americans with pre-existing conditions. Now is the time to finish the job; make health care a right, not a privilege. Give everyone a peace of mind they deserve. And that means adding a public option to Obamacare. 192501 It's the fastest, most cost effective way to make sure everyone is covered. We're gonna make sure every person in America, every poor person who otherwise would be covered by Medicaid will automatically be covered with health insurance under our plan. And quite frankly, folks, I'm just gonna say it. I don't think we thanked Barack Obama enough for the job he did as president. 192527 And folks, when it comes to Education. The fact of the matter is---does anybody here think twelve years of education is enough in the 21st century? No, I really mean it. Think about it. Folks. We can easily provide free community college for everyone, in fact, that's eligible and qualified. It cost 6 billion dollars. But guess what? There are 1 trillion six hundred and forty billion dollars of tax loopholes that exist out there. Eliminate just one, a thing called Stepped up basis." You, in fact, have 70 billion dollars back in the budget. And you can reduce the budget by another 11 billion dollars. 192605 Folks, we can do all these things. Ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to education, we have to focus on where the need is the most. The needs is the most where we are in schools that are, in fact, in---Title I schools, education districts that are under stress. If we change the funding from fifteen to forty five billion dollars a year, we can raise the standard of all the teachers in the average national standard. We can put every three and four and five year old in pre-school, Increasing the chance for them, exponentially, that they will succeed. 192641 And it's all within our capacity to do this. Ladies and gentlemen, we have to put forward an ambitious and doable agenda. The super wealthy, in fact---if I'm elected president, you're not going to get a tax cut you got. I think we should be rewarding work as well as wealth. That's why I---i don't know why a firefighter or a police officer I met in the back, or a school teacher, pays a higher tax rate than somebody making 20, 30, 40 million dollars. That will end on my watch, with capital gains. I promise it will end on my watch. 192718 Folks, third reason I'm running is to unify this country. Everybody says that's too hard to do. Let me tell you something, what's broken in America is our politics. That is what's broken. It's not Americans. Americans agree overwhelmingly on all the things have to do. We agree we need to deal with health care. We need to deal with the idea of making sure we have a modern technology to deal with the green economy. We have to---it goes down the line. There's very little they disagree with. 192748 But folks, we have to let the American people know---everybody knows that Donald Trump is. Everybody, even people who support him. But here's the deal. We gotta let them know who we are. Who we are. We stand for hope over fear. We stand in for unity over division. We stand for truth over lies. And stand for science over fiction. Look, folks. We're better prepared than any nation in the world to lead the world. We have the largest economy. 192826 Our workers are three times productive as workers in Asia. There are more great research universities in this state and in America that all the rest of the world combined. We have the greatest scientists of the world. Why in God's name don't we pick our heads up and remember who--- This is the United States of America. There's not a single thing we can't do. I mean it. So let's get up. Take it back, and lead the world again. God bless you all and thanks for letting me come back to the Stump. Thank you, thank you, thank you. ### DE BLASIO [19:32:02] Every. Night. Oh well you know that we are in. The center of the political universe right here in Galveston. This is. [19:32:16] The place to be. None of us in South Carolina in the entire United States of America. We are where it is at right now. And please everybody. Let us think about it let us sincerely and passionately thank the whole family for keeping in this beautiful tradition alive. Well I must tell you. That for the very first time in my life. [19:32:45] I tasted a ticking time bomb. Tonight. I. Spoiled here too. And. I want to know I'm going to. [19:32:58] As a side hustle as a job just a little one on one side and I'm going to open it and see that I'm taking it on and working on the restaurants in New York City. Think about it. Not again. New York City I'm going to bring it here. Make it happen. [19:33:16] But everybody. This is an amazing exercise for democracy right here. Right here. Everyone came out tonight because you care. [19:33:27] Hundreds of people who are ready to do something to make the state of South Carolina better to make the United States of America better. This gives me hope gives me inspiration when I see all of you here. Do me a favor and look around because everyone around here cares everyone is involved and everyone is there all. Do me a favor. Give your neighbor a round of applause. [19:34:00] Now usually when someone gives a stump speech. Yes I have some to go with it. I got to school and get a selfie. [19:34:09] They talked about a lot of policy ideas but I think it's too important to talk about who we are as human beings. I want to tell you. Something about my family and me. [19:34:21] First of all I'm very proud to say this year my wife Shirley. [19:34:24] I celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary. I want to tell you a very very story. [19:34:36] About how things went. Well we started out. We got together. We were in love. We got married. We had our daughter. We had our son. Two beautiful children and they were blessings. And actually I worked two full time jobs. We've all had was great. There's a lot to do. We call and it was great. And then when I'm just explicitly on my mom felt well. And we had to take care of her. We believed that it was the right thing to do to be cared for. We moved her right to our neighborhood one block away. And then my wife's Julie's mom fell ill about a year later and we moved her to our neighborhood to. Living in the same house one grandma on the first floor one grandmother said before. The kids got to spend time with their grandma eyes. And. Even though our moms were going through a lot we were still counting our blessings. [19:35:28] Because everyone was just to go. But I got to tell you honestly. Trying to juggle. Two young children. [19:35:37] Two full time jobs two elders need a lot of help and health care got to be very tough. And. [19:35:44] Sometimes we didn't know how to pay for everything. Sometimes we get to know where to find hours of the day sometimes we felt. [19:35:52] It was getting pretty overwhelming. And I tell you I say that because I think a lot of people go through their own version of those kind of towns because they love their family and trying to make it work because if you want to do the right thing by yourself. So I ask you if you write a story like this and I ask you for questions. First question. Have you ever had time to raise your hand. [19:36:20] Do you have you ever had time where you have to just drop everything and be there for a loved one no matter how tough it was you had to do the right thing and help someone in your life need your help. Look at all those guys. God bless you all. [19:36:34] Have you ever had time. [19:36:36] Let's be honest here. Never had time to pay all bills and start to make ends meet. Have you ever had that feeling. In recent years and never had a few. [19:36:50] Things are more stressful than they used to be the end do is more stress and anxiety like. What more. [19:37:00] Can you say about the way the world is changing. [19:37:03] You ever worry whether there's gonna be enough jobs for you for your family for your kids. January 1 has done a good job and you to be able to live on your family to live on. Well I tell you. What you have said tonight. [19:37:21] Folks all over South Carolina I talked to raise their hands. Yes. All those questions folks all over the school trying to talk to I had to be honest with you. People all over the United States of America. They are working hard. [19:37:36] There is no lack of hard work in the United States of America. Don't you agree. People are working hard. [19:37:45] People working hard working two jobs while working three jobs. There's no one I. [19:37:51] Have committed. But if he was struggling to make ends meet. That's what I hear everywhere I go. And I got to be honest with you. I wish I could tell you this happened by accident. I wish I could tell you something about the witnesses. One of my friends there is an agenda. Let's get into play here. For the last 40 years. And. This is the one that this election has to be about this reality for the last 40 years the rich got richer and America. For the last 40 years the middle class and working class into the Soviet place. And the wealthy pay less and less in taxes. That doesn't sound like America to me. Doesn't sound right to you. That's not what we signed up for. So what we've got to do is start investing in people. You've got to start making people working people. [19:38:46] The top priority in this country. [19:38:49] They have to make it a priority in Washington D.C. right now. Unfortunately people are coming to one very clear conclusion that the federal government is. [19:38:56] Oh and by and for the elite of the by and for the wealthy and the connected not us. [19:39:05] And he cannot go on that way. It cannot go on that way in America. So we have to invest in our people we have to invest in our communities. We have to invest in small towns and rural areas just like. Big cities. And every time you talk about investing in people investing in communities you're going to hear all those voices that tell you we don't have enough money can't afford to do it there's not enough money. Well here's why I say wherever I go in the United States of America I say there's plenty of money in this world and there's plenty of money in this country. It's just in the wrong hands. And. I. Want to tell you about something. That I experienced this very morning. That makes this reality what our priorities need to be. CAUSE THIS MORNING. I WENT TO THE BOARD OF TOWELS. AND. MET WITH A longshoreman. [19:40:05] And these are people who work very very hard. These people give their all for their families. And they had to worry for years and years that their jobs will be taken away from them because of automation. They have had to worry that everything they have devoted their lives to could be gone soon. And if you talk to the people who are not sure whether there are a lot of windows down either a few years it's a sobering experience. If you talk to the people you talked to the truckers anyone in the trucking industry they'll tell you. They're worried about whether their job is going to be there in a few years. And anyone in this country who works in a warehouse people working in the food service industry. Look what happened to all the automobile workers no matter what we used to have. Millions and millions of automobile workers and now you see those images of the robots that do all the work. [19:40:59] My friends this isn't a conversation we have to have. Automation is coming at us. It's coming as hard as it has fast. We're not just talking about potential loss of millions of jobs and talking about a potential loss in the tens of billions of dollars in the next decade or two. And we've got to talk about this campaign. [19:41:20] And we've got to make sure we are ready because right now our federal government is not doing anything to prepare us for the state is overtaxed working people. And that's not acceptable. [19:41:34] Big companies love automation. They love getting rid of workers. Machines don't talk back. Machines they're very easy. And they cost a lot less money. So what is happening more and more about corporate profits. Not about the needs of the working people. Now let me tell you what I can do about it and I want to say upfront. [19:41:57] I have a lot of spend from my colleagues in this race. One of them Andrew Yang. He talked about automation and command and he talked about something I disagree with. Called Universal basically on the whole idea is just that people in charge. They want a job and when they get checked check they don't have to work anymore. They just get a check. It's not enough to live on but you get a check. [19:42:16] I want to give you a very different idea. I believe in a future where working people will actually get to work. I believe in a future where people have that dignity and that value. And this is security because you know what. I know about here but I don't know. You can always depend on the government to send you that check. They're supposed to send you. Some people will need. [19:42:42] Somebody they can believe in. They need work. They need a career. [19:42:46] And let me tell you how we can make sure that all of the nation does not rob millions of American workers under a lot of these but we can make sure that we are masters of our own destiny. First of all right now. Know what. [19:42:59] The Trump tax bill. First of all we should repeal the Trump backs just out of hand. [19:43:04] Repeal it take a bath Davis giveaway to the wealthy and corporations and a generation take it back. But you know what they snuck in there. It's not a little provision that rewards big companies when they put American workers out of work. They snuck in a provision that actually gives them a tax break when they put it in a machine and throw away a worker. Does that sound right to you. That's happening right now. Our federal government with our tax dollars is rewarding companies that put American workers out of work. And that is not acceptable. So when you hear an appeal that it's a tax bill we need to take that money back from companies. We need to say that you never get a tax break from putting an American out of a job. There is one thing we do is that actually Bill Gates of all people came up with this idea and it has a great name. This is all a robot tax. It's. Literally a robot tax. A company puts in a robot to replace a human being. They need to pay money to make sure that that human being gets not only more training but a new job. [19:44:34] We have seen American workers promise for years and years. Don't worry we'll train you and then nothing happens it happens. [19:44:41] That new job isn't there. I don't know about you but I do not trust big corporations to look out for everyday Americans. So we robots have to make them pay. [19:44:53] Their fair share to make sure that our people are actually taking care of our workers. Actually have new work to do. By the way there's plenty of work we need. [19:45:04] Who believes that we should have a future on renewable energy in this country. You believe in that. Millions and millions of new jobs. Who believes that we can clean up our environment and make it beautiful again. It's only jobs. Who believes that we can actually take care of our children given an early childhood education all over South Carolina all over this country. Selling. [19:45:34] And selling the jobs we need education. By the way. [19:45:39] Americans need not just health care. They need mental health care. We need millions more Americans have to get the care the people deserve it. So that's going to be a future with a lot of work. But someone. [19:45:57] Has to pay their fair share to make sure that those jobs and there for American workers and the companies that take the jobs and wages that have to be the same companies that pay for those new jobs in those fields we need. That's how we to do it. Now. I got to tell you. I can tell you that having traveled this whole country listening to Americans. [19:46:20] I am fairly optimistic tonight as I've gotten with you I'm optimistic about looking at all of you. [19:46:27] I'm optimistic because we care so much. But I'm optimistic. Because I think. [19:46:38] We are not as divided as we are told we are. [19:46:47] I talked to people all over South Carolina Nevada New Hampshire Iowa all over it. I've got to tell you people. They don't like. [19:46:56] This division. They don't like this. They don't like this is confusing this anxiety. They want to be proud. Of being happy and being together. And that makes me hopeful. And as Democrats we need to speak to Americans in every corner of this country for decades and decades. Democrats were the party of rural America and we need to be that party again. [19:47:25] Decades and decades Democrats were the party of small towns and we need to be that again. And we love both coasts but we need to be the party of the heartland just as much as the party on both coasts. And I've got to tell you something a. [19:47:48] Lot of things that I've been working on in the nation's largest city. I think they matter just as much to me galvanized. Very small towns and rural areas all over this country. Let me give you an example. [19:48:01] Right here. People need jobs in small towns. People need jobs in rural man who know how to get a job. A lot more people who make this company do better. The Green New Deal. The Green New Deal is. A great way to get out. You know when. You find out potentially. A lot of jobs need to be in rural America. You know how we strengthen. [19:48:24] The hand of small towns in rural America. [19:48:26] We made sure that if a hospital started closing that there's health care and people need it. You want people to have a livelihood. They deserve it every part of every state then we need universal health care so everyone knows that if get it wherever they live. And one of my greatest passions. [19:48:50] Is the inherent part of this country and actually small towns and rural America would benefit the most. Every child in America you shouldn't have to struggle. You said. [19:45:00] Actually he had new work to do. By the way there's plenty of work. [19:45:04] Who believes that we should have a future of renewable energy in this country. You believe in that. Millions and millions of new jobs who believes that we can clean up our environment and make it beautiful again. Millions of new jobs. Who believes that we can actually take care of our children given them early childhood education all over South Carolina all over this country. And. So many jobs we need education. By the way. Americans need not just health care they need mental health care. We need millions more Americans to help us to get the care the people deserve it. So that's going to be a future with a lot of work. But someone. [19:45:58] Has to pay their fair share to make sure that those jobs and therefore American workers and the companies take the jobs and wages and that have to be the same companies that not going to pay for those new jobs in those fields we need. That's how we should do it. Now. I got to tell you. I have to tell you that having traveled this whole country listening to Americans. [19:46:21] I am fairly optimistic tonight as I've gotten with you I'm optimistic about looking at all of you. [19:46:27] I'm optimistic because you care so much. But I'm optimistic. Because I think. [19:46:39] We are not as divided as we are told we are. [19:46:48] I talk to people all over South Carolina and Nevada New Hampshire Iowa all over it. I got to tell people. They don't like. This division. They don't like this. They don't like this is confusing this anxiety. They want to be proud. Of being happy just being together. [19:47:05] And that makes me hopeful. And as Democrats we need to speak to Americans in every corner of this country for decades and decades. [19:47:16] Democrats were the party of rural America and we need to be that party again. Decades and decades Democrats were the party of small towns and we need to be that again. And we love both coasts. But we need to be the party of the heartland just as much as the party on both coasts. And I got to tell you something. Lot. Of things that I've been working on in the nation's largest city. I think they matter just as much to me galvanize very small towns and rural areas all over this country. Let me give you an example. Right here. People need jobs in small towns. People need jobs in rural man. Know how about getting jobs a lot more people to make this company better. That green no deal. The. Green you no deal is. Great with God. You know and you find out. [19:48:17] That a lot of houses need to be in rural America. You know how we strengthen. [19:48:24] The hand of small towns in rural America. We made sure that at a hospital started closing that there's health care and people need it. You want people to have a livelihood. They deserve it. Every part of every state then we need universal health care so everyone knows they can get it wherever they live. And one of my greatest passions. [19:48:51] Is the inherent part of this country and actually smaller towns and rural America would benefit the most. Every child in America you shouldn't have to struggle. You shouldn't have to only get a good education. You've got a big bank account. [19:49:06] You shouldn't only be able to fulfill your God given potential if you live someplace that's a big say. Every child in America deserves pre-K for free. Every single. [19:49:20] Time. [19:49:25] When we did New York they said it couldn't be done. There were many many doubting Thomas's and as this election proceeds people will tell you what we can't do. You will hear all the time what we can't do. What we can't afford what is not possible. I tell you we're Americans. Everything is possible. And to fulfill. [19:49:49] Our values as Americans and imagine every good young child every beautiful young child in this country starting at the same starting line and having all their lives ahead in to field their potential. Isn't that what we want as Americans.

JIM LEHRER, MODERATOR Good evening from the field house at Washington University in St. Louis. I'm Jim Lehrer of the "News Hour" on PBS. And I welcome you to this third and final Campaign 2000 debate between the Democratic candidate for president, Vice President Al Gore, and the Republican candidate, Governor George W. Bush of Texas. Let's welcome the candidates now. VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Hey, Jim. How are you doing? JIM LEHRER My pleasure. Good to see you...(unintelligible). AL GORE Good to see you. GOVERNOR GEORGE W BUSH, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Good to see you. AL GORE How you doing? GEORGE W BUSH Good to see you. JIM LEHRER Governor. Welcome. GEORGE W BUSH (Unintelligible)...nice to see you all. AL GORE Howdy. How are you all? JIM LEHRER Before proceeding tonight, we would like to observe a moment of silence in memory of Governor Mel Carnahan of Missouri, who, along with his son and his former chief of staff, died in a private plane crash last night near St. Louis. A reminder, as we continue now, that these debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The formats and the rules were worked out by the commission and the two campaigns. Tonight's questions will be asked by St. Louis area voters who were identified as being uncommitted by the Gallup Organization. Earlier today, each of them wrote a question on a small card like this. Those cards were collected and then given to me this afternoon. My job, under the rules of the evening, was to decide the order the questions will be asked and to call on the questioners accordingly. I also have the option of asking follow-ups, which in order to get to more of the panel's questions, for the record, I plan to do sparingly and mostly for clarifications. The audience participants are bound by the following rule: They shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion. And the questioner's microphone will be turned off after he or she completes asking the question. Those are the rules. As in Winston-Salem last--last week, no single answer or response from a candidate can exceed two minutes. There is an audience here in the hall and they have promised to remain absolutely quiet as did their predecessors this year in Boston, Danville and Winston-Salem. Before we begin, a correction from last week's debate. I was wrong when I said Vice President Gore's campaign commercials had called Governor Bush a bumbler. That specific charge was made in a press statement by Gore campaign spokesman Mark Fabiani, not in a TV Guide... GEORGE W BUSH I'm glad you clarified that. JIM LEHRER ...in a TV--in a TV--in a TV ad. Now let's go to the first question. Of over the 130 questions we received from this panel, we will begin with one of the 19 on health issues and it goes to you Mr. Vice President, and it will be asked by James Hankins. Mr. Hankins: JAMES HANKINS How do you feel about HMOs and insurance companies making the critical decisions that affect people's lives instead of the medical professionals? And why are the HMOs and insurance companies not held accountable for--for their decisions? AL GORE Mr. Hankins, I don't feel good about it, and I think we ought to have a Patients Bill of Rights to take the medical decisions away from the HMOs and give them back to the doctors and the nurses. I want to come back and--and tell you why, but if you will forgive me, I would like to say something right now at the beginning of this debate, following on the moment of silence for Mel Carnahan and Randy Carnahan and Chris Sifford. Tipper and I were good friends with Mel and Randy, and I know that all of us here want to extend our sympathy and condolences to Jean and the family and to the Sifford family. And I'd just like to say that this debate, in a way, is a living tribute to Mel Carnahan because he loved the vigorous discussion of ideas in our democracy. He was a fantastic governor of Missouri. This state became one of the top five in the nation for health care coverage for children under his leadership. One of the best in advancing all kinds of benefits for children to--to grow up healthy and strong. And, of course, this debate also takes place at a time when the tragedy of the USS Cole is on our minds and hearts and insofar as the memorial service is tomorrow, I would like to also extend sympathy to the families of those who have died and those who are still missing and--and the injured. Now, Mr. Hankins, I think that the--the situation that you described has gotten completely out of hand. Doctors are--are giving prescriptions, they're recommending treatments, and then their--their recommendations are being overruled by HMOs and insurance companies. That is unacceptable. I support a strong national patients' bill of rights. It is actually a disagreement between us. The national law that is pending on this, the Dingell-Norwood bull--bill, a bipartisan bill, is one that I support and that the governor does not. JIM LEHRER Time is up, Vice President. Two minutes response, Governor Bush. GEORGE W BUSH I--I, too, want to extend my prayers to the--and--and--and blessings, God's blessings on the families whose lives were up--overturned yeste--to--today--last night. It's a tragic moment. Actually, Mr. Vice President, it's not true, I--I do support a national Patients Bill of Rights. As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the state of Texas to get a Patients Bill of Rights through. It requires a different kind of leadership style to do it, though. You see, in order to get something done on behalf of the people, you have to put partisanship aside. And that's what we did in my state. We've got one of the most advanced Patients Bill of Rights. It says, for example, that a woman can--doesn't have to go through a gatekeeper to go to her gynecologist. It says that you can't gag a doctor. A doctor can advise you. The HMO, the insurance company can't gag that doctor from giving you full advice. In this particular bill, it allows patients to choose a doctor, their own doctor if they want to. But we did something else that was interesting. We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage. Now there's what's called an Independent Review Organization that you have to go through first. It says if you've got a complaint with your insurance company, you can take your complaint to an objective body. And if the objective body rules on your behalf, the insurance company must follow those rules. However, if the--if--if the insurance company doesn't follow the findings of the IRO, then that becomes a cause of action in a court of law. It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people, and I think this is right for the people. You know, I--I--I support a national Patients Bill of Rights, Mr. Vice President, and I--I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supercede good law like we've got in Texas. JIM LEHRER Governor. GEORGE W BUSH I think... JIM LEHRER Time is up, sir. AL GORE Jim... JIM LEHRER Yes, sir. AL GORE ...we have a direct disagreement on this. JIM LEHRER Just--just a minute, Mr. Vice President. I wanted to--you know, the ways the rules go here now, two minutes, two minutes and then I'll decide whether we go on. AL GORE Right. JIM LEHRER OK? So what I want to make sure is we understand here is before we go on to another question in the health area, would you agree that you two agree on a national Patients Bill of Rights? AL GORE Absolutely... JIM LEHRER Quickly. AL GORE Absolutely not. I referred to the Dingell-Norwood bill. It is the bipartisan bill that is now pending in the Congress. The--the HMOs and the insurance companies support the other bill that's pending, the one that the Republican majority has put forward. They like it because it doesn't accomplish what I think really needs to be accomplished, to give the decisions back to the doctors and nurses and to give you a right of appeal to somebody other than the HMO or insurance company. Let you go to the nearest emergency room without having to call an HMO before you call 911, to let you see a specialift--a specialist if--if you need to. And it has strong bipartisan support. It is being blocked by the Republican leadership in the Congress... GEORGE W BUSH So... AL GORE ...and I specifically would like to know whether Governor Bush will support the Dingell-Norwood bill, which is the main one pending. JIM LEHRER Governor Bush, you may answer that if you'd like, but also I'd like to know how you see the differences between the two of you and we need to move on. GEORGE W BUSH Well, the difference is is that I can get it done, that I can get something positive done on behalf of the people. That's what the question in this campaign is about. It's not only what's your philosophy and what's your position on issues, but can you get things done? And I believe I can. JIM LEHRER All right. AL GORE What about the Dingell-Norwood bill? JIM LEHRER All right. We're going to go now to another... GEORGE W BUSH I'm--I'm not quite through--let me finish, please. JIM LEHRER All right. Go--go. GEORGE W BUSH I talked about the principles and the issues that I think are important in a Patients Bill of Rights. You know, there's this--this kind of Washington, DC, focus, `Well, it's in this committee or it's got this sponsor.' If I'm the president, we're going to have emergency room care, we're going to have gag orders, women will have direct access to OB-GYN, people will be able to take their HMO insurance company to court. That's what I've done in Texas and that's the kind of leadership style I'll bring to Washington. JIM LEHRER All right. Another--the next question also on--on a health issue. It's from--it will be asked by Marie Payne Celpey. And it goes to Governor Bush. MARIE PAYNE CELPEY Are either of you concerned with--I got to put my glasses on. GEORGE W BUSH Here you go. I've got... MARIE PAYNE CELPEY OK. Are either of you concerned with finding some feasible way to lower the price of pharmaceutical drugs, such as education on minimizing intake, revamp of the FDA process or streamline the drug companies' procedures instead of just finding more money to pay for them? GEORGE W BUSH Well, that's a great question. I--I think one of the problems we have, particularly for seniors, is there's no prescription drug coverage in Medicare and, therefore, when they have to try to purchase drugs, they do so on their own. There's no kind of collective bargaining, there's no power of purchasing amongst seniors. So I think step one to make sure prescription drugs is more affordable for seniors, and those are the folks who really rely upon prescription drugs a lot these days, is to reform the Medicare system, is to have prescription drugs as an integral part of Medicare once and for all. The problem we have today is that, like the Patients Bill of Rights, particularly with health care, there's a lot of bickering in Washington, DC. It's kind of like a political issue as opposed to a people issue. So what I want to do is I want to call upon Republicans and Democrats to forget all the arguing and finger-pointing and come together and take care of our seniors with the prescrip--prescription drug program, that says we'll pay for the poor seniors, we'll help all seniors with prescription drugs. In the meantime, I think it's important to have what's called immediate helping hand, which is direct money to states so that seniors, poor seniors don't have to choose between food and medicine. That's a--that's a part of an overall overhaul. But purchasing power is important. I'm against price controls. I think price controls would hurt our ability to continue important research and development. Drug therapies are replacing a lot of medicines a--as we used to know it. One of the most important things is to continue the research and development component and--of--and so I'm against price controls. Expediting drugs through the FDA makes sense, of course. Allowing--the new bill that was passed in the Congress made sense, to allow for, you know, drugs that were sold overseas to come back, and other countries to come back into the United States. That makes sense. But the best thing to do is to reform Medicare. JIM LEHRER Vice President Gore, two minutes. AL GORE All right. Here we go again. Now, look, if--if you want someone who will spin a lot of words describing a whole convoluted process and then end up supporting legislation that is supported by the big drug companies, this is your man. If you want someone who will fight for you and who will fight for the middle-class families and working men and women who are sick and tired of having their parents and grandparents pay higher prices for prescription drugs than anybody else, then I want to fight for you. And you asked the--the--a great question because it's not only seniors. Listen, for 24 years I have never been afraid to take on the big drug companies. They do some great things. They discover great new cures and that's great. We want to--we want them to continue that. But they are now spending more money on advertising and promotion--you see all these ads?--than they are on research and development. And they're trying to artificially extend the monopoly patent protection so they can keep charging these very high prices. I want to streamline the approval of the competing generic drugs and the new kinds of treatments that can compete with them so that we drin--bring the price down for everybody. Now, briefly, let me tell you how my prescription drug plan works. The governor talked about Medicare. I gi--I propose a real prescription drug benefit under Medicare for all seniors, all seniors. And here's how it works. You pick your own doctor and nobody can take that away from you. The doctor chooses the prescription that you need and nobody can overrule your doctor. You go to your own pharmacy and then Medicare pays half the price. If you're poor, they pay all of it. If you have extraordinarily high costs, then they pay all over $4,000 out of pocket. And I'll bring new competition to bring the price down. And if you pass the big drug companies bill, nothing will happen. JIM LEHRER All right, another health question that comes from Vicki French. And it's for you, Vice President Gore. Vicki French, where are you? Oh, there she is. Yes. VICKI FRENCH ...American people, we spend billions of dollars every year on taxes or pay billions of dollars in taxes. Would you be open to the idea of a national health care plan for everybody, and if not why? If so, is this something you would try to implement if you were elected into office and what would you do to implement this plan? AL GORE I think that we should move step by step toward univers--universal health coverage, but I am not in favor of government doing it all. We've spent 65 years now on the development of a hybrid system, partly private, partly public. And 85 percent of our people have health insurance, 15 percent don't. That adds up to 44 million people. That is a national outrage. We have got to get health coverage for those who do not have it. And we've got to improve the quality for those who do with a Patients Bill of Rights that's real and that works, the Dingell-Norwood bill. And we have got to fill in the gaps in coverage by finally bringing parity for the treatment of mental illness because that's been left out. We've got to deal with long-term care. Now here are the steps that I would take, first of all. I will make a commitment to bring health care coverage of high quality that is affordable to every single child in America within four years. And then we'll fill other gaps by covering the--the--the--the parents of those children when the family is poor or up to two and a half times the poverty rate. I want to give a tax credit for the purchase of individual health insurance plans. I want to give small business employers a tax credit, 25 percent, to encourage the--the providing of health insurance for the employees in--in small businesses. I want to give seniors who are--well, the near elderly. I don't like that term, because I'm just about in that category, but those 55-65 ought to be able to buy into Medicare for premiums that are reasonable and fair and significantly below what they have to--to get now. Now we have a big--we have a big difference on this. And you need to know the record here. Under Governor Bush, Texas has sunk to be 50th out of 50 in health care--in health insurance for their citizens. Last week he said that they were spending $3.7 billion--$4.7 billion on this. JIM LEHRER Mr. Vice President... AL GORE OK. Time. JIM LEHRER ...time is up. Governor Bush, two minutes. GEORGE W BUSH I'm absolutely opposed to a national health care plan. I don't want the federal government making decisions for consumers or for providers. I--I remember what--what the administration tried to do in 1993. They tried to have a national health care plan and, fortunately, it failed. I trust people. I don't trust the federal government. It's going to be one of the themes you hear tonight. I don't want the federal government making decisions on behalf of everybody. There is an issue with the--the uninsured. There sure is. And we've got uninsured people in my state. Ours is a big state, fast-growing state. We share a common border with another nation. But we're providing health care for our people. That's one thing about insurance--that's a Washington term. Question is, are people getting health care? And we've got a strong safety net and there needs to be a safety net in America. There needs to be more community health clinics for--where the poor can go get health care. We need a program for the uninsured. They've been talking about it in Washington, DC. The number of uninsured have now gone up for the past seven years. We need--we need a $2,000 credit, rebate for people--working people who don't have insurance. They can get in the marketplace and start purchasing insurance. We need to have--allow small businesses to write across--insurance across jurisdictional lines so small businesses can afford health care, small restaurants can afford health care. And so af--health care needs to be affordable and available. But we've got to trust people to make decisions with their lives. In the Medicare reform I talk about, it says if you're a senior, you can stay in Medicare if you like it, and that's fine, but we're going to give you other choices to choose if you want to do so, just like they do the federal employees, the people who work in Washington, DC, for the US Congress or the United States Senate. Get a variety of choices to make in their lives. And that's what we ought to do for all people in America. JIM LEHRER Gov... GEORGE W BUSH Yes, sir. Sorry. JIM LEHRER Governor? No. AL GORE Can I follow up now? GEORGE W BUSH I'm not paying attention to the lights very well. JIM LEHRER No, not right now. Not right now. Education... GEORGE W BUSH I'm trying to find my light. JIM LEHRER These folks submitted 18--18 questions on--on education and the first one is that--that we--that we--will be asked on education will go to you, Governor, and will be asked by Angie Pettig. Angie Pettig, where are you? There--there she is, Governor, right there. GEORGE W BUSH Oh, thanks. Hi, Angie. ANGIE PETTIG I've heard a lot about education and the need to hold teachers and schools accountable. And I certainly agree with that. But as an individual with an educational background and also a parent, I have seen a lot of instances where the parents are unresponsive to the teachers or flat out uninvolved in their child's education. How do you intend to not only hold the teachers and schools accountable but also hold parents accountable? GEORGE W BUSH Well, you--you know, it's hard to make people love one another. I wish I knew the law because I'd darn sure sign it. I wish I knew the law that said all of us would be good parents. One of the things the next president must do is to remind people that if we're going to have a responsible period in America, that each of us must love our children with all of our heart and all our soul. I happen to believe strong accountability encourages parental involvement, though. I--I think when you measure and post results on the Internet, or in the town newspapers, most parents say, `Wait a minute, my child's school isn't doing what I want it to do,' and, therefore, become involved in education. I recognize there are some who just don't seem to care. But there are a lot of parents who feel like everything is going well in their child's school, and all of a sudden they wake up and realize that wait a minute, standards aren't being met. That's why I'm so strong for accountability. I--I believe we ought to measure a lot--three, four, five, sixth, seventh, eighth grade. We do so in my state of Texas. One of the good things we've done in Texas is we've got strong accountability, because you can't cure unless you know. You can't--you can't solve a problem unless you diagnose it. I strongly believe that one of the best things to encourage parental involvement also is to know that the classrooms will be safe and secure. That's why I support a teacher liability act at the federal level that says if a teacher or principal upholds reasonable standards of classroom discipline, they can't be sued. They can't be sued. I think parents will be more involved with education when they know their children's classrooms are safe and secure as well. I also believe that we need to say to people that if you cannot meet standards, there has to be a consequence. Instead of just the--kind of the soft bigotry of low expectations, that there has to be a consequence. We can't continue to shuffle children through school. And one of the consequences is to allow parents to have different choices. JIM LEHRER Governor. Vice President Gore: AL GORE Yeah. We have a huge difference between us on this question. I'd like to start by telling you what my vision is. I see a day in the United States of America where all of our public schools are considered excellent, world class. Where there are no failing schools, where the classrooms are small enough in size--number of students--so that the teacher can spend enough one-on-one time with each--with each student. Now that means recruiting new teachers for the public schools. It means, in my plan, hiring bonuses to get 100,000 new teachers in the public schools within the next four years. It means also helping local school districts that sometimes find the parents of school-aged children outvoted on bond issues to give them some help with interest-free bonding authority so that we can build new schools and modernize the classrooms. We need to give teachers the training and professional development that they need to--including the paid time off to go visit the classroom of a master teacher and to pick up some new skills. I--I want to give every middle-class family a $10,000 a year tax deduction for college tuition so that--so that middle-class families will always be able to send their kids on to college. I want to work for universal pre-school, because we know from all the studies that the--the--the youngsters learn--kids learn more in the first few years of life than anywhere else. Now I said there was a contrast. Governor Bush is for vouchers. And in his plan he proposes to drain more money--more taxpayer money out of the public schools for private school vouchers than all of the money that he proposes in his entire budget for public schools themselves. And only 1-in-20 students would be eligible for these vouchers, and they wouldn't even pay the full tuition to private school. I think that's a mistake. I th--I don't think we should give up on the private schools and leave kids trapped in failing schools, I think we--I think we should make it the number one priority to make our schools the best in the world, all of them. JIM LEHRER Governor, what is your position on that? GEORGE W BUSH Yeah. I appreciate that. I think any time we end with one of these attacks, it's--it's appropriate to respond. Here's what I think. First of all, vouchers are up to states. If you want to do a voucher program in Missouri, fine. You see, I strongly believe in local control of schools. I'm a governor of a state and I don't like it when the federal government tells us what to do. I believe in local control of schools. But here's what I've said. I've said to the extent we spend federal money on disadvantaged children, we want the schools to show us whether or not the children are learning. What's unreasonable about that? We expect there to be standards met and we expect there to be measurement. And if we find success, we'll praise it. But when we find children trapped in schools that will not change and will not teach, instead of saying, `Oh, this is OK in America, just to shuffle poor kids through schools,' there has to be a consequence. And the consequence is that federal portion of federal money will go to the parent so the parent can go to a tutoring program or another public school or another private sc--or a private school. You see, there has to be a consequence. We've got a society that says, `Hey, the status quo is fine. Just move them through.' And guess who suffers? JIM LEHRER Well, what's the harm on vou... AL GORE Yeah. JIM LEHRER What's the other side on vouchers? AL GORE Well, the--the program that he's proposing is not the one that he just described. Under your plan, Governor Bush, states would be required to pay vouchers to students to match the--the vouchers that the federal government would put up. Now here's--and the way it would happen is that under his plan, if a school was designated as failing, the kids would be trapped there for another three years and then some of them would get federal vouchers and the state would be forced to--to match those--that money. Under my plan, if a school is failing, we work with the states to give them the authority and the resources to close down that school and reopen it right away with a new principal, a new faculty, a turnaround team of specialists who know what they're doing to--it's based on the plan of Governor Jim Hunt... JIM LEHRER So... AL GORE ...in North Carolina and it works great. JIM LEHRER So no vouchers under a--in a Gore administration. AL GORE If I thought that there was no alternative then I might feel differently, but I--I have an obligation... JIM LEHRER Well, let... AL GORE ...to fight to--to make sure there are no failing schools. JIM LEHRER Let me... AL GORE We've got a turnaround al--most schools are excellent. But we've got to make sure that all of them are. JIM LEHRER Andrew Kossberg has a related question on education that's right on this subject. Mr. Kossberg, where are you? There you are. And it's for Vice President Gore. ANDREW KOSSBERG Mr. Vice President, in the school district in which I work and in countless others across the nation, we face crumbling school buildings, increased school violence, student apathy, overcrowding, lack of funding, lawsuits, the list goes on. I could mention low teacher pay but I won't. What can you tell me... AL GORE You should. ANDREW KOSSBERG ...and my fellow American teachers today about your plans for our immediate future? AL GORE What grade do you teach? JIM LEHRER A--up--up--that's a violation of your rule, Vice President Gore. AL GORE High school. I mentioned before that--that... JIM LEHRER Sir--Mr... AL GORE ...the local communities are having a harder time passing bond issues. Traditionally, if you've been involved in a campaign like that you know that the parents with kids in school are the ones that turn out and vote. It's ironic that there are now--there's now a smaller percentage of the voters made up of parents with children than ever in American history because of the aging of our population. But at the same time we've got the largest generation of students in public schools ever. More than 90 percent of America's children go to public schools. And lar--it's the largest number ever this year and they'll break the record next year and every year for 10 years running. We've got to do something about this. And local--it's not enough to leave it up to the local school districts. They're not able to do it. And our future depends upon it. Look, we're in an information age. Our economic future depends upon whether or not our children are going to get the kind of education that lets them go on to college--and again, I want to make it possible for all middle-class families to send their kids to college and more Pell grants for those who are in the lower-income groups, also. An--and then I want to make sure that we have job training on top of that and lifelong learning, but it all starts with the public school teachers. I--my proposal gives $10,000 hiring bonuses for those teachers who are--are--who get certified to teach in the areas where they're most needed. Now accountability? We--we basically agree on accountability. My plan requires testing of all students. It also requires something that Governor Bush's plan doesn't. It requires testing of all new teachers, including in the subjects that they teach. We have to start treating teachers like the professionals that they are. And give them the respect an--and the kind of quality of life that will draw more people into teaching because we need a lot more teachers. JIM LEHRER Governor Bush, two minutes. GEORGE W BUSH When you total up all the federal spending he wants to do, it's the largest increase in federal spending in years. And there's just not going to be enough money. I--I--I have been a governor of a big state. I've made education my number one priority. That's the fa--that's what governors ought to do. `They ought to say this is the most important thing we do as a state.' The federal government puts about 6 percent of the money up. They put about--you know, 60 percent of the strings where you got to fill out paperwork. I don't know if you have to be a paperwork filler outer, but most of it's because of the federal government. What I want to do is send to flexibility and authority to the local folks so you can choose what to do with the money. One size does not fit all. I'd worry about federalizing education if I were you. I s--I--I believe strongly that the federal government can help. They need to fund Head Start. We need to have accountability. The vice president's plan does not have annual accountability. Third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade we ne--we need to demand on results. I believe strongly in a pat--in a Teacher Protection Act like I mentioned. I hear from teachers all the time about the lawsuits and the threats, respect in the classroom. Part of it's because you can't--you can't control the classroom. You can't have a consequence for somebody without fear of getting sued under federal law. So I'm going to ask the Congress to pass a Teacher Protection Act. So I believe in flexibility, I believe in a national reading initiative for local districts to access with K-2 diagnostic testing. Curriculum that works. Phonics works, by the way. It needs to be a part of our curriculum. There needs to be flexibility for teacher training and teacher hiring with federal money. The federal government can be a--be a part, but--but don't fall prey to all this stuff about money here and money there because e--education is really funded at the local level. Ninety-four percent comes from the local level. JIM LEHRER All right. Vice President Gore, is the governor right when he says that you're proposing the largest federal spending in years? AL GORE Absolutely not. Absolutely not. I'm so glad that I have a chance to knock that down. Look, the problem is that under Governor Bush's plan, $1.6 trillion tax cut, mostly to the wealthy. Under his own budget numbers, he proposes spending more money for a tax cut just for the wealthiest 1 percent than all of the new money that he budgets for education, health care and national defense combined. Now under my plan, we will balance the budget every year. I'm not just saying this. I'm not just talking. I have helped to balance the budget for the first time in 30 years, pay down the debt. And under my plan, in four years as a percentage of our gross domestic product, federal spending will be the smallest that it has been in 50 years. One reason is--you know the third biggest spending item in our budget is interest on the national debt? We get nothing for it. We keep the good faith and credit of the United States. I will pay down the debt every single year until it is eliminated early in the next decade. That gets rid of the--the--the third biggest intrusion of the federal government... JIM LEHRER Sir... AL GORE ...in--in our economy. Now because the governor ha--has all this money for a tax cut, mostly to the wealthy, there is no money left over so--so schools get testing... JIM LEHRER All right. AL GORE ...an--and lawsuit reform an--and not much else. JIM LEHRER Governor, the vice president says you're wrong. GEORGE W BUSH Well, he's wrong. Just add up all the numbers. It's three times bigger than what President Clinton proposed. The Senate Budget Committee.... JIM LEHRER Three times--excuse me, three times... GEORGE W BUSH ...bigger than what President Clinton proposed. AL GORE That's in an ad, Jim... GEORGE W BUSH Hey, wait a minute. AL GORE ...that was knocked down by the journalist who analyzed the ad, said it was misleading. GEORGE W BUSH May--may I answer? JIM LEHRER OK. Go ahead. GEORGE W BUSH My turn? JIM LEHRER Yes, sir. GEORGE W BUSH Forget the journalists. He proposed more than Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis combined. You know, this is a big spender, he is, and he ought to be proud of it. It's part of his record. We just have a different philosophy. Let me talk about tax relief. If you pay taxes, you ought to get tax relief. The vice president believes that only the right people ought to get tax relief. I don't think that's the role of the president to pick, `You're right,' and `You're not right.' I think if you're going to have tax relief, everybody ought to get it. And, therefore, wealthy people are going to get it. But the top 1 percent will end up paying one-third of the taxes in America and they get one-fifth of the benefits. And that's because we structured the plan so that six million additional American families pay no taxes. If you're a family of four making $50,000 in Missouri, you get a 50 percent cut in your federal income taxes. What I've done is set priorities and funded them. AL GORE Well... GEORGE W BUSH And there's extra money. And I believe the people who pay the bills ought to--ought to get some money back. It's a difference of opinion. He wants to grow the government and I trust you with your own money. AL GORE I... JIM LEHRER Well, let... GEORGE W BUSH I wish we could spend an hour talking about trusting people because it's the right position to take. AL GORE Can we extend the time? JIM LEHRER Yeah. Hold on one sec here, though. The--but, Governor, just to reverse the thing: What do you say specifically to what the vice president said tonight? He said it many, many times, that your tax cut benefits the top 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans and--you've heard what he said. GEORGE W BUSH Of course it does. If you pay taxes, you're going to get a benefit. People who pay taxes will get tax relief. JIM LEHRER All right then what--why shouldn't they? AL GORE All right... GEORGE W BUSH Well, let me--let me finish, please. JIM LEHRER Well--well... GEORGE W BUSH Under my plan, if you make--the top--the wealthy people pay 62 percent of the taxes today, afterwards they pay 64 percent. This is a fair plan. Do you know why? Because the tax code is unfair for people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. If you're a single mother making $22,000 a year today, and you're trying to raise two children, for every additional dollar you earn, you pay a higher marginal rate on that dollar than someone making $200,000 and it's not right. So I want to do something about that. JIM LEHRER Vice President Gore: AL GORE Yeah. Please. JIM LEHRER All right, Vice President Gore: AL GORE Look, this isn't about Governor Bush. It's not about me. It is about you. And I want to come back to something I said before. If you want somebody who believes that we were better off eight years ago than we are now, and that we ought to go back to the kind of policies that we had back then, emphasizing tax cuts mainly for the wealthy, here is your man. If you want somebody who will fight for you, and who will fight to have middle-class tax cuts, then I am your man. I want to be. Now i--I doubt anybody here makes more than $330,000 a year. I won't ask you. But if you do, you're in the top 1 percent. JIM LEHRER It would be a violation of the rules. They could... AL GORE I--I'm not going to ask them. I'm not going to ask. I'm not going to ask. But if everyone here in this audience was--was dead on in the middle of the middle class, then the tax cuts for every single one of you all added up would be less than the tax cut his plan would give to just one member of that top wealthiest 1 percent. Now you judge for yourselves whether or not that's fair. JIM LEHRER Quick and then we're moving on. GEORGE W BUSH Good. Fifty million Americans get no tax relief under his plan. AL GORE That's not right. GEORGE W BUSH And you may not be one of them. You're just not one of the right people. And secondly, we've had enough fighting. It's time to unite. You talk about eight years? In eight years they haven't gotten anything done on Medicare, on Social Security, a Patients Bill of Rights. JIM LEHRER All right... GEORGE W BUSH It's time to get something done. JIM LEHRER Hey, we're going to move on now. AL GORE I--I've got to answer that, Jim. Medicare... JIM LEHRER Wh--what... AL GORE I--I cast the tie-breaking vote to add 26 years to the life of Medicare. JIM LEHRER Sir... AL GORE It was due to go bankrupt in 1999. And that 50 million figure, again, the newspaper.... JIM LEHRER Vice President Gore. AL GORE ...I said--you said, `forget the journalists,' but they are the--the keepers of the score card and whether or not... JIM LEHRER Ke... AL GORE ...you're using facts that aren't right. And that--that fact is just not right. JIM LEHRER Speaking of keepers of the score card, that's what I'm trying to do here, Mr. Vice President... AL GORE Yeah. JIM LEHRER ...and Governor Bush. We're going to--we're going to move on. We're going to have to move on. All right, there were 12 questions on foreign and military matters. And the first one that we're going to ask will be directed to--to you, Governor Bush. And David Norwood is going to ask it. Mr. Norwood, where are you? There you are. DAVID NORWOOD What would you make--what would make you the best candidate in office during the Middle East crisis? GEORGE W BUSH I've been a leader. I've been a person who has to set a clear vision and convince people to follow. I--I got a strategy for the Middle East. And first let me say that our nation now needs to speak with one voice during this time, and I applaud the president for working hard to defuse tensions. Our nation needs to be credible and strong. When we say we're somebody's friend, everybody's got to believe it. Israel's our friend and we'll stand by Israel. We need to reach out to modern Arab nations as well to build coalitions to keep the peace. I--I also need--the next leader needs to be patient. We can't put the Middle East peace process on our timetable. It's got to be on the timetable of the--of the people that are trying--that we're trying to bring to the peace table. We can't dictate the terms of peace, which means we have to be steady. Can't worry about polls or focus groups. You've got to have a clear vision. That's what a leader does. A leader also understands that the United States must be strong to keep the peace. Saddam Hussein still is a threat in the Middle East. Our coalition against Saddam is unraveling, the sanctions are loosened. I--I--I--he's a man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction. We don't know because inspectors aren't in. So to answer your question, it requires a clear vision, a willingness to stand by our friends, and the credibility for people, both friend and foe, to understand when America says something, we mean it. JIM LEHRER Vice President Gore: AL GORE I see a future when the world is at peace with the United States of America promoting the values of democracy and human rights and freedom all around the world. Even in Iran they have had an election that began to bring about some change. We stand for those values, and we have to be willing to assert them. Right now our military is the strongest in the entire history of the world. I will--I pledge to you I will do whatever is necessary to make sure that it stays that way. Now what can I bring to that challenge? When I was a young man, my father was a senator opposed to the Vietnam War. When I graduated from college, there--there were plenty of fancy ways to get out of going and being a part of that. I went and I volunteered and I went to Vietnam. I didn't do the most or run the gravest risk by a long shot, but I learned what it was like to be an enlisted man in the United States Army. In the Congress, in the House of Representatives, I served on the House Intelligence Committee, and I worked hard to--to learn the subject of nuclear arms control and how we can defuse these tensions and deal with non-proliferation and deal with the problems of terrorism and these new weapons of mass destruction. Look, we're going to face some serious new challenges in the next four years. I've worked on that long and hard. When I went to the United States Senate, I asked for an assignment to the Armed Services Committee. And while I was there, I worked on a bipartisan basis, as I did in the House. I sa--worked with former President Reagan to--on the modernization of our strategic weaponry. In the--in the Senate, I was one of only 10 Democrats, along with Senator Joe Lieberman, to support Governor Bush's dad in the Persian Gulf War resolution. And for the last eight years, I've served on the... JIM LEHRER Vice President... AL GORE ...on the National Security Council. Could I say just one other thing here? JIM LEHRER No, sir. We'll get back with the--I'm going to hear--the next question is to you and... AL GORE Fine. I'll wait. JIM LEHRER ...it's a related--it's a related question and it's going to be asked by Kenneth Allen. AL GORE All right. JIM LEHRER Mr. Allen? AL GORE I think that he--he gets an a--oh, I'm sorry, you're right. Go ahead. JIM LEHRER Mr. Allen? Right there. KENNETH ALLEN Mr. Vice President, today our military forces are stretched thinner and doing more than they've ever done before during peace time. I'd like to know what you--I think we'd all like to know what you if--as president, would do to ensure proper resourcing for the current mission and/or more selectively choosing the time and place that our forces will be used around the world. AL GORE Thank you, sir. I--just to finish briefly, I--I started to say that for the last eight years I've been on the National Security Council and last week I broke o--I suspended campaigning for--for two days or parts of two days to go back and participate in the meeting that charted the president's summit meeting that he just returned from earlier today. And our team over--our country's team over there did a--did a great job. It's a difficult situation. The United States has to be strong in order to make sure that we can help promote peace and security and stability. And that means keeping our military strong. Now I said earlier that we are the strongest military, but we need to--to continue improving readiness and making sure that our--our military personnel are adequately paid and that the combination of their pay and their benefits and their retirement, as veterans, is--is comparable to the stiff competition that's coming in this strong economy from the--from the private sector. And we--I have supported the largest pay raise in many a year, and I support another one now. I also support modernization of our strategic an--and tactical weaponry. The governor's proposed skipping a generation of technology. I think that's--I think that would be a mistake because I think one of the ways we've been able to be so successful in Kosovo and Bosnia and Haiti and in other places, is by having the technological edge. You know, we won that conflict in Kosovo without losing a single human life in--in combat, a single American life in--in combat. Now readiness. The trends before we--before I got my current job were on the decline, the number of divisions were reduced. I argued that we should reverse that trend and take it back up. And I'm happy to tell you that we have. Now in my budget, for the next--for the next 10 years, I propose $100 billion for this purpose. The governor proposes 45 billion. I propose more than twice as much because I think it's needed. JIM LEHRER Governor Bush, two minutes. GEORGE W BUSH If this were a spending contest, I'd come in second. I--I readily admit I'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like he is. Here's--your question was deployment. It must be in the national interest--it must be in our vital interest whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we're going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished and the exit strategy needs to be well defined. I'm concerned that we're overdeployed around the world. See I think the mission has--has somewhat become fuzzy. Should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war. And, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often. The vice president mentioned my view of--long-term for the military. I want to make sure the equipment for our military is the best it can possibly be, of course. But we have an opportunity--we have an opportunity to use our research and development capacities, the great technology of the United States, to make our military lighter, harder to find, more lethal. We have an opportunity, really, if you think about it, if we're smart and have got a strategic vision and a leader who understands strategic planning, to make sure that our--we change the--change the terms of the battlefield of the future so we can make--keep the peace. This is a peaceful nation and I intend to keep the peace. Spending money is one thing, but spending money without a strategic plan can oftentimes be wasted. First thing I'm going to do is ask the secretary of Defense, `Le--develop a plan,' so we're making sure we're not spending our money on political projects, but on projects to make sure our soldiers are well paid, well housed and have the best equipment in the world. JIM LEHRER Governor Bush, another kind of gun question. It'll be asked by Robert Lutz. Mr. Lutz: ROBERT LUTZ Governor Bush... GEORGE W BUSH Yes, sir. ROBERT LUTZ ...I would just like to know what is your opposition to the Brady gun--handgun bill. GEORGE W BUSH I--could you--I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. ROBERT LUTZ Would like to know why you object to the Brady handgun bill--if you do object to it--because a recent TV ad i--showed that the National Rifle Association says if you are elected that they will be working out of your office. GEORGE W BUSH Well, I... ROBERT LUTZ I can just see trying to... GEORGE W BUSH I don't think the National Rifle Association ran that ad, but let me just tell you my position on guns in general, sir, if you don't mind. JIM LEHRER I'm not--excuse me, I'm not sure he's finished with his question... GEORGE W BUSH Oh, I'm sorry. JIM LEHRER ...Governor, I'm sorry. ROBERT LUTZ Well, see that kind of bothers me, you know, when I see an ad like that. I wonder if you could explain that ad to me. GEORGE W BUSH Well, I don't think I ran the ad. I think somebody who doesn't want me to be president might have run that ad. It's--that wasn't my ad and I think it might have been one of my opponent's ads. Here's what I believe, sir. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect themselves and their families. I believe that we ought to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. That's why I'm for instant background checks at gun shows. I'm for trigger locks. I think that makes sense. As a matter of fact, we distributed free trigger locks in the state of Texas so that people can get them and put them on their guns to make their guns more safe. I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun. But I also believe strongly that we need to enforce laws on the books. That the best way to make sure that we keep our society safe and secure is to hold people accountable for--for breaking the law. If we catch somebody illegally selling a gun, there needs to be a consequence. If we keep--somebody, you know, illegally using a gun, there needs to be a consequence. Enforcement of law. And the federal government can help. There's a great program called Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia. We focused federal taxpayers' money and--federal prosecutors--and went after people who were illegally--illegally using guns. To me that's how you make society the safest it can be. And so, yeah, sometimes I agree with some of these groups in Washington and sometimes I don't. I'm a pretty independent thinker. But one thing I'm for is a safe society. And I'm for enforcing the laws on the books and that's what's going to happen should I earn your confidence. JIM LEHRER Vice President Gore: AL GORE Well, wan--want to--it was not one of my ads, either, Governor, but I--I am familiar with the statement and it was made by one of the top-ranking officials of that organization. Let me tell you my position. I think that some commonsense gun safety measures are certainly needed with the flood of cheap handguns that have sometimes been working their way into the hands of the wrong people. But all of my proposals are focused on that problem: gun safety. None of my proposals would have any effect on hunters or sports men or people who use rifles. They are--they are aimed at the real problem. Let's make our schools safe. Let's make our neighborhoods safe. Let's--let's have a three-day waiting period, a cooling off, so we can have a background check to make sure that criminals and people who really shouldn't have guns don't get them. But I'd like to use my remaining time on this exchange, Jim, to respond to--to an exchange that took place just a moment ago because a couple of times the governor has said that I am for a bigger government. Governor, I'm not. And let me tell you what the record shows. For the last eight years, I have had the--the challenge of running the streamlining program called reinventing government. And if there are any federal employees in this group, you know what that means. The federal government has been reduced in size by more than 300,000 people and it's now the smallest number that we have had since--the smallest in size since John Kennedy's administration. During the--the last five years, Texas' government has gone up in size. The federal government has gone down; Texas' government has gone up. Now my plan for the future--I see a time when we have smaller, smarter government where you don't have to wait in line because you can get services online. Cheaper, better, faster. We can do that. JIM LEHRER Steve Luker has a question, and it is for Vice President Gore. Mr. Luker. There you are. STEVE LUKER Vice President Gore, the family farms are disappearing and having a hard time even in the current positive economic environment. What steps would you or your administration take on agricultural policy developments to protect the family farms for this multifunctional service they perform? AL GORE We've got a bumper crop this year, but that's the good news. You know what the bad news is that follows on that. The prices are low. In the last several years, the so-called Freedom to Farm law has, in my view, been mostly a failure. I want to change many of its provisions. Now many here will--will--who are not involved in farming don't--won't follow this, so just forgive me, because the 2 percent of the country that is involved in farming is important because the rest of us wouldn't eat except for them. An--and you guys have been having a hard time and I want to fight for you. I want to change those provisions. I want to restore a meaningful safety net. And I think that you pointed the way in your comments, because when you say there are multiple things accomplished by farmers, you're specifically including conservation and protection of the environment, and, yes, farmers are the first environmentalists. And when they decide not to plow a field that is vulnerable to soil erosion, that may cost them a little money, but it helps the environment. I think that we ought to have an expanded conservation reserve program and I think that the environmental benefits that come from sound management of the land ought to represent a new way for farmers to get some income that will enable them--enable you, to make sensible choices in crop rotation and when you leave the--the land fallow and the rest. Now I'll go beyond that an--and say I think we need much more focused rural economic development programs. I see a time when--when the Internet-based activities are more available in the rural areas and where the extra source of income that farm families used to have from shoe factories is replaced by an extra source of income from--from working in the information economy. So we need to do a lot of things but we ought to start with a better safety net. JIM LEHRER Governor Bush, two minutes. GEORGE W BUSH I'd like our farmers feeding the world. We're the best in the--we're the best--best producers in the world and I want--I want the farmers feeding the world. We need to open up markets. Exports are down. And every time an export number goes down, it hurts the farmer. I want the next president to have fast-track negotiating authority to open up markets around the world. We're the best. We're the most efficient--efficient farmers. I don't want to use food as a diplomatic weapon from this point forward. We shouldn't be using food. It hurts the farmers. It's not the right thing to do. I wan--I'm for value-added processing. We need to be mov--more work on value-added processing. You should take the raw product you produce--I presume you're a farmer--off your farm, and convert it. I think value-added processing is important. I'm for research and development--spending research and development money so that we can use our technological base to figure out new uses for farm products. I'm for getting rid of the death tax, completely getting rid of the death tax. One reason family farmers are forced to sell early is because of the death tax. This is a bad tax. The president shouldn't have vetoed that bill. It's a--it's a tax that taxes people twice. It penalizes the family farmer. So should I be fortunate enough to earn your vote, I also under--want to open up markets, but I also understand that farming is a part of our national security. I'm from a big farm state, we're the second-biggest state--farming state in the country, and I hear from my farmer friends all the time. The vice president's right. By the way, every day is Earth Day if you own the land, and I--I like the--I like the policies that will encourage farmers to put--set aside land as well for conservation purposes. Thank you. JIM LEHRER A quick thing on the inheritance taxes. There is a difference between the two of you on this. Vice President Gore, the... AL GORE Yeah. I--I'm for a massive reform of the estate tax or the death tax... JIM LEHRER Estate tax. AL GORE ...and under the plan that I've proposed, 80 percent of all family farms would be completely exempt from the estate tax, and--and the vast majority of all family businesses would be completely exempt, and all of the others would have sharply reduced, so 80 percent--now the problem with completely eliminating it goes back to the--to the wealthiest 1 percent. The amount of money that has to be raised in taxes from middle-class families to make up for completely eliminating that on--on the very wealthiest, the billionaires, that would--that would be an extra heavy burden on middle-class families, and so let's do it for most all, but not completely eliminate it for the very top. JIM LEHRER What's the case for doing that, Governor? GEORGE W BUSH Eliminating the death tax... JIM LEHRER Completely, for everybody. GEORGE W BUSH Because people shouldn't be taxed twice on their assets. It's either unfair for some, or unfair for all. Again, this is just a difference of opinion. If you're from Washington, you want to pick and choose winners. I don't think that's the role of the president. I think if you're going to have tax relief, everybody benefits. Secondly, I think your plan--there's a lot of fine print in your plan, Mr. Vice President, in all due respect. It is--I'm not so sure 80 percent of the people get--get the death tax. I know this--100 percent will get it if I--if I'm the president. I just don't think it's fair to tax people's assets twice, regardless of your status. It's a fairness issue. It's an issue of principle, not politics. JIM LEHRER New issue--new issue, and the question will be asked by Joyce Cleamer of Governor Bush. Joyce Cleamer? There you are. GEORGE W BUSH Hi, Joyce. JOYCE CLEAMER Yes. Hi, governor. I'm very concerned about the morality of our country now. TV, movies, the music that our children are--are, you know, barraged with every day, and I want to know if there's anything that can be worked out with the--Hollywood or whoever... GEORGE W BUSH Sure. JOYCE CLEAMER ...to help get rid of some of this bad language and the--whatever. You know, it's just bringing the country down and our children are very important to us and we're concerned about their education at school, we should be concerned about their education at home also. Thank you. GEORGE W BUSH Yeah. Appreciate that question. Laura and I are proud parents of teen-aged girls, twin daughters, and I know what you're saying. Government ought to stand on the side of parents. Parents are teaching their children right from wrong and the message oft--oftentimes gets undermined by the pop--popular culture. You bet there's things that government can do. We can work with the entertainment industry to provide family hour. We can have filters on Internets where public money is spent. There ought to be filters in public libraries and filters in public schools so if kids get on the Internet, there's not going to be pornography or violence coming in. I think we ought to have character education in our schools. I know that doesn't directly talk about Hollywood, but it does reinforce the values you're teaching. I'd greatly expand character education funding so that public schools will teach children values--values which have stood the test of time. There's after-school money available. I think that after-school money ought to be available for faith-based programs and charitable programs that exist because somebody has heard the call to love a neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself. That will help reinforce the values that parents teach at home as well. This--ours is a great land and one of the reasons why it is is because we're free, and so I don't support censorship, but I do believe that we ought to talk plainly to the Hollywood moguls and people who produce this stuff and explain the consequences. I think we need to have rating systems that are clear, and I happen to like the idea of having technology for the TV, easy for parents to use, so you can tune out these programs that you don't want in your house. But I'm going to remind mothers and dads, the best weapon is the off/on button and paying attention to your children and eating dinner with them and--and--and--and being a--I'm sorry. JIM LEHRER That's all right. GEORGE W BUSH I was on my peroration. JIM LEHRER Vice Pres... AL GORE My turn. JIM LEHRER Vice President Gore: AL GORE I care a lot about this. It's not just movies: television, video games, music, the Internet. Parents now feel like you have to compete with the mass culture in order to raise your kids with the values that you want them to have. Tipper and I have four children, and God bless them, every one of them decided on their own to come here this evening. I don't want to embarrass our oldest daughter. She and her husband made us grandparents almost a year and a half ago, and--and--and yet, if she'll forgive me, when she was little, she brought a record home that had some awful lyrics in it, and--and Tipper hit the ceiling, and that launched a campaign to try to get the record companies to put ratings that--warning labels for--for parents, and I'm so proud of what she accomplished in getting them on there. I've been involved myself in negotiating and--and helping to move along the negotiations with the Internet service providers to get a parents' protection page every time 95 percent of the pages come up, and a--a feature that allows parents to automatically check with one click what sites your kids have visited lately. You know, some parents are worried about those filters that you'll have to ask your kids how to put them on there. But if you can check up on them, then you--you--you--that's real power. And recently the Federal Trade Commission pointed out that some of these entertainment companies have warned parents that the material is inappropriate for children and then they turned around behind the backs of the parents and advertised that same adult material directly to children. That is an outrage. Joe Lieberman and I gave them six months to clean up their act, and if they don't do it, we're going to ask for tougher authority on--in the hands of the FTC, on the false and deceptive advertising. I'll tell you this: I want to do something about this, respect the First Amendment... JIM LEHRER OK. AL GORE ...but I will do something to help you raise your kids without that garbage. JIM LEHRER Vice Pres--all right. Vice President Gore, the next question is for you, and it will be asked by Steven Cusman. Mr. Cusman, where are you, sir? Right behind me as well. There we go. AL GORE Right next to the last one. JIM LEHRER Yeah. Got it. Good planning. PROFESSOR STEVEN CUSMAN It seems that when we hear about issues of this campaign, it's usually Medicare, Social Security or prescription drugs. As a college professor, I hear a lot of apathy amongst young people who feel that there are no issues directed to them... AL GORE Yeah. STEVEN CUSMAN ...and they don't plan to vote. How do you address that? AL GORE Yeah. We've got to change it. I spend a good deal of time talking to young people, and in my standard speech out there on the stump, I--I usually end my--my speech by saying, `I want to ask you for something and I want to direct it especially to the young people in the audience,' and I want to tell you what I tell them. Sometimes people who are very idealistic and have great dreams, as young people do, are apt to stay at arm's length from the political process because they think their good hearts might be brittle and if they invest their hopes and allow themselves to believe, then they're going to be let down and disappointed. But thank goodness we've always had enough people who have been willing in every generation to push past the fear of a broken heart and become deeply involved in forming a more perfect union. We're America, and--and we--we believe in our future and we know we have the ability to shape our future. Now we've got to address one of the--one of the biggest threats to our democracy, and that is the current campaign financing system, and I know they say it doesn't rank anywhere on the polls. I don't believe--I don't believe that's a fair measure. I'm telling you, I will make it the--I will make the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill the very first measure that I send to the Congress as president. Governor Bush opposes it. I--I wish that he would consider changing his mind on that, because I think that the special interests have too much power, and we need to give our democracy back to the American people. Let me tell you why. Those issues you mentioned--Social Security, prescription drugs--the big drug companies are against the prescription drug proposal that I've made. The--the HMOs are against the patients' rights bill, the Dingell-Norwood bill, that I support and that Governor Bush does not support. The big oil companies are against the--the measures to get more energy independence and renewable fuels. They ought to have their voices heard, but they shouldn't have a big megaphone that drowns out the American people. We need campaign finance reform and we need to shoot straight with young and old alike and tell them what the real choices are and we can renew and rekindle the American spirit and make our future what our founders dreamed it could be. We can. JIM LEHRER Governor Bush, two minutes. GEORGE W BUSH I'll tell you what I hear. A lot of people are sick and tired of the bitterness in Washington, DC, and therefore they don't want any part of politics. They look at Washington and see people pointing fingers and casting blame and saying one thing and doing another. There's a lot of young folks saying, you know, `Why do I want to be involved with this mess?' And what I think needs to happen in order to encourage the young to become involved is to shoot straight, is to set aside the partisan differences and set an agenda that will make sense. Medicare--I know you talked about it--but Medicare is--is--is relevant for all of us, young and old alike. We'd better get it right, now. Tax reform is relevant for old and young alike. I don't think it's the issues that turn kids off. I think it's the tone. I think it's the attitude. I think it's a cynicism in Washington, and it doesn't have to be that way. Before I cid--decided to run, I--I had to resolve two issues in my mind: One, could our family endure all this business? And I came to the conclusion that our love was strong enough to be able to do it. And the other was, could an administration change the tone in Washington, DC? And I believe the answer is yes, otherwise I wouldn't be asking for your vote. That's what happened in Texas. We worked together. There's a man here in this audience named Ogo Bolanga. He's the chairman of the health committee. He came here for a reason--to tout our record on health in Texas. He's a Democrat. I didn't care whether he was a Republican or Democrat. What I cared about was could we work together? That's what Washington, DC, needs. And finally, sir, to answer your question, you need somebody in office who'll tell the truth. That's the best way to get people back in the system. JIM LEHRER Governor Bush, Norma Kirby has the next question, and it's for you. GEORGE W BUSH OK. JIM LEHRER Norma Kirby, where are you? GEORGE W BUSH Hi, Norma. NORMA KIRBY Hi. How will your administration address diversity, inclusiveness, and what role will affirmative action play in your overall plan? GEORGE W BUSH I've had a record of bringing people from all walks of life into my administration, and my administration is better off for it in Texas. I'm going to find people that want to serve their country. But I want a diverse administration. I think it's important. I've worked hard in the state of Texas to make sure our institutions reflect the state with good, smart policy, policy that rejects quotas. I don't like quotas. Quotas tend to pit one group of people against another. Quotas are bad for America. It's not the way America is all about. But policies that--that give people a helping hand so they can help themselves; for example, in our state of Texas, I have worked with the Legislature, both Republicans and Democrats, to pass a law that said if you come in the top 10 percent of your high school class, you automatically are admitted to one of our--one of our higher institutions, higher institutions of learning--college. And as a result, our co--our universities are now more diverse. It was a smart thing to do. It was--I called it--I labeled it `affirmative access.' I think the contracting business in government can help, not with quotas, but help meet a goal of ownership of small businesses, for example. The contracts need to be smaller. The agencies need to be--you know, need to recruit and to work hard to find people to bid on the state contracts. I think we can do that in a way that--that represents what America is all about, which is equal opportunity and--and an opportunity for people to realize their potential. So, to answer your question, I--I--I support--I guess the way to put it is affirmative access, and I'll have an administration that will make you proud. Thank you. JIM LEHRER Vice President Gore: AL GORE I believe in this goal and this effort with all my heart. I believe that our future as a nation depends upon whether or not we can break down these barriers that have been used to pit group against group and bring our people together. How do you do it? Well, you establish respect for differences. You don't ignore differences. It's all too easy for somebody in the majority of the population to say, `Oh, we're just all--all the same' without an understanding of the different life experience that you've had, that others have had. Once you have that understanding and mutual respect, then we can transcend the differences and embrace the highest common denominator of the American spirit. I don't know what affirmative access means. I do know what affirmative action means. I know the governor is against it, and I know that I'm for it. I know what a hate crime statute pending at the national level is all about in the aftermath of James Byrd's death. I'm for that proposed law. The governor is against it. I know what it means to have a commitment to diversity. I am part of an administration that has the finest record on diversity and--and incidentally, an excellent--I--I mean, I think our success over the last eight years has not been in spite of diversity but because of it, because we're able to draw on the wisdom and experience from--from different parts of the society that hadn't been tapped in the same way before. And incidentally, Mel Carnahan in Missouri had the finest record on diversity of any governor in the entire history of the state of Missouri, and I want to honor that among his other achievements here. Now I--I just believe that what we have to do is enforce the civil rights laws. I'm against quotas. This is--with all due respect, Governor, that's a red herring. Affirmative action isn't quotas. I'm against quotas. They're illegal. They're against the American way. Affirmative action means that you take extra steps to acknowledge the history of discrimination and injustice and prejudice and bring all people into the American Dream because it helps everybody, not just those who are directly benefiting. JIM LEHRER Governor, what is your--are you opposed to affirmative action? GEORGE W BUSH No. If affirmative action means quotas, I'm against it. If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then I'm for it. You heard what I was for. The vice president keeps saying I'm against things. You heard what I was for, and that's what I support. JIM LEHRER What about--Mr. Vice President, you heard what he said. AL GORE He said if affirmative action means quotas he's against it. Affirmative action doesn't mean quotas. GEORGE W BUSH Good. AL GORE Are you for it without quotas? GEORGE W BUSH I may not be for your version, Mr. Vice President, but I'm for what I just described to the lady. She heard my answer. AL GORE Are you for what the Supreme Court says is a constitutional way of having affirmative action? GEORGE W BUSH Jim, just... JIM LEHRER Let's go on to another--another--and this que--the question... AL GORE I think that speaks for itself. GEORGE W BUSH No, it doesn't speak for itself, Mr. Vice President. It speaks for the fact that there are certain rules in this that we all agreed to but evidently rules don't mean anything. JIM LEHRER The question is for you, Vice President Gore, and Lisa Key will ask it. Lisa Key, where are you? There we go. Sorry. LISA KEY How will your tax proposals affect me as a middle-class, 34-year-old single person with no dependents? AL GORE If you make less than $60,000 a year and you decide to invest $1,000 in a savings account, you'll get a tax credit which means, in essence, that the federal government will match your $1,000 with another $1,000. If you make less than $30,000 a year and you put $500 in a savings account, the federal government will match it with $1,500. If you make more than $60,000, up to $100,000, you'll still get a match but not as generous. You will get a--an access to life-long learning and education, help with tuition if you want to get a new skill or--or training, if you--if you want to purchase health insurance, you will get help with that. I--if you want to participate in some of the dynamic changes that are going on in--in our country, you will get specific help in doing that. If you are part of the--of the bottom 20 percent or so of wage earners, then you will get an expanded earned income tax credit. Now the tax relief that I propose is directed specifically at middle-income individuals and families. And if you have a--if you have an elderly parent or grandparent who needs long-term care, then you will get help with that, $3,000 tax credit to help your expenses in taking care of a loved one who needs long-term care. JIM LEHRER Governor Bush: GEORGE W BUSH Right. Let me just say the first--this--this business about the entitlement he tried to describe about savings, you know, matching savings here and matching savings there, fully funded is going to cost a whole lot of money, a lot more than we have. You're going to get tax relief under my plan. You're not to be targeted in or targeted out. Everybody who pays taxes is going to get tax relief. If you take care of an elderly in your home, you're going to get the personal exemption increased. I think also what you need to think about is not the immediate, but what about Medicare? You get a plan that will include prescription drugs, a plan that will give you options. Now I--I hope people understand that Medicare today is--is--is important, but it doesn't keep up with the new medicines. If you're a Medicare person, on--on Medicare, you don't get the new--new procedures. You're stuck in a time warp in many ways. So it will be a modern Medicare system that trusts you to make a variety of options for you. You're going to live in a peaceful world. It will be a world of peace because we're going to have a clearer--clearer sight of foreign policy based upon a strong military and a mission that stands by our friends, a mission that doesn't try to be all things to all people, a judicious use of the military which will help keep the peace. You'll be in a world, hopefully, that's more educated so it's less likely you'll be harmed in your neighborhood. See, an educated child is one much more likely to be hopeful and optimistic. You'll be in a world in which--fits into my philosophy, you know, the harder work--the harder you work, the more you can keep. It's the American way. Government shouldn't be a heavy hand--that's what the federal government does to you--it should be a helping hand, and tax relief and proposals I just described should be a good helping hand. JIM LEHRER Governor, next question is for you, and Leo Anderson will ask it. Mr. Anderson: GEORGE W BUSH Hi, Leo. LEO ANDERSON How you doing, Governor? GEORGE W BUSH You want a mike? LEO ANDERSON In one of the last debates held, the subject of capital punishment came up, and in your response to the question, you seemed to overly enjoy, as a matter of fact, proud that Texas leads the na--led the nation in execution of prisoners. Sir, did I misread your response, and are you really, really proud of the fact that Texas is number one in executions? GEORGE W BUSH No, I'm not proud of that. The death penalty is very serious business, Leo. It's--it's an issue that good people obviously disagree on. I take my job seriously, and I--if you think I was proud of it, I--I think you misread me, I do. I--I was sworn to uphold the laws of my state. During the course of the campaign in 1994 I was asked, `Do you support the death penalty?' I said I did if I--if administered fairly and justly, because I believe it saves lives, Leo. I do. I think if it's administered swiftly, justly and fairly, it saves lives. One of the things that happens when you're a governor--at least--oftentimes you have to make tough decisions. You can't let public persuasion sway you because the job is to enforce the law, and that's what I did, sir. There have been some tough cases come across my desk. Some of the hardest moments since I've been the governor of the state of Texas is to deal with those cases. But my job is to ask two questions, sir: Is the person guilty of the crime, and did the person have full access to the courts of law? And I can tell you, looking at you right now, in all cases those answers were affirmative. I'm not proud of any record. I'm proud of the fact that violent crime is down in the state of Texas. I'm proud of the fact that--that--that we hold people accountable, but I'm not proud of any record, sir. I'm not. JIM LEHRER Vice President Gore: AL GORE I support the death penalty. I think that it has to be administered not only fairly, with attention to things like DNA evidence, which I think should be used in all capital cases, but also with very careful attention if--if, for example, somebody confesses to the crime and somebody's waiting on death row, there has to be alertness to--to say, `Wait a minute, have we got the wrong guy?' If the wrong guy is put to death, then that's a double tragedy, not only has an innocent person been executed but the real perpetrator of the crime has not been held accountable for it and in some cases may be still at large. But I support the death penalty in the most heinous cases. JIM LEHRER Do both of you believe that the death penalty actually deters crime? Governor? GEORGE W BUSH I do. That's the only reason to be for it. I don't--let--let me finish, sir. JIM LEHRER Sure. GEORGE W BUSH I--I--I don't think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people's lives. JIM LEHRER Vice President Gore: AL GORE I think it is a deterrence. I know it's a controversial view but I do believe it's a deterrence. JIM LEHRER All right. The next question is for you, Vice President Gore, and Thomas Fisher will ask it. Mr. Fisher: THOMAS FISHER Yes. My sixth-grade class at St. Claire School wanted to ask, of all these promises you guys are making and all the pledges, will you keep them when you're in office? AL GORE Yes. I am a person who keeps promises. And do you know, we've heard a lot about--from the governor--about not much being done in the last eight years, as if the promises that I--I made eight years ago have not been kept. I think the record shows otherwise. We have gone from the biggest deficit eight years ago to the biggest surpluses in history today. Instead of high unemployment, we now have the--the lowest African-American unemployment, the lowest Latino unemployment ever measured, 22 million new jobs, very low unemployment nationally. Instead of ballooning the debt and multiplying it four times over, we have seen the debt actually begun to be paid down. Here are some promises that I'll make to you now: I will balance the budget every year. I will pay down the debt every year. I will give middle-class Americans tax cuts, meaningful ones, and I will invest in education, health care, protecting the environment and retirement security. We both made promises in this campaign. I promise you I will keep mine. Let me tell you about one of the governor's. He has promised a trillion dollars out of the Social Security trust fund for young working adults to invest and save on their own, but he's promised seniors that their Social Security benefits will not be cut and he's promised the same trillion dollars to them, so this is the `Show Me' state; reminds the line from the movie, `Show me the money.' Which one of those promises will you keep and which will you break, Governor? JIM LEHRER Governor Bush: GEORGE W BUSH Thank you for your question. I--I--there's an old high school debating trick which is to answer something and then attack your opponent at the end. Now you asked about promises. You were promised that Medicare would be reformed, and that Social Security would be reformed. You were promised a middle-class tax cut in 1992. It didn't happen. There's too much bitterness in Washington. There's too much wrangling. It's time to have a fresh start. One of the reasons I was successful as the governor of Texas is because I didn't try to be all things to all people. When I campaigned in a race, a lot of folks didn't think I could win, including, by the way, my mother. I said I'd do four things: tort reform, education reform, welfare reform and juvenile justice reform. And I won, and I had the will of the people in my state behind me. And then I brought folks together to get it done. And that's what we need, I think, in this election. To me that's what it's all about. I know this--I'm sure your sixth-grade kids are listening to this and saying, `That these guys will say anything to get elected.' But there's a record, and that's what I hope people will look at that, and one of my promises is going to be Social Security reform. And you bet we need to take a trillion dollar--a trillion dollars out of that $2.4 trillion surplus. Now remember, Social Security revenue exceeds expenses up until 2015. People are going to get paid. But if you're a younger worker, if you're younger, you better hope this country thinks differently. Otherwise you're going to be faced with huge payroll taxes or reduced benefits. And you bet we're going to take a trillion dollars of your own money and let you invest it under safe guidelines so you get a better rate of return on the money than the paltry 2 percent that the federal government gets for you today. That's one of my promises, but it's going to require people to bring both Republicans and Democrats together to get it done. That's what it requires. There was a chance to get this done. There was bipartisan r--bipartisan approach, but it's been rejected. I'm going to bring them together. JIM LEHRER Both of you, to both of you on this subject, there are other questions that also go to this skepticism, not necessarily about you but all people in politics. Why is that? AL GORE Well, fir--first of all, Jim, I'd like to--I'd like to respond to what the governor just said, because the--the trillion dollars that has been promised to young people has also been promised to older people, and you cannot keep both promises. If you're in your mid-40s, under the governor's plan, Social Security will be bankrupt by the time you retire, if he takes it out of the Social Security trust fund. Under my plan, it will be--its solvency will be extended until you're 100. Now that is the difference. And the governor may not want to answer that question. He may want to call it a high school debating trick. But let me tell you this. This election is not about debating tricks. It is about your future. The reason Social Security--he says it gets 2 percent. You know, it's not a--a bank account. It al--that--that just pays back money that's invested. It's also used to give your mothers and fathers the Social Security checks that they live on. If you take $1 trillion out of that Social Security Trust Fund, how are the checks going to be--how are you going to keep faith with the seniors? Now let me come--let me come directly to your question. JIM LEHRER No. I think we're--we're--we have to go to the closing statements. GEORGE W BUSH Well--well, can I answer that? JIM LEHRER Sure. GEORGE W BUSH One fear--one reason people are skeptical is because people don't answer the questions they've been asked. The trillion dollars comes out of the surplus, so that you can invest some of your own money. There's just a difference of opinion. I want workers to have their own assets. It's who you trust, government or people. JIM LEHRER All right. Now we're going to go to closing statements. AL GORE Right. JIM LEHRER Vice President Gore, you're first. You have two minutes. AL GORE Thank--thank you very much, Jim, and I'll begin by answering your questions. I--I--your last question. I believe that a lot of people are skeptical about people in politics today because we have seen a time of--of great challenge for our country since the assassination of our best leaders in the '60s, since the Vietnam War, since Watergate, and because we need campaign finance reform. I'd like to tell you something about me. I keep my word. I have kept the faith. I--I kept the faith with my country. PERSON Yes, you did. AL GORE I--I volunteered for the Army. I served in Vietnam. I kept the faith with my family. Tipper and I have been married for 30 years. We have devoted ourselves to our children and now our nearly one-and-a-half-year-old grandson. I have kept the faith with our country. Nine times I have raised my hand to take an oath to the Constitution and I have never violated that oath. I have not spent the last quarter century in pursuit of personal wealth. I have spent the last quarter century fighting for middle-class working men and women in the United States of America. I believe very deeply that you have to be willing to stand up and fight, no matter what powerful forces might be on the other side. If you want somebody who is willing to fight for you, I am asking for your support and your vote and, yes, your confidence and your willingness to believe that we can do the right thing in America and be the better for it. We've made some progress during the last eight years. We have seen the strongest economy in the history of the United States, lower crime rates for the--for eight years in a row, highest private home ownership ever. But I'll make you one promise here: You ain't seen nothing yet. And I will keep that promise. JIM LEHRER Governor Bush, two minutes. GEORGE W BUSH Well, Jim, I want to thank you and thank the folks here at Washington University and the vice president. I appreciate the chance to have a good, honest dialogue about our differences of opinion. And I think after the three debates, the good people of this country understand there is a difference of opinion. It's the difference between big federal government and somebody who is coming from outside of Washington who will trust individuals. I've got an agenda that I want to get done for the country. It's an agenda that says we're going to reform Medicare to make sure seniors have got prescription drugs and to give seniors different options from which they can choose. It's an agenda that says we're going to listen to the young voices in Social Security and say we're going to think differently about making sure we have a system but also fulfill the promise to the seniors in America. A promise made will be a promise kept should I be fortunate enough to become your president. I want to rebuild the military to keep the peace. I want to make sure that the public school system in America fulfills its promise so that no child, not one child, is left behind. And after setting priorities, I want to give some of--some of your money back. See, I don't think the surplus is the government's money. I think it's the people's money. I don't think the surplus exists because of the ingenuity and hard work of the federal government. I think it exists because of the ingenuity and hard work of the American people and you ought to have some of this surplus so you can save and dream and build. I look forward to the final weeks of this campaign. I'm asking for your vote. For those of you for me, thanks for your help. For those of you for my opponent, please only vote once. But for those who have not made up their mind, I'd like to conclude by this promise. Should I be fortunate to become your president, when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of the land but I will also swear to uphold the honor and the dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God. Thank you very much. JIM LEHRER This part is missing on this asset A closing piece of business before we go. The debate commission wants reaction to the three kinds of formats used in the debates this year. And you may register an opinion at their Web site: www.debates.org. Thank you, Vice President Gore, Governor Bush. From St. Louis, I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.

TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will convene as a Court of Impeachment. The Chaplain will offer a prayer. ______ PRAYER The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer: Almighty God, whose providential care has never varied all through our Nation's history, we ask You for a special measure of wisdom for the women and men of this Senate as they act as jurors in this impeachment trial. You have been our Nation's refuge and strength in triumphs and troubles, prosperity and problems. Now, dear Father, help us through this difficult time. As You guided the Senators to unity in matters of procedure, continue to make them one in their search for the truth and in their expression of justice. Keep them focused in a spirit of nonpartisan patriotism today and in the crucial days to come. Bless the distinguished Chief Justice as he presides over this trial. We commit to You all that is said and done and ultimately decided. In Your holy Name. Amen. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Sergeant at Arms will make the proclamation. The Sergeant at Arms, James W. Ziglar, made proclamation as follows: Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Presiding Officer recognizes the majority leader. Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Installing Equipment And Furniture in the Senate Chamber Mr. LOTT. I send a resolution to the desk providing for installing equipment and furniture in the Senate Chamber and ask that it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will report the resolution by title. The legislative clerk read as follows: A resolution (S. Res. 17), to authorize the installation of appropriate equipment and furniture in the Senate Chamber for the impeachment trial. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, the resolution is considered and agreed to. The resolution (S. Res. 17) was agreed to, as follows: S. Res. 17 Resolved, That in recognition of the unique requirements raised by the impeachment trial of a President of the United States, the Sergeant at Arms shall install appropriate equipment and furniture in the Senate chamber for use by the managers from the House of Representatives and counsel to the President in their presentations to the Senate during all times that the Senate is sitting for trial with the Chief Justice of the United States presiding. Sec. 2. The appropriate equipment and furniture referred to in the first section is as follows: (1) A lectern, a witness table and chair if required, and tables and chairs to accommodate an equal number of managers from the House of Representatives and counsel for the President which shall be placed in the well of the Senate. (2) Such equipment as may be required to permit the display of video, or audio evidence, including video monitors and microphones, which may be placed in the chamber for use by the managers from the House of Representatives or the counsel to the President. Sec. 3. All equipment and furniture authorized by this resolution shall be placed in the chamber in a manner that provides the least practicable disruption to Senate proceedings. Privilege of the Floor Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I now ask unanimous consent floor privileges be granted to the individuals listed on the document I send to the desk, during the closed impeachment proceedings of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered. The document follows. Floor Privileges During Closed Session David Hoppe, Administrative Assistant, Majority Leader. Michael Wallace, Counsel, Majority Leader. Robert Wilkie, Counsel, Majority Leader. Bill Corr, Counsel, Democratic Leader. Robert Bauer, Counsel, Democratic Leader. Andrea La Rue, Counsel, Democratic Leader. Peter Arapis, Floor Manager, Democratic Whip. Kirk Matthew, Chief of Staff, Assistant Majority Leader. Stewart Verdery, Counsel, Assistant Majority Leader. Tom Griffith, Senate Legal Counsel. Morgan Frankel, Deputy Senate Legal Counsel. Loretta Symms, Deputy Sergeant at Arms. Bruce Kasold, Chief Counsel, Secretary & Sergeant at Arms. David Schiappa, Assistant Majority Secretary. Lula Davis, Assistant Minority Secretary. Alan Frumin, Assistant Parliamentarian. Kevin Kayes, Assistant Parliamentarian. Patrick Keating, Assistant Journal Clerk. Scott Sanborn, Assistant Journal Clerk. David Tinsley, Assistant Legislative Clerk. Ronald Kavulick, Chief Reporter. Jerald Linnell, Official Reporter. Raleigh Milton, Official Reporter. Joel Breitner, Official Reporter. Mary Jane McCarthy, Official Reporter. Paul Nelson, Official Reporter. Katie-Jane Teel, Official Reporter. Patrick Renzi, Official Reporter. Lee Brown, Staff Assistant, Official Reporter. Kathleen Alvarez, Bill Clerk. Simon Sargent, Staff Assistant to Sen. Cleland. Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Authority to Print Senate Documents Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to print as a Senate document all documents filed by the parties together with other materials for the convenience of all Senators. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I am about to submit a series of unanimous-consent agreements and a resolution for the consideration of the Senate. In addition to these matters, I would like to state for the information of all Senators that, pursuant to S. Res. 16, the evidentiary record on which the parties' presentations over the next days will be based was filed by the House managers yesterday and was distributed to all Senators through their offices. These materials are now being printed at the Government Printing Office as Senate documents. The initial documents of the record have been printed and are now at each Senator's desk. As the printing of the rest of the volumes of the record is completed over the next few days, they will also be placed on the Senators desks for their convenience. THE JOURNAL The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, the Journal of the proceedings of the trial are approved to date. The Presiding Officer submits to the Senate for printing in the Senate Journal the following documents: The precept, issued on January 8, 1999; The writ of summons, issued on January 8, 1999; and the receipt of summons, dated January 8, 1999. The Presiding Officer submits to the Senate for printing in the Senate Journal the following documents, which were received by the Secretary of the Senate pursuant to Senate Resolution 16, 106th Congress, first session: The answer of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, to the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against him on January 7, 1999, received by the Secretary of the Senate on January 11, 1999; The trial brief filed by the House of Representatives, received by the Secretary of the Senate on January 11, 1999; The trial brief filed by the President, received by the Secretary of the Senate on January 13, 1999; The replication of the House of Representatives, received by the Secretary of the Senate on January 13, 1999; and The rebuttal brief filed by the House of Representatives, received by the Secretary of the Senate on January 14, 1999. Without objection, the foregoing documents will be printed in the Congressional Record. The documents follow: The United States of America, ss: The Senate of the United States to James W. Ziglar, Sergeant at Arms, United States Senate, greeting: You are hereby commanded to deliver to and leave with William Jefferson Clinton, if conveniently to be found, or if not, to leave at his usual place of abode, a true and attested copy of the within writ of summons, together with a like copy of this precept; and in whichsoever way you perform the service, let it be done at least 2 days before the answer day mentioned in the said writ of summons. Fail not, and make return of this writ of summons and precept, with your proceedings thereon indorsed, on or before the day for answering mentioned in the said writ of summons. Witness Strom Thurmond, President pro tempore of the Senate, at Washington, D.C., this 8th day of January, 1999, the two hundred and twenty-third year of the Independence of the United States. Attest: Gary Sisco, Secretary of the Senate. ____ The United States of America, ss: The Senate of the United States to William Jefferson Clinton, greeting: Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States of America did, on the 7th day of January, 1999, exhibit to the Senate articles of impeachment against you, the said William Jefferson Clinton, in the words following: ``Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. Article I ``In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that: ``On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action. ``In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. ``Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article II ``In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding. ``The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts: ``(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading. ``(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding. ``(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him. ``(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him. ``(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge. ``(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness. ``(7) On or about January 21, 23, and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information. ``In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive to the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. ``Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.'' And demand that you, the said William Jefferson Clinton, should be put to answer the accusations as set forth in said articles, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments might be thereupon had as are agreeable to law and justice. You, the said William Jefferson Clinton, are therefore hereby summoned to file with the Secretary of the United States Senate, S-220 The Capitol, Washington, D.C., 20510, an answer to the said articles of impeachment no later than noon on the 11th day of January, 1999, and therefore to abide by, obey, and perform such orders, directions, and judgments as the Senate of the United States shall make in the premises according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. Hereof you are not to fail. Witness Strom Thurmond, President pro tempore of the Senate, at Washington, D.C., this 8th day of January, 1999, the two hundred and twenty-third year of the Independence of the United States. Attest: Gary Sisco, Secretary of the Senate. ____ The foregoing writ of summons, addressed to William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, and the foregoing precept, addressed to me, were duly served upon the said William Jefferson Clinton, by my delivering true and attested copies of the same to Charles Ruff, at the White House, on the 8th day of January, 1999, at 5:27 p.m. Attest: James W. Ziglar, Sergeant at Arms. Loretta Symms, Deputy Sergeant at Arms. Dated: January 8, 1999. Witnesseth: Gary Sisco, Secretary, United States Senate. ____ [In the Senate of the United States Sitting as a Court of Impeachment] In re Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States ANSWER OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, in response to the summons of the Senate of the United States, answers the accusations made by the House of Representatives of the United States in the two Articles of Impeachment it has exhibited to the Senate as follows: Preamble The Charges in the Articles Do Not Constitute High Crimes or Misdemeanors The charges in the two Articles of Impeachment do not permit the conviction and removal from office of a duly elected President. The President has acknowledged conduct with Ms. Lewinsky that was improper. But Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that the President shall be removed from office only upon ``Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The charges in the articles do not rise to the level of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' as contemplated by the Founding Fathers, and they do not satisfy the rigorous constitutional standard applied throughout our Nation's history. Accordingly, the Articles of Impeachment should be dismissed. The President Did Not Commit Perjury or Obstruct Justice The President denies each and every material allegation of the two Articles of Impeachment not specifically admitted in this answer. Article I President Clinton denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements before the federal grand jury on August 17, 1998. Factual Responses to Article I Without waiving his affirmative defenses, President Clinton offers the following factual responses to the allegations in Article I: (1) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury about ``the nature and details of his relationship'' with Monica Lewinsky There is a myth about President Clinton's testimony before the grand jury. The myth is that the President failed to admit his improper intimate relationship with Ms. Monica Lewinsky. The myth is perpetuated by Article I, which accuses the President of lying about ``the nature and details of his relationship'' with Ms. Lewinsky. The fact is that the President specifically acknowledged to the grand jury that he had an improper intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He said so, plainly and clearly: ``When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters . . . did involve inappropriate intimate contact.'' The President described to the grand jury how the relationship began and how it ended at his insistence early in 1997--long before any public attention or scrutiny. He also described to the grand jury how he had attempted to testify in the deposition in the Jones case months earlier without having to acknowledge to the Jones lawyers what he ultimately admitted to the grand jury--that he had an improper intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The President read a prepared statement to the grand jury acknowledging his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The statement was offered at the beginning of his testimony to focus the questioning in a manner that would allow the Office of Independent Counsel to obtain necessary information without unduly dwelling on the salacious details of the relationship. The President's statement was followed by almost four hours of questioning. If it is charged that his statement was in any respect perjurious, false and misleading, the President denies it. The President also denies that the statement was in any way an attempt to thwart the investigation. The President states, as he did during his grand jury testimony, that he engaged in improper physical contact with Ms. Lewinsky. The President was truthful when he testified before the grand jury that he did not engage in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky as he understood that term to be defined by the Jones lawyers during their questioning of him in that deposition. The President further denies that his other statements to the grand jury about the nature and details of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky were perjurious, false, and misleading. (2) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury when he testified about statements he had made in the Jones deposition There is a second myth about the President's testimony before the grand jury. The myth is that the President adopted his entire Jones deposition testimony in the grand jury. The President was not asked to and did not broadly restate or reaffirm his Jones deposition testimony. Instead, in the grand jury he discussed the bases for certain answers he gave. The President testified truthfully in the grand jury about statements he made in the Jones deposition. The President stated to the grand jury that he did not attempt to be helpful to or assist the lawyers in the Jones deposition in their quest for information about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He truthfully explained to the grand jury his efforts to answer the questions in the Jones deposition without disclosing his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Accordingly, the full, underlying Jones deposition is not before the Senate. Indeed, the House specifically considered and rejected an article of impeachment based on the President's deposition in the Jones case. The House managers should not be allowed to prosecute before the Senate an article of impeachment which the full House has rejected. (3) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury about ``statements he allowed his attorney to make'' during the Jones deposition The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury about the statements his attorney made during the Jones deposition. The President was truthful when he explained to the grand jury his understanding of certain statements made by his lawyer, Robert Bennett, during the Jones deposition. The President also was truthful when he testified that he was not focusing on the prolonged and complicated exchange between the attorneys and Judge Wright. (4) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury concerning alleged efforts ``to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence'' in the Jones case For the reasons discussed more fully in response to Article II, the President denies that he attempted to influence the testimony of any witness or to impede the discovery of evidence in the Jones case. Thus, the President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements before the grand jury when he testified about these matters. First Affirmative Defense: Article I Does Not Meet the Constitutional Standard for Conviction and Removal For the same reasons set forth in the preamble of this answer, Article I does not meet the rigorous constitutional standard for conviction and removal from office of a duly elected President and should be dismissed. Second Affirmative Defense: Article I Is Too Vague To Permit Conviction and Removal Article I is unconstitutionally vague. No reasonable person could know what specific charges are being leveled against the President. It alleges that the President provided the grand jury with ``perjurious, false, and misleading testimony'' concerning ``one or more'' of four subject areas. But it fails to identify any specific statement by the President that is alleged to be perjurious, false and misleading. The House has left the Senate and the President to guess at what it had in mind. One of the fundamental principles of our law and the Constitution is that a person has a right to know what specific charges he or she is facing. Without such fair warning, no one can prepare the defense to which every person is entitled. The law and the Constitution also mandate adequate notice to jurors so they may know the basis for the vote they must make. Without a definite and specific identification of false statements, a trial becomes a moving target for the accused. In addition, the American people deserve to know upon what specific statements the President is being judged, given the gravity and effect of these proceedings, namely nullifying the results of a national election. Article I sweeps broadly and fails to provide the required definite and specific identification. Were it an indictment, it would be dismissed. As an article of impeachment, it is constitutionally defective and should fail. Third Affirmative Defense: Article I Charges Multiple Offense in One Article Article I is fatally flawed because it charges multiple instances of alleged perjurious, false and misleading statements in one article. The Constitution provides that ``no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present,'' and Senate Rule XXIII provides that ``an article of impeachment shall not be divisible for the purpose of voting thereon at any time during the trial.'' By the express terms of Article I, a Senator may vote for impeachment if he or she finds that there was perjurious, false and misleading testimony in ``one or more'' of four topic areas. This creates the very real possibility that conviction could occur even though Senators were in wide disagreement as to the alleged wrong committed. Put simply, the structure of Article I presents the possibility that the President could be convicted even though he would have been acquitted if separate votes were taken on each allegedly perjurious statement. For example, it would be possible for the President to be convicted and removed from office with as few as 17 Senators agreeing that any single statement was perjurious, because 17 votes for each of the four categories in Article I would yield 68 votes, one more than necessary to convict and remove. By charging multiple wrongs in one article, the House of Representatives has made it impossible for the Senate to comply with the Constitutional mandate that any conviction be by the concurrence of two-thirds of the members. Accordingly, Article I should fail. Factual Responses to Article II Without waiving his affirmative defenses, President Clinton offers the following factual responses to the allegations in Article II: (1) The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997, he ``corruptly encouraged'' Monica Lewinsky ``to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading'' The President denies that he encouraged Monica Lewinsky to execute a false affidavit in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky, the only witness cited in support of this allegation, denies this allegation as well. Her testimony and proffered statements are clear and unmistakable: ``[N]o one even asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence.'' ``Neither the President nor anyone ever directed Lewinsky to say anything or to lie . . .'' ``Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan (or anyone on their behalf) asked or encouraged Ms. L[ewinsky] to lie.'' The President states that, sometime in December 1997, Ms. Lewinsky asked him whether she might be able to avoid testifying the Jones case because she knew nothing about Ms. Jones or the case. The President further states that he told her he believed other witnesses had executed affidavits, and there was a chance they would not have to testify. The President denies that he ever asked, encouraged or suggested that Ms. Lewinsky file a false affidavit or lie. The President states that he believed that Ms. Lewinsky could have filed a limited but truthful affidavit that might have enabled her to avoid having to testify in the Jones case. (2) The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997, he ``corruptly encouraged'' Monica Lewinsky ``to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony of and when called to testify personally'' in the Jones litigation Again, the President denies that he encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to lie if and when called to testify personally in the Jones case. The testimony and proffered statements of Monica Lewinsky, the only witness cited in support of this allegation, are clear and unmistakable: [N]o one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence.'' ``Neither the President nor anyone ever directed Lewinsky to say anything or to lie . . .'' ``Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan (or anyone on their behalf) asked or encouraged Ms. L[ewinsky] to lie.'' The President states that, prior to Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case, he and Ms. Lewinsky might have talked about what to do to conceal their relationship from others. Ms. Lewinsky was not a witness in any legal proceeding at that time. Ms. Lewinsky's own testimony and statements support the President's recollection. Ms. Lewinsky testified that she ``pretty much can'' exclude the possibility that she and the President ever had discussions about denying the relationship after she learned she was a witness in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky also stated that ``they did not discuss the issue [of what to say about their relationship] is specific relation to the Jones matter,'' and that ``she does not believe they discussed the content of any deposition that [she] might be involved in at a later date.'' (3) The President denies that on or about December 28, 1997, he ``corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence'' in the Jones case The President denies that he engaged in, encouraged, or supported any scheme to conceal evidence from discovery in the Jones case, including any gifts he had given to Ms. Lewinsky. The President states that he gave numerous gifts to Ms. Lewinsky prior to December 28, 1997. The President states that, sometime in December, Ms. Lewinsky inquired as to what to do if she were asked in the Jones case about the gifts he had given her, to which the President responded that she would have to turn over whatever she had. The President states that he was unconcerned about having given her gifts and, in fact, that he gave Ms. Lewinsky additional gifts on December 28, 1997. The President denies that he ever asked his secretary, Ms. Betty Currie, to retrieve gifts he had given Ms. Lewinsky, or that he ever asked, encouraged, or suggested that Ms. Lewinsky conceal the gifts. Ms. Currie told prosecutors as early as January 1998 and repeatedly thereafter that it was Ms. Lewinsky who had contacted her about retrieving gifts. (4) The President denies that he obstructed justice in connection with Monica Lewinsky's efforts to obtain a job in New York to ``corruptly prevent'' her ``truthful testimony'' in the Jones case The President denies that he obstructed justice in connection with Ms. Lewinsky's job search in New York or sought to prevent her truthful testimony in the Jones case. The President states that he discussed with Ms. Lewinsky her desire to obtain a job in New York months before she was listed as a potential witness in the Jones case. Indeed, Ms. Lewinsky was offered a job in New York at the United Nations more than a month before she was identified as a possible witness. The President also states that he believes that Ms. Lewinsky raised with him, again before she was ever listed as a possible witness in the Jones case, the prospect of having Mr. Vernon Jordan assist in her job search. Ms. Lewinsky corroborates his recollection that it was her idea to ask for Mr. Jordan's help. The President also states that he was aware that Mr. Jordan was assisting Ms. Lewinsky to obtain employment in New York. The President denies that any of these efforts had any connection whatsoever to Ms. Lewinsky's status as a possible or actual witness in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky forcefully confirmed the President's denial when she testified, ``I was never promised a job for my silence.'' (5) The President denies that he ``corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge'' concerning Monica Lewinsky's affidavit The President denies that he corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements concerning Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit to a Federal judge during the Jones deposition. The President denies that he was focusing his attention on the prolonged and complicated exchange between his attorney and Judge Wright. (6) The President denies that he obstructed justice by relating ``false and misleading statements'' to ``a potential witness,'' Betty Currie, ``in order to corruptly influence [her] testimony'' The President denies that he obstructed justice or endeavored in any way to influence any potential testimony of Ms. Betty Currie. The President states that he spoke with Ms. Currie on January 18, 1998. The President testified that, in that conversation, he was trying to find out what the facts were, what Ms. Currie's perception was, and whether his own recollection was correct about certain aspects of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Ms. Currie testified that she felt no pressure ``whatsoever'' from the President's statements and no pressure ``to agree with [her] boss.'' The President denies knowing or believing that Ms. Currie would be a witness in any proceeding at the time of this conversation. Ms. Currie had not been on any of the witness lists proffered by the Jones lawyers. President Clinton states that, after the Independent Counsel investigation became public, when Ms. Currie was scheduled to testify, he told Ms. Currie to ``tell the truth.'' (7) The President denies that he obstructed justice when he relayed allegedly ``false and misleading statements'' to his aides The President denies that he obstructed justice when he misled his aides about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky in the days immediately following the public revelation of the Lewinsky investigation. The President acknowledges that, in the days following the January 21, 1998, Washington Post article, he misled his family, his friends and staff, and the Nation to conceal the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He sought to avoid disclosing his personal wrongdoing to protect his family and himself from hurt and public embarrassment. The President profoundly regrets his actions, and he has apologized to his family, his friends and staff, and the Nation. The President denies that he had any corrupt purpose or any intent to influence the ongoing grand jury proceedings. First Affirmative Defense: Article II Does Not Meet the Constitutional Standard for Conviction and Removal For the reasons set forth in the preamble of this answer, Article II does not meet the constitutional standard for convicting and removing a duly elected President from office and should be dismissed. Second Affirmative Defense: Article II Is Too Vague To Permit Conviction and Removal Article II is unconstitutionally vague. No reasonable person could know what specific charges are being leveled against the President. Article II alleges that the President ``obstructed and impeded the administration of justice'' in both the Jones case and the grand jury investigation. But it provides little or no concrete information about the specific acts in which the President is alleged to have engaged, or with whom, or when, that allegedly obstructed or otherwise impeded the administration of justice. As we set forth in the Second Affirmative Defense to Article I, one of the fundamental principles of our law and the Constitution is that a person has the right to know what specific charges he or she is facing. Without such fair warning, no one can mount the defense to which every person is entitled. Fundamental to due process is the right of the President to be adequately informed of the charges so that he is able to confront those charges and defend himself. Article II sweeps too broadly and provides too little definite and specific identification. Were it an indictment, it would be dismissed. As an article of impeachment, it is constitutionally defective and should fail. Third Affirmative Defense: Article II Charges Multiple Offenses in One Article For the reasons set forth in the Third Affirmative Defense to Article I, Article II is constitutionally defective because it charges multiple instances of alleged acts of obstruction in one article, which makes it impossible for the Senate to comply with the Constitutional mandates that any conviction be by the concurrence of the two-thirds of the members. Accordingly, Article II should fail. Respectfully submitted, David E. Kendall, Nicole K. Seligman, Emmet T. Flood, Max Stier, Glen Donath, Alicia Marti, Williams & Connolly, 725 12th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. Charles F. C. Ruff, Gregory B. Craig, Bruce R. Lindsey, Cheryl D. Mills, Lanny A. Breuer, Office of the White House Counsel, The White House, Washington, D.C. 20502. Submitted: January 11, 1999. ____ [In the Senate of the United States Sitting as a Court of Impeachment] In re Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Now comes the United States House of Representatives, by and through its duly authorized Managers, and respectfully submits to the United States Senate its Brief in connection with the Impeachment Trial of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States. Summary The President is charged in two Articles with: (1) Perjury and false and misleading testimony and statements under oath before a federal grand jury (Article I), and (2) engaging in a course of conduct or scheme to delay and obstruct justice (Article II). The evidence contained in the record, when viewed as a unified whole, overwhelmingly supports both charges. Perjury and False Statements Under Oath President Clinton deliberately and willfully testified falsely under oath when he appeared before a federal grand jury on August 17, 1998. Although what follows is not exhaustive, some of the more overt examples will serve to illustrate. At the very outset, the President read a prepared statement, which itself contained totally false assertions and other clearly misleading information. The President relied on his statement nineteen times in his testimony when questioned about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. President Clinton falsely testified that he was not paying attention when his lawyer employed Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at the Jones deposition. He falsely claimed that his actions with Ms. Lewinsky did not fall within the definition of ``sexual relations'' that was given at his deposition. He falsely testified that he answered questions truthfully at his deposition concerning, among other subjects, whether he had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky. He falsely testified that he instructed Ms. Lewinsky to turn over the gifts if she were subpoenaed. He falsely denied trying to influence Ms. Currie after his deposition. He falsely testified that he was truthful to his aides when he gave accounts of his relationship, which accounts were subsequently disseminated to the media and the grand jury. Obstruction of Justice The President engaged in an ongoing scheme to obstruct both the Jones civil case and the grand jury. Further, he undertook a continuing and concerted plan to tamper with witnesses and prospective witnesses for the purpose of causing those witnesses to provide false and misleading testimony. Examples abound: The President and Ms. Lewinsky concocted a cover story to conceal their relationship, and the President suggested that she employ that story if subpoenaed in the Jones case. The President suggested that Ms. Lewinsky provide an affidavit to avoid testifying in the Jones case, when he knew that the affidavit would need to be false to accomplish its purpose. The President knowingly and willfully allowed his attorney to file Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit and to use it for the purpose of obstructing justice in the Jones case. The President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she provide a false account of how she received her job at the Pentagon. The President attempted to influence the expected testimony of his secretary, Ms. Currie, by providing her with a false account of his meetings with Ms. Lewinsky. The President provided several of his top aides with elaborate lies about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, so that those aides would convey the false information to the public and to the grand jury. When he did this, he knew that those aides would likely be called to testify, while he was declining several invitations to testify. By this action, he obstructed and delayed the operation of the grand jury. The President conspired with Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie to conceal evidence that he had been subpoenaed in the Jones case, and thereby delayed and obstructed justice. The President and his representatives orchestrated a campaign to discredit Ms. Lewinsky in order to affect adversely her credibility as a witness, and thereby attempted to obstruct justice both in the Jones case and the grand jury. The President lied repeatedly under oath in his disposition in the Jones case, and thereby obstructed justice in that case. The President's lies and misleading statements under oath at the grand jury were calculated to, and did obstruct, delay and prevent the due administration of justice by that body. The President employed the power of his office to procure a job for Ms. Lewinsky after she signed the false affidavit by causing his friend to exert extraordinary efforts for that purpose. The foregoing are merely accusations of an ongoing pattern of obstruction of justice, and witness tampering extending over a period of several months, and having the effect of seriously compromising the integrity of the entire judicial system. The effect of the President's misconduct has been devastating in several respects. (1) He violated repeatedly his oath to ``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' (2) He ignored his constitutional duty as chief law enforcement officer to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' (3) He deliberately and unlawfully obstructed Paula Jones's rights as a citizen to due process and the equal protection of the laws, though he had sworn to protect those rights. (4) By his pattern of lies under oath, misleading statements and deceit, he has seriously undermined the integrity and credibility of the Office of President and thereby the honor and integrity of the United States. (5) His pattern of perjuries, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering has affected the truth seeking process which is the foundation of our legal system. (6) By mounting an assault in the truth seeking process, he has attacked the entire Judicial Branch of government. The Articles of Impeachment that the House has preferred state offenses that warrant, if proved, the conviction and removal from office of President William Jefferson Clinton. The Articles charge that the President has committed perjury before a federal grand jury and that he obstructed justice in a federal civil rights action. The Senate's own precedents establish beyond doubt that perjury warrants conviction and removal. During the 1980s, the Senate convicted and removed three federal judges for committing perjury. Obstruction of justice under mines the judicial system in the same fashion that perjury does, and it also warrants conviction and removal. Under our Constitution, judges are impeached under the same standard as Presidents--treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Thus, these judicial impeachments for perjury set the standard here. Finally, the Senate's own precedents further establish that the President's crimes need not arise directly out of his official duties. Two of the three judges removed in the 1980s were removed for perjury that had nothing to do with their official duties. Introduction This Brief is intended solely to advise the Senate generally of the evidence that the Managers intend to product, if permitted, and of the applicable legal principles. It is not intended to discuss exhaustively all of the evidence, nor does it necessarily include each and every witness and document that the Managers would produce in the course of the trial. This Brief, then, is merely an outline for the use of the Senate in reviewing and assessing the evidence as it is set forth at trial--it is not, and is not intended to be a substitute for a trial at which all of the relevant facts will be developed. H. Res. 611, 105th Cong. 2nd Sess. (1998) The House Impeachment Resolution charges the President with high crimes and misdemeanors in two Articles. Article One alleges that President Clinton ``willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice'' in that he willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to a federal grand jury on August 17, 1998. Article Two asserts that the President ``has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice and engaged in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a federal civil rights action brought against him.'' Both Articles are now before the Senate of the United States for trial as provided by the Constitution of the United States. The Office of President represents to the American people and to the world, the strength, the philosophy and most of all, the honor and integrity that makes us a great nation and an example for the world. Because all eyes are focused upon that high office, the character and credibility of any temporary occupant of the Oval Office is vital to the domestic and foreign welfare of the citizens. Consequently, serious breaches of integrity and duty of necessity adversely influence the reputation of the United States. This case is not about sex or private conduct. It is about multiple obstructions of justice, perjury, false and misleading statements, and witness tampering--all committed or orchestrated by the President of the United States. Before addressing the President's lies and obstruction, it is important to place the events in the proper context. If this were only about private sex we would not now be before the Senate. But the manner in which the Lewinsky relationship arose and continued is important because it is illustrative of the character of the President and the decisions he made. Background Monica Lewinsky, a 22 year old intern, (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 8; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 728) was working at the White House during the government shutdown in 1995. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 10; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 730) Prior to their first intimate encounter, she had never even spoken with the President. Sometime on November 15, 1995, Ms. Lewinsky and President Clinton flirted with each other. (Id.) The President of the United States of America then invited this unknown young intern into a private area off the Oval Office where he kissed her. He then invited her back later and when she returned, the two engaged in the first of many acts of inappropriate contact. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 12; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 732) Thereafter, the two concocted a cover story. If Ms. Lewinsky were seen, she was bringing papers to the President. That story was totally false. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 774; 8/26/98 Dep., p. 34; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1314) The only papers she brought were personal messages having nothing to do with her duties or those of the President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 54-55; H.Doc. 105-311, pp. 774-775) After Ms. Lewinsky moved from the White House to the Pentagon, her frequent visits to the President were disguised as visits to Betty Currie. (Id.) Those cover stories are important, because they play a vital role in the later perjuries and obstructions. Encounters Over the term of their relationship the following significant matters occurred: 1. Monica Lewinsky and the President were alone on at least twenty-one occasions; 2. They had at least eleven personal sexual encounters, excluding phone sex: Three in 1995, Five in 1996 and Three in 1997; 3. They had at least 55 telephone conversations, at least seventeen of which involved phone sex; 4. The President gave Ms. Lewinsky twenty presents; and, 5. Ms. Lewinsky gave the President forty presents (O.I.C. Referral, App., Tab E; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 104-111) These are the essential facts which form the backdrop for all of the events that followed. The sexual details of the President's encounters with Ms. Lewinsky, though relevant, need not be detailed either in this document or through witness testimony. It is necessary, though, briefly to outline that evidence, because it will demonstrate that the President repeatedly lied about that sexual relationship in his deposition, before the grand jury, and in his responses to the Judiciary Committee's questions. He has consistently maintained that Ms. Lewinsky merely performed acts on him, while he never touched her in a sexual manner. This characterization not only directly contradicts Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, but it also contradicts the sworn grand jury testimony of three of her friends and the statements by two professional counselors with whom she contemporaneously shared the details of her relationship. (O.I.C. Referral, H. Doc. 105-310, pgs. 138-140) While his treatment of Ms. Lewinsky was offensive, it is much more offensive for the President to expect the Senate to believe that in 1995, 1996, and 1997, his intimate contact with Ms. Lewinsky was so limited that it did not fall within his narrow interpretation of a definition of ``sexual relations''. As later demonstrated, he did not even conceive his interpretation until 1998, while preparing for his grand jury appearance. How To View the Evidence We respectfully submit that the evidence and testimony must be viewed as a whole; it cannot be compartmentalized. It is essential to avoid considering each event in isolation, and then treating it separately. Events and words that may seem innocent or even exculpatory in a vacuum may well take on a sinister, or even criminal connotation when observed in the context of the whole plot. For example, everyone agrees that Monica Lewinsky testified ``No one ever told me to lie; nobody ever promised me a job.'' (ML 8/20/98 GJ, p. 105; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 1161) When considered alone this would seem exculpatory. However, in the context of the other evidence, another picture emerges. Of course no one said. ``Now, Monica, you go in there and lie.'' They didn't have to. Ms. Lewinsky knew what was expected of her. Similarly, nobody promised her a job, but once she signed the false affidavit, she got one. The Issue The ultimate issue is whether the President's course of conduct is such as to affect adversely the Office of the President and also upon the administration of justice, and whether he has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive to the Rule of Law and Constitutional government. The Beginning The events that form the basis of these charges actually began in late 1995. They reached a critical stage in the winter of 1997 and the first month of 1998. The event culminated when the President of the United States appeared before a federal grand jury, raised his right hand to God and swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. december 5-6, 1997 On Friday, December 5, 1997, Monica Lewinsky asked Betty Currie if the President could see her the next day, Saturday, but Ms. Currie said that the President was scheduled to meet with his lawyers all day. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 107-108; H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 827-828) Later that Friday, Ms. Lewinsky spoke briefly to the President at a Christmas party. (ML 7/ 31/98 Int., p. 1; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 1451; ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 108; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 828) The Witness List Is Received That evening, Paula Jones's attorneys faxed a list of potential witnesses to the President's attorneys. (849-DC- 00000128; 849-DC-00000121-37; Referral, H. Doc. 105-311, p. 88) The list included Monica Lewinsky. However, Ms. Lewinsky did not find out that her name was on the list until the President told her ten days later, on December 17. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 121-123; H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 841-843) That delay is significant. Ms. Lewinsky's First Visit After her conversation with Ms. Currie and seeing the President at the Christmas party, Ms. Lewinsky drafted a letter to the President terminating their relationship. (ML- 55-DC-0177); ML 7/31/98 Int., p. 2; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 1452) The next morning, Saturday, December 6, Ms. Lewinsky went to the White House to deliver the letter and some gifts for the President to Ms. Currie. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 108-109; H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 828-829) When she arrived at the White House, Ms. Lewinsky spoke to several Secret Service officers, and one of them told her that the President was not with his lawyers, as she thought, but rather, he was meeting with Eleanor Mondale. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 111; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 831; Mondale 7/16/98 Int., p. 1; H. Doc. 105-316, pgs. 2907- 2908; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 2654) Ms. Lewinsky called Ms. Currie from a pay phone, angrily exchanged words with her, and went home. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 112-13; H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 832-833; Currie 1/27/98 GJ, p. 27; H. Doc. 105-316, p. 553) After that phone call, Ms. Currie told the Secret Service watch commander that the President was so upset about the disclosure of his meeting with Ms. Mondale that he wanted somebody fired. (Purdie 7/23/98 GJ, pgs. 13, 18-19; H. Doc. 105-316, pgs. 3356-3357). The Telephone Conversations At 12:05 p.m., records demonstrate that Ms. Currie paged Bruce Lindsey with the message: ``Call Betty ASAP.'' (964-DC- 00000862; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 2722) Around that same time, according to Ms. Lewinsky, while she was back at her apartment, Ms. Lewinsky and the President spoke by phone. The President was very angry; he told Ms. Lewinsky that no one had every treated him as poorly as she had. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 113-14; H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 833-834) The President acknowledged to the grand jury that he was upset about Ms. Lewinsky's behavior and considered it inappropriate. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 85; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 537). Nevertheless, in a sudden change of mood, he invited her to visit him at the White House that afternoon. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 114; H.Doc. 105- 311, p. 834) Ms. Lewinsky's Second Visit Monica Lewinsky arrived at the White House for the second time that day and was cleared to enter at 12:52 p.m. (WAVES: 827-DC-00000018) Although, in Ms. Lewinsky's words, the President was ``very angry'' with her during their recent telephone conversation, he was ``sweet'' and ``very affectionate'' during this visit. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 113-15; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 833-835). He also told her that he would talk to Vernon Jordan about her job situation. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 115-16; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 835-836) The Discussions With the Secret Service The President also suddenly changed his attitude toward the Secret Service. Ms. Currie informed some officers that if they kept quiet about the Lewinsky incident, there would be no disciplinary action. (Williams 7/23/98 GJ, pgs. 25, 27-28; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 4539; Chinery 7/23/98 GJ, p. 22-23; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 456). According to the Secret Service watch commander, Captain Jeffrey Purdie, the President personally told him, ``I hope you use your discretion'' or ``I hope I can count on your discretion.'' (Purdie 7/23/98 GJ, p. 32; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3360; Purdie 7/17/98 GJ, p. 3; H.Doc. 105- 316, p. 3353) Deputy Chief Charles O'Malley, Captain Purdie's supervisor, testified that he knew of no other time in his fourteen years of service at the White House where the President raised a performance issue with a member of the Secret Service uniformed division. (O'Malley 9/8/98 Dep., pgs. 40-41; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 3168-3171) After his conversation with the President, Captain Purdie told a number of officers that they should not discuss the Lewinsky incident. (Porter 8/13/98 GJ, p. 12; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3343; Niedzwiecki 7/30/98 GJ, pgs. 30-31, H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3114) When the President was before the grand jury and questioned about his statements to the Secret Service regarding this incident, the President testified, ``I don't remember what I said and I don't remember to whom I said it.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 86; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 534) When confronted with Captain Purdie's testimony, the President testified, ``I don't remember anything I said to him in that regard. I have no recollection of that whatever.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 91; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 543) The President's Knowledge of the Witness List President Clinton testified before the grand jury that he learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the Jones witness list that evening, Saturday, December 6, during a meeting with his lawyers. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 83-84; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 535- 536) He stood by this answer in response to Request Number 16 submitted by the Judiciary Committee. (Exhibit 18). The meeting occurred around 5 p.m., after Ms. Lewinsky had left the White House. (WAVES: 1407-DC-00000005; Lindsey 3/12/98 GJ, pgs. 64-66; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 2418-19) According to Bruce Lindsey, at the meeting, Bob Bennett had a copy of the Jones witness list faxed to Mr. Bennett the previous night. (Lindsey 3/12/98 GJ, pgs. 65-67; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 2419) (Exhibit 15) However, during his deposition, the President testified that he had heard about the witness list before he saw it. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 70) In other words, if the President testified truthfully in his deposition, then he knew about the witness list before the 5 p.m. meeting. It is valid to infer that hearing Ms. Lewinsky's name on a witness list prompted the President's sudden and otherwise unexplained change from ``very angry'' to ``very affectionate'' that Saturday afternoon. It is also reasonable to infer that it prompted him to give the unique instruction to a Secret Service watch commander to use ``discretion'' regarding Ms. Lewinsky's visit to the White House, which the watch commander interpreted as an instruction to refrain from discussing the incident. (Purdie 7/17/98 GJ, pgs. 20-21; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 3351-3352; Purdie 7/23/98 GJ, pgs. 32- 33; H.Doc. 105-315, pgs. 3360-3361) The Job Search for Ms. Lewinsky Monica Lewinsky had been looking for a good paying and high profile job in New York since the previous July. She was not having much success despite the President's promise to help. In early November, Betty Currie arranged a meeting with Vernon Jordan who was supposed to help. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. 176; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 592) On November 5, Ms. Lewinsky met for twenty minutes with Mr. Jordan (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pg. 104; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 824) No action followed; no job interviews were arranged and there were no further contacts with Mr. Jordan. It was obvious that he made no effort to find a job for Ms. Lewinsky. Indeed, it was so unimportant to him that he ``had no recollection of an early November meeting'' (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pg. 50; H.Doc. 105- 316, p. 1799) and that finding a job for Ms. Lewinsky was not a priority (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 76; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1804) (Chart R) Nothing happened throughout the month of November, because Mr. Jordan was either gone or would not return Monica's calls. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 105-106; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 825-826) During the December 6 meeting with the President, she mentioned that she had not been able to get in touch with Mr. Jordan and that it did not seem he had done anything to help her. The President responded by stating, ``Oh, I'll talk to him. I'll get on it,'' or something to that effect. (ML 8/6/ 98 GJ, pgs. 115-116; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 836) There was obviously still no urgency to help Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Jordan met the President the next day, December 7, but the meeting was unrelated to Ms. Lewinsky. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ. pgs. 83, 116; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 1805, 1810) The December 11, 1997 Activity The first activity calculated to help Ms. Lewinsky actually procure employment took place on December 11. Mr. Jordan met with Ms. Lewinsky and gave her a list of contact names. The two also discussed the President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 119, 120; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 839-840) That meeting Mr. Jordan remembered. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 41; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1798) Vernon Jordan immediately placed calls to two prospective employers. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pgs. 54, 62-63; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 1800-1802) Later in the afternoon, he even called the President to give him a report on his job search efforts. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pgs. 64-66; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1802) Clearly, Mr. Jordan and the President were now very interested in helping Monica find a good job in New York. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 95; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1807) Significance of December 11, 1997 This sudden interest was inspired by a court order entered on December 11, 1997. On that date, Judge Susan Webber Wright ordered that Paula Jones was entitled to information regarding any state or federal employee with whom the President had sexual relations, proposed sexual relations, or sought to have sexual relations. The President knew that it would be politically and legally expedient to maintain an amicable relationship with Monica Lewinsky. And the President knew that that relationship would be fostered by finding Ms. Lewinsky a job. This was accomplished through enlisting the help of Vernon Jordan. December 17, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky Learns of Witness List On December 17, 1997, between 2:00 and 2:30 in the morning, Monica Lewinsky's phone rang unexpectedly. It was the President of the United States. The President said that he wanted to tell Ms. Lewinsky two things: one was that Betty Currie's brother had been killed in a car accident; secondly, the President said that he ``had some more bad news,'' that he had seen the witness list for the Paula Jones case and her name was on it. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 843) The President told Ms. Lewinsky that seeing her name on the list ``broke his heart.'' He then told her that ``if [she] were to be subpoenaed, [she] should contact Betty and let Betty know that [she] had received the subpoena.'' (Id.) Ms. Lewinsky asked what she should do if subpoenaed. The President responded: ``Well, maybe you can sign an affidavit.'' (Id.) Both parties knew that the Affidavit would need to be false and misleading to accomplish the desired result. The President's ``Suggestion'' Then, the President had a very pointed suggestion for Monica Lewinsky, a suggestion that left little room for compromise. He did not specifically tell her to lie. What he did say is ``you know, you can always say you were coming to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters.'' (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 843) In order to understand the significance of this statement, it is necessary to recall the ``cover stories'' that the President and Ms. Lewinsky had previously structured in order to deceive those who protected and worked with the President. Ms. Lewinsky said she would carry papers when she visited the President. When she saw him, she would say: ``Oh, gee, `here are your letters,' wink, wink, wink and he would answer, `Okay that's good.' '' (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 774) After Ms. Lewinsky left White House employment, she would return to the Oval Office under the guise of visiting Betty Currie, not the President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 55; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 775) Moreover, Ms. Lewinsky promised the President that she would always deny the sexual relationship and always protect him. The President would respond ``that's good'' or similar language of encouragement. (ML 8/20/98 GJ, p. 22; H.Doc. 105- 311, p. 1078) So, when the President called Ms. Lewinsky at 2:00 a.m. on December 17 to tell her she was on the witness list, he made sure to remind her of those prior ``cover stories.'' Ms. Lewinsky testified that when the President brought up the misleading stories, she understood that the two would continue their pre-existing pattern of deception. The President's Intention It became clear that the President had no intention of making his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky a public affair. And he would use lies, deceit, and deception to ensure that the truth would not be known. It is interesting to note that when the grand jury asked the President whether he remembered calling Monica Lewinsky at 2:00 a.m., he responded: ``No sir, I don't. But it would . . . it is quite possible that that happened. . . .'' (WJC 8/ 17/98 GJ, p. 115; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 567) And when he was asked whether he encouraged Monica Lewinsky to continue the cover stories of ``coming to see Betty'' or ``bringing the letters,'' he answered: ``I don't remember exactly what I told her that night.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 117; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 565) Six days earlier, he had become aware that Paula Jones' lawyers were now able to inquire about other women. Ms. Lewinsky could file a false affidavit, but it might not work. It was absolutely essential that both parties told the same story. He knew that he would lie if asked about Ms. Lewinsky, and he wanted to make certain that she would lie also. That is why the President of the United States called a twenty- four year old woman at 2:00 in the morning. The Evidence Mounts But the President had an additional problem. It was not enough that he (and Ms. Lewinsky) simply deny the relationship. The evidence was beginning to accumulate. Because of the emerging evidence, the President found it necessary to reevaluate his defense. By this time, the evidence was establishing, through records and eyewitness accounts, that the President and Monica Lewinsky were spending a significant amount of time together in the Oval Office complex. It was no longer expedient simply to refer to Ms. Lewinsky as a ``groupie'', ``stalker'', ``clutch'', or ``home wrecker'' as the White House first attempted to do. The unassailable facts were forcing the President to acknowledge some type of relationship. But at this point, he still had the opportunity to establish a non-sexual explanation for their meetings, since his DNA had not yet been identified on Monica Lewinsky's blue dress. Need for the Cover Story Therefore, the President needed Monica Lewinsky to go along with the cover story in order to provide an innocent, intimate-free explanation for their frequent meetings. And that innocent explanation came in the form of ``document deliveries'' and ``friendly chats with Betty Currie.'' Significantly, when the President was deposed on January 17, 1998, he used the exact same cover stories that had been utilized by Ms. Lewinsky. In doing so, he stayed consistent with any future Lewinsky testimony while still maintaining his defense in the Jones lawsuit. In the President's deposition, he was asked whether he was ever alone with Monica Lewinsky. He responded: ``I don't recall . . . She--it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there.'' (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 52-53) Additionally, when questions were posed regarding Ms. Lewinsky's frequent visits to the Oval Office, the President did not hesitate to mention Betty Currie in his answers, for example: And my recollection is that on a couple of occasions after [the pizza party meeting], she was there [in the oval office] but my secretary, Betty Currie, was there with her. (WJC 1/ 17/98 Dep., p. 58) Q. When was the last time you spoke with Monica Lewinsky? A. I'm trying to remember. Probably sometime before Christmas. She came by to see Betty sometime before Christmas. And she was there talking to her, and I stuck my head out, said hello to her. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 68) December 19, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky Is Subpoenaed On December 19, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed to testify in a deposition scheduled for January 23, 1998 in the Jones case. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 128; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 848) (Charts F and G) Extremely distraught, she immediately called the President's closest friend, Vernon Jordan. As noted Ms. Lewinsky testified that the President previously told her to call Betty Currie if she was subpoenaed. She called Mr. Jordan instead because Ms. Currie's brother recently died and she did not want to bother her. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 128-129; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 848, 849) Vernon Jordan's Role Mr. Jordan invited Ms. Lewinsky to his office and she arrived shortly before 5 p.m., still extremely distraught. Around this time, Mr. Jordan called the President and told him Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 145; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1815) (Exhibit 1) During the meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, which Mr. Jordan characterized as ``disturbing'' (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 100; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1716), she talked about her infatuation with the President. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 150; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1724) Mr. Jordan decided that he would call a lawyer for her. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 161; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1726) Mr. Jordan Informs the President That evening, Mr. Jordan met with the President and relayed his conversation with Ms. Lewinsky. The details are extremely important because the President, in his deposition, did not recall that meeting. Mr. Jordan told the President again that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed, that he was concerned about her fascination with the President, and that Ms. Lewinsky had asked Mr. Jordan if he thought the President would leave the First Lady. He also asked the President if he had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 169; H.Doc 105-3316, p. 1727) The President was asked at his deposition: Q. Did anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you that Monica Lewinsky had been served with a subpoena in this case? A. I don't think so. Q. Did you ever talk with Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked to testify in this case? A. Bruce Lindsey, I think Bruce Lindsey told me that she was, I think maybe that's the first person told me she was. I want to be as accurate as I can. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 68-69) In the grand jury, the President first repeated his denial that Mr. Jordan told him Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 39; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 491) Then, when given more specific facts, he admitted that he ``knows now'' that he spoke with Mr. Jordan about the subpoena on the night of December 19, but his ``memory is not clear. . . .'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 41-42; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 493-494) In an attempt to explain away his false deposition testimony, the President testified in the grand jury that he was trying to remember who told him first. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 41; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 492-493) But that was not the question. So his answer was false and misleading. When one considers the nature of the conversation between the President and Mr. Jordan, the suggestion that it would be forgotten defies common sense. December 28, 1997 December 28, 1997 is a crucial date, because the evidence shows that the President made false and misleading statements to the federal court, the federal grand jury and the Congress of the United States about the events on that date. (Chart J) It is also a date on which he obstructed justice. The President's Account The President testified that it was ``possible'' that he invited Ms. Lewinsky to the White House for this visit. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 33; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 485) He admitted that he ``probably'' gave Ms. Lewinsky the most gifts he had ever given her on that date, (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 35; H.Doc. 105- 311, p. 487) and that he had given her gifts on other occasions. (WJC 8/6/98 GJ, p. 35) (Chart D) Among the many gifts the President gave Ms. Lewinsky on December 28 was a bear that he said was a symbol of strength. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 176; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 896) Yet only two-and-a-half weeks later, the President forgot that he had given any gifts to Ms. Lewinsky. As an attorney, the President knew that the law will not tolerate someone who says, ``I don't recall'' when that answer is unreasonable under the circumstances. He also knew that, under those circumstances, his answer in the deposition could not be believed. When asked in the grand jury why he was unable to remember, even though he had given Ms. Lewinsky so many gifts only two-and-a-half weeks before the deposition, the President put forth an obviously contrived explanation. ``I think what I meant there was I don't recall what they were, not that I don't recall whether I had given them.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 51; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 503) Response to Committee Requests The President adopted that same answer in Response No. 42 to the House Judiciary Committee's Requests For Admission. (Exhibit 18) He was not asked in the deposition to identify the gifts. He was simply asked, ``Have you ever'' given gifts to Ms. Lewinsky. The law does not allow a witness to insert unstated premises or mental reservations into the question to make his answer technically true, if factually false. The essence of lying is in deception, not in words. The President's answer was false. The evidence also proves that his explanation to the grand jury and to the Committee is also false. The President would have us believe that he was able to analyze questions as they were being asked, and pick up such things as verb tense in an attempt to make his statements at least literally true. But when he was asked a simple, straightforward question, he did not understand it. Neither his answer in the deposition nor his attempted explanation is reasonable or true. Testimony Concerning Gifts The President was asked in the deposition if Monica Lewinsky ever gave him gifts. He responded, ``once or twice.'' (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 77) This is also false testimony calculated to obstruct justice. He answered this question in his Response to the House Judiciary Committee by saying that he receives numerous gifts, and he did not focus on the precise number. (Exhibit 18) The law again does not support the President's position. An answer that baldly understates a numerical fact in response to a specific quantitative inquiry can be deemed technically true but actually false. For example, a witness is testifying falsely if he says he went to the store five times when in fact he had gone fifty, even though technically he had also gone five times. So too, when the President answered once or twice in the face of evidence that Ms. Lewinsky was frequently bringing gifts, he was lying. (Chart C) Concealment of Gifts On December 28, one of the most blatant efforts to obstruct justice and conceal evidence occurred. Ms. Lewinsky testified that she discussed with the President the fact that she had been subpoenaed and that the subpoena called for her to produce gifts. She recalled telling the President that the subpoena requested a hat pin, and that caused her concern. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 151-152; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 871-872) The President told her that it ``bothered'' him, too. (ML 8/20/98 GJ, p. 66; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1122) Ms. Lewinsky then suggested that she take the gifts somewhere, or give them to someone, maybe to Betty. The President answered: ``I don't know'' or ``Let me think about that.'' (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 152-153; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 872-873) (Chart L) Later that day, Ms. Lewinsky got a call from Ms. Currie, who said: ``I understand you have something to give me'' or ``the President said you have something to give me.'' (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 154-155; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 874-875) Ms. Currie has a fuzzy memory about this incident, but says that ``the best she can remember,'' Ms. Lewinsky called her. (Currie 5/6/98 GJ, p. 105; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 581) The Cell Phone Record There is key evidence that Ms. Currie's fuzzy recollection is wrong. Ms. Lewinsky said that she thought Ms. Currie called from her cell phone. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 154-155) (Chart K, Exhibit 2) Ms. Currie's cell phone record corroborates Ms. Lewinsky and proves conclusively that Ms. Currie called Monica from her cell phone several hours after she had left the White House. Moreover, Ms. Currie herself later testified that Ms. Lewinsky's memory may be better than hers on this point. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. 126; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 584) The facts prove that the President directed Ms. Currie to pick up the gifts. Ms. Currie's Later Actions That conclusion is buttressed by Ms. Currie's actions. If Ms. Lewinsky had placed the call requesting a gift exchange, Ms. Currie would logically ask the reason for such a transfer. Ms. Lewinsky was giving her a box of gifts from the President yet she did not tell the President of this strange request. She simply took the gifts and placed them under her bed without asking a single question. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 57-58; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 557; BC 5/6/98 GJ, pgs. 105-108, 114; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 581-582) The President stated in his Response to questions No. 24 and 25 from the House Committee that he was not concerned about the gifts. (Exhibit 18) In fact, he said that he recalled telling Monica that if the Jones lawyers request gifts, she should turn them over. The President testified that he is ``not sure'' if he knew the subpoena asked for gifts. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 42-43; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 494- 495) Would Monica Lewinsky and the President discuss turning over gifts to the Jones lawyers if Ms. Lewinsky had not told him that the subpoena asked for gifts? On the other hand, if he knew the subpoena requested gifts, why would he give Ms. Lewinsky more gifts on December 28? Ms. Lewinsky's testimony reveals the answer. She said that she never questioned ``that we were ever going to do anything but keep this private'' and that meant to take ``whatever appropriate steps needed to be taken'' to keep it quiet. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 166; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 886) The only logical inference is that the gifts--including the bear symbolizing strength--were a tacit reminder to Ms. Lewinsky that they would deny the relationship--even in the face of a federal subpoena. The President's Deposition Testimony Furthermore, the President, at various times in his deposition, seriously misrepresented the nature of his meeting with Ms. Lewinsky on December 28 in order to obstruct the administration of justice. First, he was asked: ``Did she tell you she had been served with a subpoena in this case?'' The President answered flatly: ``No. I don't know if she had been.'' (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 68) He was also asked if he ``ever talked to Monica Lewinsky about the possibility of her testifying.'' ``I'm not sure . . .,'' he said. he then added that he may have joked to her that the Jones lawyers might subpoena every woman he has ever spoken to, and that ``I don't think we ever had more of a conversation than that about it. . . .'' (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 70) Not only does Monica Lewinsky directly contradict this testimony, but the President also directly contradicted himself before the grand jury. Speaking of his December 28, 1997 meeting, he said that he ``knew by then, of course, that she had gotten a subpoena'' and that they had a ``conversation about the possibility of her testifying.'' (WJC 8/17/98 Dep., pgs. 35-36) Remember, he had this conversation about her testimony only two-and-a-half weeks before his deposition. Again, his version is not reasonable. January 5-9, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky Signs the Affidavit and Gets a Job The President knew that Monica Lewinsky was going to execute a false Affidavit. He was so certain of the content that when she asked if he wanted to see it, he told her no, that he had seen fifteen of them. (ML 8/2/98 Int., p. 3; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1489) He got his information from discussions with Ms. Lewinsky and Vernon Jordan generally about the content of the Affidavit. Moreover, the President had suggested the Affidavit himself and he trusted Mr. Jordan to be certain the mission was accomplished. Additional Presidential Advice In the afternoon of January 5, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky met with her lawyer, Mr. Carter, to discuss the Affidavit. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 192; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 912) Her lawyer asked her some hard questions about how she got her job. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 195; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 915) After the meeting, she called Betty Currie and said that she wanted to speak to the President before she signed anything. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 195; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 915) Ms. Lewinsky and the President discussed the issue of how she would answer under oath if asked about how she got her job at the Pentagon. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 197; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 917) The President told her: ``Well, you could always say that the people in Legislative Affairs got it for you or helped you get it.'' (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 197; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 917) That, too, is false and misleading. Vernon Jordan's New Role The President was also kept advised as to the contents of the Affidavit by Vernon Jordan. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 224; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1828) On January 6, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky picked up a draft of the Affidavit from Mr. Carter's office. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 199; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 919) She delivered a copy to Mr. Jordan's office. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 200; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 920) because she wanted Mr. Jordan to look at the Affidavit in the belief that if Vernon Jordan gave his imprimatur, the President would also approve. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 194-195; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 914, 915) (Chart M) Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan conferred about the contents and agreed to delete a paragraph inserted by Mr. Carter which might open a line of questions concerning whether she had been alone with the President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 200; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 920) (Exhibit 3) Mr. Jordan maintained that he had nothing to do with the details of the Affidavit. (VJ 3/5/ 98 GJ, p. 12; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1735) He admits, though, that he spoke with the President after conferring with Ms. Lewinsky about the changes made to her Affidavit. (VJ 5/5/ 98 GJ, p. 218; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1827) Ms. Lewinsky Signs the False Affidavit The next day, January 7, Monica Lewinsky signed the false Affidavit. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 204-205; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 924-925) (Chart N; Exhibit 12) She showed the executed copy to Mr. Jordan that same day. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 222; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1828) (Exhibit 4) Mr. Jordan, in turn, notified the President that she signed an affidavit denying a sexual relationship. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 26; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1739) Ms. Lewinsky Gets the Job On January 8, 1998, Mr. Jordan arranged an interview for Ms. Lewinsky with MacAndrews and Forbes in New York. (ML 8/6/ 98 GJ, p. 206; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 926) The interview went poorly, so Ms. Lewinsky called Mr. Jordan and informed him. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 206; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 926) Mr. Jordan, who had done nothing to assist Ms. Lewinsky's job search from early November to mid December, then called MacAndrews and Forbes CEO, Ron Perelman, to ``make things happen, if they could happen.'' (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 231; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1829) Mr. Jordan called Ms. Lewinsky back and told her not to worry. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 208-209; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 928- 929) That evening, Ms. Lewinsky was called by MacAndrews and Forbes and told that she would be given more interviews the next morning. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 209; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 929) After a series of interviews with MacAndrews and Forbes personnel, she was informally offered a job. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 210; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 930) When Ms. Lewinsky called Mr. Jordan to tell him, he passed the good news on to Betty Currie stating, ``Mission Accomplished.'' (VJ 5/28/98 GJ, p. 39; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1898). Later, Mr. Jordan called the President and told him personally. (VJ 5/28/98 GJ, p. 41; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1899) (Chart P) The Reason for Mr. Jordan's Unique Behavior After Ms. Lewinsky had spent months looking for a job-- since July according to the President's lawyers--Vernon Jordan made the critical call to a CEO the day after the false Affidavit was signed. Mr. Perelman testified that Mr. Jordan had never called him before about a job recommendation. (Perelman 4/23/98 Dep., p. 11; H.Doc. 105- 316, p. 3281) Mr. Jordan, on the other hand, said that he called Mr. Perelman to recommend for hiring: (1) former Mayor Dinkins of New York; (2) a very talented attorney from Akin Gump; (3) a Harvard business school graduate; and (4) Monica Lewinsky. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 58-59; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1747) Even if Mr. Perelman's testimony is mistaken, Ms. Lewinsky's qualifications do not compare to those of the individuals previously recommended by Mr. Jordan. Vernon Jordan was well aware that people with whom Ms. Lewinsky worked at the White House did not like her (VJ 3/3/ 98 GJ, pgs. 43, 59) and that she did not like her Pentagon job. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pgs. 43-44; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 1706, 1707) Mr. Jordan was asked if at ``any point during this process you wondered about her qualifications for employment?'' He answered: ``No, because that was not my judgment to make.'' (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 44; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1707) Yet, when he called Mr. Perelman the day after she signed the Affidavit, he referred to Ms. Lewinsky as a bright young girl who is ``terrific.'' (Perelman 4/23/98 Dep., p. 10; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3281) Mr. Jordan testified that she had been pressing him for a job and voicing unrealistic expectations concerning positions and salary. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, pgs. 37-38; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1742) Moreover, she narrated a disturbing story about the President leaving the First Lady, and how the President was not spending enough time with her. Yet, none of that gave Mr. Jordan pause in making the recommendation, especially after Monica was subpoenaed. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pgs. 156-157; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1725) The Importance of the False Affidavit Monica Lewinsky's false Affidavit enabled the President, through his attorneys, to assert at his January 17, 1998 deposition ``. . . there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape of form with President Clinton. . . .'' (WJC, 1/17/98 Dep., p. 54) When questioned by his own attorney in the deposition, the President stated specifically that paragraph 8 of Ms. Lewinsky's Affidavit was ``absolutely true.'' (WJC, 1/17/98 Dep., p. 204) The President later affirmed the truth of that statement when testifying before the grand jury. (WJC, 8/17/98 GJ, p. 20-21; H.Doc. 105-311, pg. 473) Paragraph 8 of Ms. Lewinsky's Affidavit states: ``I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship.'' Significantly, Ms. Lewinsky reviewed the draft Affidavit on January 6, and signed it on January 7 after deleting a reference to being alone with the President. She showed a copy of the signed Affidavit to Vernon Jordan, who called the President and told him that she had signed it. (VJ, 3/5/98 GJ, pgs. 24-26; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 1728, 1739; VJ, 5/5/98 GJ, p. 222; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1828) The Rush To File the Affidavit For the affidavit to work for the President in precluding questions by the Jones attorneys concerning Ms. Lewinsky, it had to be filed with the Court and provided to the President's attorneys in time for his deposition on January 17. On January 14, the President's lawyers called Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer and left a message, presumably to find out if he had filed the Affidavit with the Court. (Carrier 6/18/ 98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 423) (Chart O) On January 15, the President's attorneys called her attorney twice. When they finally reached him, they requested a copy of the Affidavit and asked him, ``Are we still on time?'' (Carter 6/ 18/98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105-216, p. 423) Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer faxed a copy on the 15th. (Carter 6/18/98 GJ, p. 123, H.Doc. 105-316, p. 423) The President's counsel was aware of its contents and used it powerfully in the deposition. Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer called the court in Arkansas twice on January 15 to ensure that the Affidavit could be filed on Saturday, January 17. (Carter 6/18/98 GJ, pgs. 124-125; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 423-424) (Exhibit 5) He finished the Motion to Quash Ms. Lewinsky's deposition in the early morning hours of January 16 and mailed it to the Court with the false Affidavit attached, for Saturday delivery. (Carter 6/18/98 GJ, p. 134; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 426) The President's lawyers left him another message on January 16, saying, ``You'll know what it's about.'' (Carter 6/18/ 98 GJ, p. 135; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 426) Obviously, the President needed that Affidavit to be filed with the Court to support his plans to mislead Ms. Jones' attorneys in the deposition, and thereby obstruct justice. The Newsweek Inquiry On January 15, Michael Isikoff of Newsweek called Betty Currie and asked her about Ms. Lewinsky sending gifts to her by courier. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 584; ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 228; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 948) Ms. Currie than called Ms. Lewinsky and told her about it. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 228-229; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 948-949) The President was out of town, so later, Betty Currie called Ms. Lewinsky back, and asked for a ride to Mr. Jordan's office. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 229; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 949; Currie 5/6/98 GJ, p. 130-131; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 585) Mr. Jordan advised her to speak with Bruce Lindsey and Mike McCurry. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 71) Ms. Currie testified that she spoke immediately to Mr. Lindsey about Isikoff's call. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. 127; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 584) January 17, 1998, Deposition Aftermath By the time the President concluded his deposition on January 17, he knew that someone was talking about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He also knew that the only person who had personal knowledge was Ms. Lewinsky herself. The cover stories that he and Ms. Lewinsky created, and that he used himself during the deposition, were now in jeopardy. It became imperative that he not only contact Ms. Lewinsky, but that he obtain corroboration of his account of the relationship from his trusted secretary, Ms. Currie. At around 7 p.m. on the night of the deposition, the President called Ms. Currie and asked that she come in the following day, Sunday. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, p. 154-155; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 701 (Exhibit 6) Ms. Currie could not recall the President ever before calling her that late at home on a Saturday night. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, p. 69; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 559) (Chart S) Sometime in the early morning hours of January 18, 1998, the President learned of a news report concerning Ms. Lewinsky released earlier that day. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 142- 143; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 594-595) (Exhibit 14) The Tampering With the Witness, Betty Currie As the charts indicate, between 11:49 a.m. and 2:55 p.m., there were three phone calls between Mr. Jordan and the President. (Exhibit 7) At about 5 p.m., Ms. Currie met with the President. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, p. 67; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 558) He told her that he had just been deposed and that the attorneys asked several questions about Monica Lewinsky. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, p. 69-70; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 559) He then made a series of statements to Ms. Currie: (Chart T) (1) I was never really alone with Monica, right? (2) You were always there when Monica was there, right? (3) Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right? (4) You could see and hear everything, right? (5) She wanted to have sex with me, and I cannot do that. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 70-75; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 559-560; BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. 6-7; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 664) During Betty Currie's grand jury testimony, she was asked whether she believed that the President wished her to agree with the statements: Q. Would it be fair to say, then--based on the way he stated [these five points] and the demeanor that he was using at the time that he stated it to you--that he wished you to agree with that statement? A. I can't speak for him, but---- Q. How did you take it? Because you told us at these [previous] meetings in the last several days that that is how you took it. A. [Nodding.] Q. And you're nodding you head, ``yes,'' is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay, with regard to the statement that the President made to you, ``You remember I was never really alone with Monica, right?'' Was that also a statement that, as far as you took, that he wished you to agree with that? A. Correct. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, p. 74; H.Doc. 105-316, 559) Though Ms. Currie would later intimate that she did not necessarily feel pressured by the President, she did state that she felt the President was seeking her agreement (or disagreement) with those statements. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, p. 27; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 669) Was This Obstruction of Justice? The President essentially admitted to making these statements when he knew they were not true. Consequently, he had painted himself into a legal corner. Understanding the seriousness of the President ``coaching'' Ms. Currie, the argument has been made that those statements to her could not constitute obstruction because she had not been subpoenaed, and the President did not know that she was a potential witness at the time. This argument is refuted by both the law and the facts. The United States Court of Appeals rejected this argument, and stated, ``[A] person may be convicted of obstructing justice if he urges or persuades a prospective witness to give false testimony. Neither must the target be scheduled to testify at the time of the offense, nor must he or she actually give testimony at a later time.'' United States v. Shannon, 836 F.2d 1125, 1128 (8th Cir. 1988) (citing, e.g., United States v. Friedland, 660 F.2d 919, 931 (3rd Cir. 1981)). Of course Ms. Currie was a prospective witness, and the President clearly wanted her to be deposed to corroborate him, as his testimony demonstrates. The President claims that he called Ms. Currie into work on a Sunday night only to find out what she knew. But the President knew the truth about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, and if he had told the truth during his deposition the day before, then he would have no reason to worry about what Ms. Currie knew. More importantly, the President's demeanor, Ms. Currie's reaction to his demeanor, and the blatant lies that he suggested clearly prove that the President was not merely interviewing Ms. Currie. Rather, he was looking for corroboration for his false cover-up, and that is why he coached her. January 18, the Search for Ms. Lewinsky Very soon after his Sunday meeting with Ms. Currie, at 5:12 p.m., the flurry of telephone calls in search of Monica Lewinsky began. (Chart S) between 5:12 p.m. and 8:28 p.m., Ms. Currie paged Ms. Lewinsky four times. ``Kay'' is a reference to a code name Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie agreed to when contacting one another. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 216; H.Doc. 105-311, pg. 936) At 11:02 p.m., the President called Ms. Currie at home to ask if she had reached Lewinsky. (BC 7/22/ 98 GJ, p. 160; H. Doc. 105-316, p. 702) January 19, the Search Continues The following morning, January 19, Ms. Currie continued to work diligently on behalf of the President. Between 7:02 a.m. and 8:41 a.m., she paged Ms. Lewinsky another five times. (Chart S) (Exhibit 8) After the 8:41 page, Ms. Currie called the President at 8:43 a.m. and said that she was unable to reach Ms. Lewinsky. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. 161-162; H.Doc. 105- 316, p. 703) One minute later, at 8:44 a.m., she again paged Ms. Lewinsky. This time Ms. Currie's page stated ``Family Emergency,'' apparently in an attempt to alarm Ms. Lewinsky into calling back. That may have been the President's idea, since Ms. Currie had just spoken with him. The President was obviously quite concerned because he called Betty Currie only six minutes later, at 8:50 a.m. Immediately thereafter, at 8:51 a.m., Ms. Currie tried a different tact, sending the message: ``Good news.'' Again, perhaps at the President's suggestion. If bad news does not get her to call, try good news. Ms. Currie said that she was trying to encourage Ms. Lewinsky to call, but there was no sense of ``urgency.'' (BC 7/22/98 GJ, p. 165; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 704) Ms. Currie's recollection of why she was calling was again fuzzy. She said at one point that she believes the President asked her to call Ms. Lewinsky, and she thought she was calling just to tell her that her name came up in the deposition. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, p. 162; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 703) Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed; of course her name came up in the deposition. There was obviously another and more important reason the President needed to get in touch with her. Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky's Lawyers Join the Search At 8:56 a.m., the President telephoned Vernon Jordan, who then joined in the activity. Over a course of twenty-four minutes, from 10:29 to 10:53 a.m., Mr. Jordan called the White House three times, paged Ms. Lewinsky, and called Ms. Lewinsky's attorney, Frank Carter. Between 10:53 a.m. and 4:54 p.m., there are continued calls between Mr. Jordan, Ms. Lewinsky's attorney and individuals at the White House. Ms. Lewinsky Replaces Her Lawyer Later that afternoon, at 4:54 p.m., Mr. Jordan called Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter relayed that he had been told he no longer represented Ms. Lewinsky. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 141; H.Doc. 105- 316, p. 1771) Mr. Jordan then made feverish attempts to reach the President or someone at the White House to tell them the bad news, as represented by the six calls between 4:58 p.m. and 5:22 p.m. Vernon Jordan said that he tried to relay this information to the White House because ``[t]he President asked me to get Monica Lewinsky a job,'' and he thought it was ``information that they ought to have.'' (VJ 6/9/98 GJ, pgs. 45-46; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1968) (Chart Q) Mr. Jordan then called Mr. Carter back at 5:14 p.m. to go over what they had already talked about. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 146; H.Doc. 104- 316, p. 1772) Mr. Jordan finally reached the President at 5:56 p.m. and told him that Mr. Carter had been fired. (VJ 6/ 9/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1970) The Reason for the Urgent Search This activity shows how important it was for the President of the United States to find Monica Lewinsky to learn to whom she was talking. Betty Currie was in charge of contacting Ms. Lewinsky. The President had just completed a deposition in which he provided false and misleading testimony about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. She was a co-conspirator in hiding this relationship from the Jones attorneys, and he was losing control over her. The President never got complete control over her again. Article I.--False and Misleading Statements to the Grand Jury Article I addresses the President's perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to the grand jury. Four categories of false grand jury testimony are listed in the Article. Some salient examples of false statements are described below. When judging the statements made and the answers given, it is vital to recall that the President spent literally days preparing his testimony with his lawyer. He and his attorney were fully aware that the testimony would center around his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and his deposition testimony in the Jones case. Grand Jury Testimony On August 17, after six invitations, the President of the United States appeared before a grand jury of his fellow citizens and took an oath to tell the complete truth. The President proceeded to equivocate and engage in legalistic fencing; he also lied. The entire testimony was calculated to mislead and deceive the grand jury and to obstruct its process, and eventually to deceive the American people. He set the tone at the very beginning. In the grand jury a witness can tell the truth, lie or assert his privileges against self incrimination. (Chart Y) President Clinton was given a fourth choice. The President was permitted to read a statement. (Chart Z; WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 8-9) The President's Prepared Statement That statement itself is demonstrably false in many particulars. President Clinton claims that he engaged in inappropriate conduct with Ms. Lewinsky ``on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in 1997.'' Notice he did not mention 1995. There was a reason. On three ``occasions'' in 1995, Ms. Lewinsky said she engaged in sexual contact with the President. Ms. Lewinsky was a twenty-one year old intern at the time. The President unlawfully attempted to conceal his three visits alone with Ms. Lewinsky in 1995 during which they engaged in sexual conduct. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 27-28; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 747-748; ML 8/6/98 GJ, Ex. 7; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1251; Chart A) Under Judge Wright's ruling, this evidence was relevant and material to Paula Jones' sexual harassment claims. (Order, Judge Susan Webber Wright, December 11, 1997, p. 3) The President specifically and unequivocally states, ``[The encounters] did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17, 1998 deposition.'' That assertion is patently false. It is directly contradicted by the corroborated testimony of Monica Lewinsky. (See eg: ML 8/20/98 GJ, pgs. 31-32; H.Doc. 311, p. 1174; ML 8/26/98 Dep., p. 25, 30; H.Doc. 311, pgs. 1357, 1358) Evidence indicates that the President and Ms. Lewinsky engaged in ``sexual relations'' as the President understood the term to be defined at his deposition and as any reasonable person would have understood the term to have been defined. Contrary to his statement under oath, the President's conduct during the 1995 visits and numerous additional visits did constitute ``sexual relations'' as he understood the term to be defined at his deposition. Before the grand jury, the President admitted that directly touching or kissing another person's breast, or directly touching another person's genitalia with the intent to arouse, would be ``sexual relations'' as the term was defined. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 94-95; H.Doc 105-311, pgs. 546-547) However, the President maintained that he did not engage in such conduct. (Id.) These statements are contradicted by Ms. Lewinsky's testimony and the testimony of numerous individuals with whom she contemporaneously shared the details of her encounters with the President. Moreover, the theory that Ms. Lewinsky repeated and unilaterally performed acts on the President while he tailored his conduct to fit a contorted definition of ``sexual relations'' which he had not contemplated at the time of the acts, defies common sense. Moreover, the President had not even formed the contorted interpretation of ``sexual relations'' which he asserted in the grand jury until after his deposition had concluded. This is demonstrated by the substantial evidence revealing the President's state of mind during his deposition testimony. First, the President continuously denied at his deposition any fact that would cause the Jones lawyers to believe that he and Ms. Lewinsky had any type of improper relationship, including a denial that they had a sexual affair, (WJC 1/17/ 98 Dep., p. 78) not recalling if they were ever alone, (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 52-53, 59) and not recalling whether Ms. Lewinsky had ever given him gifts. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pg. 75) Second, the President testified that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit denying a sexual relationship was ``absolutely true'' when, even by his current reading of the definition, it is absolutely false. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 204) Third, the White House produced a document entitled ``January 24, 1998 Talking Points,'' stating flatly that the President's definition of ``sexual relations'' included oral sex. (Chart W) Fourth, the President made statements to staff members soon after the deposition, saying that he did not have sexual relations, including oral sex, with Ms. Lewinsky, (Podesta 6/16/98 GJ, pg. 92; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3311) and that she threatened to tell people she and the President had an affair when he rebuffed her sexual advances. (Blumenthal 6/4/98 GJ, p. 59; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 185) Fifth, President Clinton's Answer filed in Federal District Court in response to Paula Jones' First Amended Complaint states unequivocally that ``President Clinton denies that he engaged in any improper conduct with respect to plaintiff or any other woman.'' (Answer of Defendant William Jefferson Clinton, December 17, 1997, p. 8, para. 39) Sixth, in President Clinton's sworn Answers to Interrogatories Numbers 10 and 11, as amended, he flatly denied that he had sexual relations with any federal employee. The President filed this Answer prior to his deposition. Finally, as described below, the President sat silently while his attorney, referring to Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, represented to the court that there was no sex of any kind or in any manner between the President and Ms. Lewinsky. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pg. 54) This circumstantial evidence reveals the President's state of mind at the time of the deposition: his concern was not in technically or legally accurate answers, but in categorically denying anything improper. His grand jury testimony about his state of mind during the deposition is false. Reasons for the False Testimony The President did not lie to the grand jury to protect himself from embarrassment, as he could no longer deny the affair. Before his grand jury testimony, the President's semen had been identified by laboratory tests on Ms. Lewinsky's dress, and during his testimony, he admitted an ``inappropriate intimate relationship'' with Ms. Lewinsky, In fact, when he testified before the grand jury, he was only hours away from admitting the affair on national television. Embarrassment was inevitable. But, if he truthfully admitted the details of his encounters with Ms. Lewinsky to the grand jury, he would be acknowledging that he lied under oath during his deposition when he claimed that he did not engage in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 78, 109, 204) Instead, he chose to lie, not to protect his family or the dignity of his office, but to protect himself from criminal liability for his perjury in the Jones case. Additional Falsity in the Prepared Statement The President's statement continued, ``I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this conduct [.]'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 9; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 461) The truth is much more troubling. As Ms. Lewinsky testified, her relationship with the President began with flirting, including Ms. Lewinsky showing the President her underwear. (ML 7/30/98 Int., p. 5; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1431) As Ms. Lewinsky candidly admitted, she was surprised that the President remembered her name after their first two sexual encounters. (ML 8/26/98 Dep., p. 25; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1295) Reason for the Falsity The President's prepared statement, fraught with untruths, was not an answer the President delivered extemporaneously to a particular question. It was carefully drafted testimony which the President read and relied upon throughout his deposition. The President attempted to use the statement to foreclose questioning on an incriminating topic on nineteen separate occasions. Yet, this prepared testimony, which along with other testimony provides the basis for Article I, Item 1, actually contradicts his sworn deposition testimony. Contrary Deposition Testimony In this statement, the President admits that he and Ms. Lewinsky were alone on a number of occasions. He refused to make this admission in his deposition in the Jones case. During the deposition, the following exchange occurred: Q. Mr. President, before the break, we were talking about Monica Lewinsky. At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky together alone in the Oval Office? A. I don't recall, but as I said, when she worked in the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically work some on the weekends. Sometimes they'd bring me things on the weekends. She--it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop if off, exchange a few words and go, she was there. I don't have any specific recollections of what the issues were, what was going on, but when the Congress is there, we're working all the time, and typically I would do some work on One of the days of the weekends in the afternoon. Q. So I understand, your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening? A. Yes, that's correct. It's possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there. That's possible. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 52-53) After telling this verbose lie under oath, the President was given an opportunity to correct himself. This exchange followed: Q. At any time have you and Monica Lewinsky ever been alone together in any room in the White House? A. I think I testified to that earlier. I think that there is a, it is--I have no specific recollection, but it seems to me that she was on duty on a couple of occasions working for the legislative affairs office and brought me some things to sign, something on the weekend. That's--I have a general memory of that. Q. Do you remember anything that was said in any of those meetings? A. No. You know, we just had conversation, I don't remember. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 52-53) Before the grand jury, the President maintained that he testified truthfully at his deposition, a lie which provides, in part, the basis for Article I, Item 2. He stated, ``My goal in this deposition was to be truthful, but not particularly helpful . . . I was determined to walk through the mind field of this deposition without violating the law, and I believe I did.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 80; H.Doc. 105- 311, p. 532) But contrary to his deposition testimony, he certainly was along with Ms. Lewinsky when she was not delivering papers, as the President conceded in his prepared grand jury statement. In other words, the President's assertion before the grand jury that he was alone with Ms. Lewinsky, but that he testified truthfully in his deposition, in inconsistent. Yet, to this day, both the President and his attorneys have insisted that he did not lie at his deposition and that he did not lie when he swore under oath that he did not lie at his deposition. In addition to his lie about not recalling being alone with Ms. Lewinsky, the President told numerous other lies at his deposition. All of those lies are incorporated in Article I, Item 2. Testimony Concerning the False Affidavit Article I, Item 3 charges the President with providing perjurious, false and misleading testimony before a federal grand jury concerning false and misleading statements his attorney Robert Bennett made to Judge Wright at the President's deposition. In one statement, while objecting to questions regarding Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Bennett misled the Court, perhaps knowingly, stating, ``Counsel [for Ms. Jones] is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit which they are in possession of saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton[.]'' (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 53-54) When Judge Wright interrupted Mr. Bennett and expressed her concern that he might be coaching the President, Mr. Bennett responded, ``In preparation of the witness for this deposition, the witness is fully aware of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, so I have not told him a single thing he doesn't know[.]'' (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 54) (Emphasis added) When asked before the grand jury about his statement to Judge Wright, the President testified, ``I'm not even sure I paid attention to what he was saying,'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 24; H.Doc. 105-3131, p. 476) He added, ``I didn't pay much attention to this conversation, which is why, when you started asking me about this, I asked to see the deposition.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 24; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 477) Finally, ``I don't believe I ever even focused on what Mr. Bennett said in the exact words he did until I started reading this transcript carefully for this hearing. That moment, the whole argument just passed me by.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 29; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 481) This grand jury testimony defies common sense. During his deposition testimony, the President admittedly misled Ms. Jones' attorneys about his affair with Ms. Lewinsky, which continued while Ms. Jones' lawsuit was pending, because he did not want the truth to be known. Of course, when Ms. Lewinsky's name is mentioned during the deposition, particularly in connection with sex, the President is going to listen. Any doubts as to whether he listened to Mr. Bennett's representations are eliminated by watching the videotape of the President's deposition. The videotape shows the President looking directly at Mr. Bennett, paying close attention to his argument to Judge Wright. False Testimony Concerning Obstruction of Justice Article I, Item 4 concerns the President's grand jury perjury regarding his efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and his efforts to impede discovery in the Jones v. Clinton lawsuit. These lies are perhaps the most troubling, as the President used them in an attempt to conceal his criminal actions and the abuse of his office. For example, the President testified before the grand jury that he recalled telling Ms. Lewinsky that if Ms. Jones' lawyers requested the gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and the President, she should provide them. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 43; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 495) He stated, ``And I told her that if they asked her for gifts, she'd have to give them whatever she had, that that's what the law was.'' (Id.) This testimony is false, as demonstrated by both Ms. Lewinsky's testimony and common sense. Ms. Lewinsky testified that on December 28, 1997, she discussed with the President the subpoena's request for her to produce gifts, including a hat pin. She told the President that it concerned her, (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 151; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 871) and he said that it ``bothered'' him too. (ML 8/20/98 GJ, p. 66; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1122) Ms. Lewinsky then suggested that she give the gifts to someone, maybe to Betty. But rather than instructing her to turn the gifts over to Ms. Jones' attorneys, the President replied, ``I don't know'' or ``Let me think about that.'' (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 152; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 872) Several hours later, Ms. Currie called Ms. Lewinsky on her cellular phone and said, ``I understand you have something to give me'' or ``the President said you have something to give me.'' (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 154-155; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 874-875) Although Ms. Currie agrees that she picked up the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Currie testified that ``the best'' she remembers is that Ms. Lewinsky called her. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. 105; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 581) She later conceded that Ms. Lewinsky's memory may be better than hers on this point. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. 126; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 584) A telephone record corroborates Ms. Lewinsky, revealing that Ms. Currie did call her from her cellular phone several hours after Ms. Lewinsky's meeting with the President. The only logical reason Ms. Currie called Ms. Lewinsky to retrieve gifts from the President is that the President told her to do so. He would not have given this instruction if he wished the gifts to be given to Ms. Jones' attorneys. Testimony Concerning Ms. Currie The President again testified falsely when he told the grand jury that he was simply trying to ``refresh'' his recollection when he made a series of statements to Ms. Currie the day after his deposition. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 131; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 583) Ms. Currie testified that she met with the President at about 5:00 P.M. on January 18, 1998, and he proceeded to make these statements to her: (1) I was never really alone with Monica, right? (2) You were always there when Monica was there, right? (3) Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right? (4) You could see and hear everything, right? (5) She wanted to have sex with me, and I cannot do that. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 70-75; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 559-560; BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. 6-7; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 664) Ms. Currie testified that these were more like statements than questions, and that, as far as she understood, the President wanted her to agree with the statements. (BC 1/27/ 98 GJ, p. 74; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 559) The President was asked specifically about these statements before the grand jury. He did not deny them, but said that he was ``trying to refresh [his] memory about what the facts were.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 131; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 583) He added that he wanted to ``know what Betty's memory was about what she heard,'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 506) and that he was ``trying to get as much information as quickly as [he] could.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 56; H.Doc. 105- 311, p. 508) Logic demonstrates that the President's explanation is contrived and false. A person does not refresh his recollection by firing declarative sentences dressed up as leading questions to his secretary. If the President was seeking information, he would have asked Ms. Currie what she recalled. Additionally, a person does not refresh his recollection by asking questions concerning factual scenarios of which the listener was unaware, or worse, of which the declarant and the listener knew were false. How would Ms. Currie know if she was always there when Ms. Lewinsky was there? Ms. Currie, in fact, acknowledged during her grand jury testimony that Ms. Lewinsky could have visited the President at the White House when Ms. Currie was not there. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. 65-66; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 679) Ms. Currie also testified that there were several occasions when the President and Ms. Lewinsky were in the Oval Office or study area without anyone else present. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 32-33, 36-38; H.Doc. 105- 316, pgs. 552-553) More importantly, the President admitted in his statement to the grand jury that he was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on several occasions. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 9-10; H.Doc. 105- 311, pgs. 460-461) Thus, by his own admission, his statement to Ms. Currie about never being alone with Ms. Lewinsky was false. And if they were alone together, Ms. Currie certainly could not say whether the President touched Ms. Lewinsky or not. The statement about whether Ms. Currie could see and hear everything is also refuted by the President's own grand jury testimony. During his ``intimate'' encounters with Ms. Lewinsky, he ensured everyone, including Ms. Currie, was excluded. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 53; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 505) Why would someone refresh his recollection by making a false statement of fact to a subordinate? The answer is obvious--he would not. Lastly, the President stated in the grand jury that he was ``downloading'' information in a ``hurry,'' apparently explaining that he made these statements because he did not have time to listen to answers to open-ended questions. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 56; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 508) But, if he was in such a hurry, why did the President not ask Ms. Currie to refresh his recollection when he spoke with her on the telephone the previous evening? He also has no adequate explanation as to why he could not spend an extra five or 10 minutes with Ms. Currie on January 18 to get her version of the events. In fact, Ms. Currie testified that she first met the President on January 18 while he was on the White House putting green, and he told her to go into the office and he would be in in a few minutes. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 67-70; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 558-559) And if he was in such a hurry, why did he repeat these statements to Ms. Currie a few days later? (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 80-81; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 560- 561) The reason for these statements had nothing to do with time constraints or refreshing recollection; he had just finished lying during the Jones deposition about these issues, and he needed corroboration from his secretary. Testimony About Influencing Aides Not only did the President lie about his attempts to influence Ms. Currie's testimony, but he lied about his attempts to influence the testimony of some of his top aides. Among the President's lies to his aides, described in detail later in this brief, were that Ms. Lewinsky did not perform oral sex on him, and that Ms. Lewinsky stalked him while he rejected her sexual demands. These lies were then disseminated to the media and attributed to White House sources. They were also disseminated to the grand jury. When the president was asked about these lies before the grand jury, he testified: ``And so I said to them things that were true about this relationship. That I used--in the language I used, I said, there's nothing going on between us. That was true. I said, I have not had sex with her as I defined it. That was true. And did I hope that I never would have to be here on this day giving this testimony? Of course. ``But I also didn't want to do anything to complicate this matter further. So I said things that were true. They may have been misleading, and if they were I have to take responsibility for it, and I'm sorry.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 106; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 558) To accept this grand jury testimony as truth, one must believe that many of the President's top aides engaged in a concerted effort to lie to the grand jury in order to incriminate him at the risk of subjecting themselves to a perjury indictment. We suggest that it is illustrative of the President's character that he never felt any compunction in exposing others to false testimony charges, so long as he could conceal his own perjuries. Simply put, such a conspiracy did not exist. The above are merely highlights of the President's grand jury perjury, and there are numerous additional examples. In order to keep these lies in perspective, three facts must be remembered. First, before the grand jury, the President was not lying to cover up an affair and protect himself from embarrassment, as concealing the affair was now impossible. Second, the President could no longer argue that the facts surrounding his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky were somehow irrelevant or immaterial, as the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury had mandates to explore them. Third, he cannot claim to have been surprised or unprepared for questions about Ms. Lewinsky before the grand jury, as he spent days with his lawyer, preparing responses to such questions. The President's Method Again, the President carefully crafted his statements to give the appearance of being candid, when actually his intent was the opposite. In addition, throughout the testimony, whenever the President was asked a specific question that could not be answered directly without either admitting the truth or giving an easily provable false answer, he said, ``I rely on my statement.'' 19 times he relied on this false and misleading statement; nineteen times, then, he repeated those lies in ``answering'' questions propounded to him. (See eg. WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pg. 139; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 591) The House Committee's Request In an effort to avoid unnecessary work and to bring its inquiry to an expeditious end, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives submitted to the President 81 requests to admit or deny specific facts relevant to this investigation. (Exhibit 18) Although, for the most part, the questions could have been answered with a simple ``admit'' or ``deny,'' the President elected to follow the pattern of selective memory, reference to other testimony, blatant untruths, artful distortions, outright lies, and half truths. When he did answer, he engaged in legalistic hair-splitting in an obvious attempt to skirt the whole truth and to deceive and obstruct the due proceedings of the Committee. The President Repeats His Falsities Thus, on at least 23 questions, the President professed a lack of memory. This from a man who is renowned for his remarkable memory, for his amazing ability to recall details. In at least 15 answers, the President merely referred to ``White House Records.'' He also referred to his own prior testimony and that of others. He answered several of the requests by merely restating the same deceptive answers that he gave to the grand jury. We will point out several false statements in this Brief. In addition, the half-truths, legalistic parsings, evasive and misleading answers were obviously calculated to obstruct the efforts of the House Committee. They had the effect of seriously hampering its ability to inquire and to ascertain the truth. The President has, therefore, added obstruction of an inquiry and an investigation before the Legislative Branch to his obstructions of justice before the Judicial Branch of our constitutional system of government. The Early Attack on Ms. Lewinsky After his deposition, the power and prestige of the Office of President was marshaled to destroy the character and reputation of Monica Lewinsky, a young woman that had been ill-used by the President. As soon as her name surfaced, the campaign began to muzzle any possible testimony, and to attack the credibility of witnesses, in a concerted effort to obstruct the due administration of justice in a lawsuit filed by one female citizen of Arkansas. It almost worked. When the President testified at his deposition that he had no sexual relations, sexual affair or the like with Monica Lewinsky, he felt secure. Monica Lewinksy, the only other witness was on board. She had furnished a false affidavit also denying everything. Later, when he realized from the January 18, 1998, Drudge Report that there were taped conversations between Ms. Lewinsky and Linda Tripp, he had to develop a new story, and he did. In addition, he recounted that story to White House aides who passed it on to the grand jury in an effort to obstruct that tribunal too. On Wednesday, January 21, 1998, The Washington Post published a story entitled ``Clinton Accused of Urging Aide to Lie; Starr Probes Whether President Told Woman to Deny Alleged Affair to Jones' Lawyers.'' The White House learned the substance of the Post story on the evening of January 20, 1998. Mr. Bennett's Remark After the President learned of the existence of the story, he made a series of telephone calls. At 12:08 a.m. he called his attorney, Mr. Bennett, and they had a conversation. The next morning, Mr. Bennett was quoted in the Washington Post stating: ``The President adamantly denies he ever had a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and she has confirmed the truth of that.'' He added, ``This story seems ridiculous and I frankly smell a rat.'' Additional Calls After that conversation, the President had a half hour conversation with White House counsel, Bruce Lindsey. At 1:16 a.m., the President called Betty Currie and spoke to her for 20 minutes. He then called Bruce Lindsey again. At 6:30 a.m. the President called Vernon Jordan. After that, the President again conversed with Bruce Lindsey. This flurry of activity was a prelude to the stories which the President would soon inflict upon top White House aides and advisors. The President's Statements to Staff ERSKINE BOWLES On the morning of January 21, 1998, the President met with Whie House Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles, and his two deputies, John Podesta and Sylvia Matthews. Erskine Bowles recalled entering the President's office at 9:00 a.m. that morning. He then recounts the President's immediate words as he and two others entered the Oval Office: And he looked up at us and he said the same thing he said to the American people. He said, ``I want you to know I did not have sexual relationships with this woman, Monica Lewinsky. I did not ask anybody to lie. And when the facts come out, you'll understand.'' (Bowles, 4/2/98 GJ, p. 84; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 239) After the President made that blanket denial, Mr. Bowles responded: I said, ``Mr. President, I don't know what the facts are. I don't know if they're good, bad, or indifferent. But whatever they are, you ought to get them out. And you ought to get them out rignt now.'' (Bowles, 4/2/98 GJ, p. 84; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 239) When counsel asked whether the President responded to Bowles' suggestion that he tell the truth, Bowles responded: I don't think he made any response, but he didn't disagree with me. (Bowles, 4/2/98 GJ, p. 84; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 239) John Podesta January 21, 1998 Deputy Chief John Podesta also recalled a meeting with the President on the morning of January 21, 1998. He testified before the grand jury as to what occurred in the Oval Office that morning: A. And we started off meeting--we didn't-- I don't think we said anything. And I think the President directed this specifically to Mr. Bowles. He said, ``Erskine, I want you to know that this story is not true.'' Q. What else did he say? A. He said that--that he had not had a sexual relationship with her, and that he never asked anybody to lie. (Podesta, 6/16/98 GJ, p. 85; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3310) January 23, 1998 Two days later, on January 23, 1998, Mr. Podesta had another discussion with the President: ``I asked him how he was doing, and he said he was working on this draft and he said to me that he never had sex with her, and that--and that he never asked--you know, he repeated the denial, but he was extremely explicit in saying he never had sex with her.'' Then Podesta testified as follows: Q. Okay. Not explicit, in the sense that he got more specific than sex, than the word ``sex.'' A. Yes, he was more specific than that. Q. Okay, share that with us. A. Well, I think he said--he said that--there was some spate. Of, you know, what sex acts were counted, and he said that he had never had sex with her in any way whatsoever---- Q. Okay. A. That they had not had oral sex. (Podesta, 6/16/98 GJ, p. 92; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3311) (Exhibit V) sidney blumenthal Later in the day on January 21, 1998, the President called Sidney Blumenthal to his office. It is interesting to note how the President's lies become more elaborate and pronounced when he has time to concoct this newest line of defense. When the President spoke to Mr. Bowles and Mr. Podesta, he simply denied the story. But, by the time he spoke to Mr. Blumenthal, the President has added three new angles to his defense strategy: (1) he now portrays Monica Lewinsky as the aggressor; (2) he launches an attack on her reputation by portraying her as a ``stalker''; and (3) he presents himself as the innocent victim being attacked by the forces of evil. Note well this recollection by Mr. Blumenthal in his June 4, 1998 testimony: (Chart U) And it was at this point that he gave his account of what had happened to me and he said that Monica--and it came very fast. He said, ``Monica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me.'' He rebuffed her. He said, ``I've gone down that road before, I've caused pain for a lot of people and I'm not going to do that again.'' She threatened him. She said that she would tell people they'd had an affair, that she was known as the stalker among her peers, and that she hated it and if she had an affair or said she had an affair then she wouldn't be the stalker anymore. (Blumenthal, 6/4/98 GJ, p. 49; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 185) And then consider what the President told Mr. Blumenthal moments later: And he said, ``I feel like a character in a novel. I feel like somebody who is surrounded by an oppressive force that is creating a lie about me and I can't get the truth out. I feel like the character in the novel Darkness at Noon. And I said to him, ``When this happened with Monica Lewinsky, were you alone?'' He said, ``Well, I was within eyesight or earshot of someone.'' (Blumenthal, 6/4/98 GJ, p. 50; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 185) At one point, Mr. Blumenthal was asked by the grand jury to describe the President's manner and demeanor during the exchange. Q. In response to my question how you responded to the President's story about a threat or discussion about a threat from Ms. Lewinsky, you mentioned you didn't recall specifically. Do you recall generally the nature of your response to the President? A. It was generally sympathetic to the President. And I certainly believed his story. It was a very heartfelt story, he was pouring out his heart, and I believed him. (Blumenthal, 6/25/98 GJ, pgs. 16-17; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 192-193) BETTY CURRIE When Betty Currie testified before the grand jury, she could not recall whether she had another one-on-one discussion with the President on Tuesday, January 20, or Wednesday, January 21. But she did state that on one of those days, the President summoned her back to his office. At that time, the President recapped their now-infamous Sunday afternoon post-deposition discussion in the Oval Office. It was at that meeting that the President made a series of statements to Ms. Currie, to some of which she could not possibly have known the answers. (e.g. ``Monica came on to me and I never touched her, right?'') (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 70- 75; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 559-560; BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. 6-7; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 664) When he spoke to her on January 20 or 21, he spoke in the same tone and demeanor that he used in his January 18 Sunday session. Ms. Currie stated that the President may have mentioned that she might be asked about Monica Lewinsky. (BC, 1/24/98 Int., p. 8; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 536) Motive for Lies to Staff It is abundantly clear that the President's assertions to staff were designed for dissemination to the American people. But it is more important to understand that the President intended his aides to relate that false story to investigators and grand jurors alike. We know that this is true for the following reasons: the Special Division had recently appointed the Office of Independent Counsel to investigate the Monica Lewinsky matter; the President realized that Jones' attorneys and investigators were investigating this matter; the Washington Post journalists and investigators were exposing the details of the Lewinsky affair; and, an investigation relating to perjury charges based on Presidential activities in the Oval Office would certainly lead to interviews with West Wing employees and high level staffers. Because the President would not appear before the grand jury, his version of events would be supplied by those staffers to whom he had lied. The President actually acknowledged that he knew his aides might be called before the grand jury. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 105-109; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 557-557) In addition, Mr. Podesta testified that he knew that he was likely to be a witness in the ongoing grand jury criminal investigation. He said that he was ``sensitive about not exchanging information because I knew I was a potential witness.'' (Podesta 6/23/98 GJ, p. 79; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3332) He also recalled that the President volunteered to provide information about Ms. Lewinsky to him even though Mr. Podesta had not asked for these details. (Podesta 6/23/98 GJ, p. 79; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3332) In other words, the President's lies and deceptions to his White House aides, coupled with his steadfast refusal to testify had the effect of presenting a false account of events to investigators and grand jurors. The President's aides believed the President when he told them his contrived account. The aides' eventual testimony provided the President's calculated falsehoods to the grand jury which, in turn, gave the jurors an inaccurate and misleading set of facts upon which to base any decisions. Win, Win, Win President Clinton also implemented a win-at-all- costs strategy calculated to obstruct the administration of justice in the Jones case and in the grand jury. This is demonstrated in testimony presented by Richard ``Dick'' Morris to the federal grand jury. Mr. Morris, a former presidential advisor, testified that on January 21, 1998, he met President Clinton and they discussed the turbulent events of the day. The President again denied the accusations against him. After further discussions, they decided to have an overnight poll taken to determine if the American people would forgive the President for adultery, perjury, and obstruction of justice. When Mr. Morris received the results, he called the President: ``And I said, `They're just too shocked by this. It's just too new, it's too raw.' And I said, `And the problem is they're willing to forgive you for adultery, but not for perjury or obstruction of justice or the various other things.' '' (Morris 8/18/98 GJ. p. 28; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 2929) Morris recalls the following exchange: Morris: And I said, ``They're just not ready for it.'' meaning the voters. WJC: Well, we just have to win, then. (Morris 8/18/98 GJ, p. 30; H.Doc. 105-216, p. 2930) The President, of course, cannot recall this statement, (Presidential Responses to Questions, Numbers 69, 70, and 71) The Plot to Discredit Monica Lewinsky In order to ``win,'' it was necessary to convince the public, and hopefully the grand jurors who read the newspapers, that Monica Lewinsky was unworthy of belief. If the account given by Ms. Lewinsky to Linda Tripp was believed, then there would emerge a tawdry affair in and near the Oval Office. Moreover, the President's own perjury and that of Monica Lewinsky would surface. To do this, the President employed the full power and credibility of the White House and its press corps to destroy the witness. Thus on January 29, 1998: Inside the White House, the debate goes on about the best way to destroy That Woman, as President Bill Clinton called Monica Lewinsky. Should they paint her as a friendly fantasist or a malicious stalker? (The Plain Dealer) Again: ``That poor child has serious emotional problems,'' Rep. Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York, said Tuesday night before the State of the Union. ``She's fantasizing. And I haven't heard that she played with a full deck in her other experiences.'' (The Plain Dealer) From Gene Lyons, an Arkansas columnist on January 30: ``But it's also very easy to take a mirror's eye view of this thing, look at this thing from a completely different direction and take the same evidence and posit a totally innocent relationship in which the president was, in a sense, the victim of someone rather like the woman who followed David Letterman around.'' (NBC News) From another ``source'' on February 1: ``Monica had become known at the White House, says one source, as `the stalker.' '' And on February 4: ``The media have reported that sources describe Lewinsky as `infatuated' with the president, `star struck' and even `a stalker'.'' (Buffalo News) Finally, on January 31: ``One White House aide called reporters to offer information about Monica Lewinsky's past, her weight problems and what the aide said was her nickname--`The Stalker.' '' ``Junior staff members, speaking on the condition that they not be identified, said she was known as a flirt, wore her skirts too short, and was `A little bit weird.' '' ``Little by little, ever since allegations of an affair between U.S. President Bill Clinton and Lewinsky surfaced 10 days ago, White House sources have waged a behind-the-scenes campaign to portray her as an untrustworthy climber obsessed with the President.'' ``Just hours after the story broke, one White House source made unsolicited calls offering that Lewinsky was the `troubled' product of divorced parents and may have been following the footsteps of her mother, who wrote a tell-all book about the private lives of three famous opera singers.'' ``One story had Lewinsky following former Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos to Starbucks. After observing what kind of coffee he ordered, she showed up the next day at his secretary's desk with a cup of the same coffee to `surprise him.' '' (Toronto Sun) This sounds familiar because it is the exact tactic used to destroy the reputation and credibility of Paula Jones. The difference is that these false rumors were emanating from the White House, the bastion of the free world, to protect one man from being forced to answer for his deportment in the highest office in the land. On August 17, 1998, the President testified before the grand jury. He then was specifically asked whether he knew that his aides (Blumenthal, Bowles, Podesta and Currie) were likely to be called before the grand jury. Q. It may have been misleading, sir, and you knew though, after January 21st when the Post article broke and said that Judge Starr was looking into this, you knew that they might be witnesses. You knew that they might be called into a grand jury, didn't you? WJC. That's right. I think I was quite careful what I said after that. I may have said something to all these people to that effect, but I'll also--whenever anybody asked me any details, I said, look, I don't want you to be a witness or I turn you into a witness or give you information that would get you in trouble. I just wouldn't talk. I, by and large, didn't talk to people about it. Q. If all of these people--let's leave Mrs. Currie for a minute. Vernon Jordan, Sid Blumenthal, John Podesta, Harold Ickes, Erskine Bowles, Harry Thomasson, after the story broke, after Judge Starr's involvement was known on January 21st, have said that you denied a sexual relationship with them. Are you denying that? WJC. No. Q. And you've told us that you---- WJC. I'm just telling you what I meant by it. I told you what I meant by it when they started this deposition. Q. You've told us now that you were being careful, but that it might have been misleading. Is that correct? WJC. It must have been * * * So, what I was trying to do was to give them something they could--that would be true, even if misleading in the context of this deposition, and keep them out of trouble, and let's deal--and deal with what I thought was the almost ludicrous suggestion that I had urged someone to lie or tried to suborn perjury, in other words. (WJC 8/17/97 GJ, pgs. 106-108; H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 558-560) As the President testified before the grand jury, he maintained that he was being truthful with his aides. (Exhibit 20) He stated that when he spoke to them, he was very careful with his wording. The President stated that he wanted his statement regarding ``sexual relations'' to be literally true because he was only referring to intercourse. However, recall that John Podesta said that the President denied sex ``in any way whatsoever'' ``including oral sex.'' The President told Mr. Podesta, Mr. Bowles, Ms. Williams, and Harold Ickes that he did not have a ``sexual relationship'' with that woman. Importantly, seven days after the President's grand jury appearance, the White House issued a document entitled, ``Talking Points January 24, 1998.'' (Chart W; Exhibit 16) This ``Talking Points'' document outlines proposed questions that the President may be asked. It also outlines suggested answers to those questions. The ``Talking Points'' purport to state the President's view of sexual relations and his view of the relationship with Monica Lewinsky. (Exhibit 17) The ``Talking Points'' state as follows: Q. What acts does the President believe constitute a sexual relationship? A. I can't believe we're on national television discussing this. I am not about to engage in an ``act-by-act'' discussion of what constitutes a sexual relationship. Q. Well, for example, Ms. Lewinsky is on tape indicating that the President does not believe oral sex is adultery. Would oral sex, to the President, constitute a sexual relationship? A. Of course it would. The President's own talking points refute the President's ``literal truth'' argument. Effect of the President's Conduct Some ``experts'' have questioned whether the President's deportment affects his office, the government of the United States or the dignity and honor of the country. Our founders decided in the Constitutional Convention that one of the duties imposed upon the President is to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' Furthermore, he is required to take an oath to ``Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' Twice this President stood on the steps of the Capitol, raised his right hand to God and repeated that oath. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that no person shall ``be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.`` The Seventh Amendment insures that in civil suits ``the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.'' Finally, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process of law and the equal protection of the laws. The Effect on Ms. Jones' Rights Paula Jones is an American citizen, just a single citizen who felt that she had suffered a legal wrong. More important, that legal wrong was based upon the Constitution of the United States. She claimed essentially that she was subjected to sexual harassment, which, in turn, constitutes discrimination on the basis of gender. The case was not brought against just any citizen, but against the President of the United States, who was under a legal and moral obligation to preserve and protect Ms. Jones' rights. It is relatively simple to mouth high-minded platitudes and to prosecute vigorously right violations by someone else. It is, however, a test of courage, honor and integrity to enforce those rights against yourself. The President failed that test. As a citizen, Ms. Jones enjoyed an absolute constitutional right to petition the Judicial Branch of government to redress that wrong by filing a lawsuit in the United States District Court, which she did. At this point she became entitled to a trial by jury if she chose, due process of law and the equal protection of the laws no matter who the defendant was in her suit. Due process contemplates that right to a full and fair trial, which, in turn, means the right to call and question witnesses, to cross-examine adverse witnesses and to have her case decided by an unbiased and fully informed jury. What did she actually get? None of the above. On May 27, 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a nine to zero decision that, ``like every other citizen,'' Paula Jones ``has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims.`` In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision, United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled on December 11, 1997, that Ms. Jones was entitled to information regarding state or federal employees with whom the President had sexual relations from May, 1986 to the present. Judge Wright had determined that the information was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Six days after this ruling, the President filed an answer to Ms. Jones' Amended Complaint. The President's Answer stated: ``President Clinton denies that he engaged in any improper conduct with respect to plaintiff or any other woman.'' Ms. Jones' right to call and depose witnesses was thwarted by perjurious and misleading affidavits and motions; her right to elicit testimony from adverse witnesses was compromised by perjury and false and misleading statements under oath. As a result, had a jury tried the case, it would have been deprived of critical information. That result is bad enough, but it reaches constitutional proportions when denial of the civil rights is directed by the President of the United States who twice took an oath to preserve, protect and defend those rights. But we now know what the ``sanctity of an oath'' means to the President. The Effect on the Office of President Moreover, the President is the spokesman for the government and the people of the United States concerning both domestic and foreign matters. His honesty and integrity, therefore, directly influence the credibility of this country. When, as here, that spokesman is guilty of a continuing pattern of lies, misleading statements, and deceits over a long period of time, the believability of any of his pronouncements is seriously called into question. Indeed, how can anyone in or out of our country any longer believe anything he says? And what does that do to confidence in the honor and integrity of the United States? Make no mistake, the conduct of the President is inextricably bound to the welfare of the people of the United States. Not only does it affect economic and national defense, but even more directly, it affects the moral and law-abiding fibre of the commonwealth, without which no nation can survive. When, as here, that conduct involves a pattern of abuses of power, of perjury, of deceit, of obstruction of justice and of the Congress, and of other illegal activities, the resulting damage to the honor and respect due to the United States is, of necessity, devastating. The Effect on the System Again: there is no such thing as non-serious lying under oath. Every time a witness lies, that witness chips a stone from the foundation of our entire legal system. Likewise, every act of obstruction of justice, of witness tampering or of perjury adversely affects the judicial branch of government like a pebble tossed into a lake. You may not notice the effect at once, but you can be certain that the tranquility of that lake has been disturbed. And if enough pebbles are thrown into the water, the lake itself may disappear. So too with the truth-seeking process of the courts. Every unanswered and unpunished assault upon it has its lasting effect and given enough of them, the system itself will implode. That is why two women who testified before the Committee had been indicted, convicted and punished severely for false statements under oath in civil cases. And that is why only recently a federal grand jury in Chicago indicted four former college football players because they gave false testimony under oath to a grand jury. Nobody suggested that they should not be charged because their motives may have been to protect their careers and family. And nobody has suggested that the perjury was non-serious because it involved only lies about sports; i.e., betting on college football games. Disregard of the Rule of Law Apart from all else, the President's illegal actions constitute an attack upon and utter disregard for the truth, and for the rule of law. Much worse, they manifest an arrogant disdain not only for the rights of his fellow citizens, but also for the functions and the integrity of the other two co-equal branches of our constitutional system. One of the witnesses that appeared earlier likened the government of the United States to a three-legged stool. The analysis is apt, because the entire structure of our country rests upon three equal supports: the Legislative, the Judicial, and the Executive. Remove one of those supports, and the State will totter. Remove two and the structure will collapse altogether. Effect on the Judicial Branch The President mounted a direct assault upon the truth- seeking process which is the very essence and foundation of the Judicial Branch. Not content with that, though, Mr. Clinton renewed his lies, half-truths and obstruction to this Congress when he filed his answers to simple requests to admit or deny. In so doing, he also demonstrated his lack of respect for the constitutional functions of the Legislative Branch. Actions do not lose their public character merely because they may not directly affect the domestic and foreign functioning of the Executive Branch. Their significance must be examined for their effect on the functioning of the entire system of government. Viewed in that manner, the President's actions were both public and extremely destructive. The Conduct Charged Warrants Conviction and Removal The Articles state offenses that warrant the President's conviction and removal from office. The Senate's own precedents establish that perjury and obstruction warrant conviction and removal from office. Those same precedents establish that the perjury and obstruction need not have any direct connection to the officer's official duties. Precedents In the 1980s, the Senate convicted and removed from office three federal judges for making perjurious statements. Background and History of Impeachment Hearings before the Subcomm. On the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. at 190-193 (Comm. Print 1998), (Testimony of Charles Cooper) (``Cooper Testimony'') Although able counsel represented each judge, none of them argued that perjury or making false statements are not impeachable offenses. Nor did a single Congressman or Senator, in any of the three impeachment proceedings, suggest that perjury does not constitute a high crime and misdemeanor. Finally, in the cases of Judge Claiborne and Judge Nixon, it was undisputed that the perjury was not committed in connection with the exercise of the judges' judicial powers. Judge Nixon In 1989, Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr., was impeached, convicted, and removed from office for committing perjury. Judge Nixon's offense stemmed from his grand jury testimony and statements to federal officers concerning his intervention in the state drug prosecution of Drew Fairchild, the son of Wiley Fairchild, a business partner of Judge Nixon's. Although Judge Nixon had no official role or function in Drew Fairchild's case (which was assigned to a state court judge), Wiley Fairchild had asked Judge Nixon to help out by speaking to the prosecutor. Judge Nixon did so, and the prosecutor, a long-time friend of Judge Nixon's, dropped the case. When the FBI and the Department of Justice interviewed Judge Nixon, he denied any involvement whatsoever. Subsequently, a federal grand jury was empaneled and Judge Nixon again denied his involvement before that grand jury. After a lengthy criminal prosecution, Judge Nixon was convicted on two counts of perjury before the grand jury and sentenced to five years in prison on each count. Not long thereafter, the House impeached Judge Nixon by a vote of 417 to 0. The first article of impeachment charged him with making the false or misleading statement to the grand jury that he could not ``recall'' discussing the Fairchild case with the prosecutor. The second article charged Nixon with making affirmative false or misleading statements to the grand jury that he had ``nothing whatsoever officially or unofficially to do with the Drew Fairchild case.'' The third article alleged that Judge Nixon made numerous false statements (not under oath) to federal investigators prior to his grand jury testimony. See 135 Cong. Rec. H1802-03. The House unanimously impeached Judge Nixon, and the House Managers' Report expressed no doubt that perjury is an impeachable offense: ``It is difficult to imagine an act more subversive to the legal process than lying from the witness stand. A judge who violates his testimonial oath and misleads a grand jury is clearly unfit to remain on the bench. If a judge's truthfulness cannot be guaranteed, if he sets less than the highest standard for candor, how can ordinary citizens who appear in court be expected to abide by their testimonial oath?'' House of Representatives' Brief in Support of the Articles of Impeachment at 59 (1989). House Manager Sensenbrenner addressed the question even more directly: ``There are basically two questions before you in connection with this impeachment. First, does the conduct alleged in the three articles of impeachment state an impeachable offense? There is really no debate on this point. The articles allege misconduct that is criminal and wholly inconsistent with judicial integrity and the judicial oath. Everyone agrees that a judge who lies under oath, or who deceives Federal investigators by lying in an interview, is not fit to remain on the bench.'' 135 Cong. Rec. S14,497 (Statement of Rep. Sensenbrenner) The Senate agreed, overwhelmingly voting to convict Judge Nixon of perjury on the first two articles (89-8 and 78-19, respectively). As Senator Carl Levin explained: ``The record amply supports the finding in the criminal trial that Judge Nixon's statements to the grand jury were false and misleading and constituted perjury. Those are the statements cited in articles I and II and it is on those articles that I vote to convict Judge Nixon and remove him from office.'' 135 Cong. Rec. S14,637 (Statement of Sen. Levin). Judge Hastings Also in 1989, the House impeached Judge Alcee L. Hastings for, among other things, committing numerous acts of perjury. The Senate convicted him, and he was removed from office. Initially, Judge Hastings had been indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiracy stemming from his alleged bribery conspiracy with his friend Mr. William Borders to ``fix'' cases before Judge Hastings in exchange for cash payments from defendants. Mr. Borders was convicted, but, at his own trial, Judge Hastings took the stand and unequivocally denied any participation in a conspiracy with Mr. Borders. The jury acquitted Judge Hastings on all counts. Nevertheless, the House impeached Judge Hastings, approving seventeen articles of impeachment, fourteen of which were for lying under oath at his trial. The House voted 413 to 3 to impeach. The House Managers' Report left no doubt that perjury alone is impeachable: ``It is important to realize that each instance of false testimony charged in the false statement articles is more than enough reason to convict Judge Hastings and remove him from office. Even if the evidence were insufficient to prove that Judge Hastings was part of the conspiracy with William Borders, which the House in no way concedes, the fact that he lied under oath to assure his acquittal is conduct that cannot be tolerated of a United States District Judge. To bolster one's defense by lying to a jury is separate, independent corrupt conduct. For this reason alone, Judge Hastings should be removed from public office.'' The House of Representatives' Brief in Support of the Articles of Impeachment at 127-28 (1989). Representative John Conyers (D-Mich.) also argued for the impeachment of Judge Hastings: ``[W]e can no more close our eyes to acts that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors when practiced by judges whose views we approve than we could against judges whose views we detested. It would be disloyal . . . to my oath of office at this late state of my career to attempt to set up a double standard for those who share my philosophy and for those who may oppose it. In order to be true to our principles, we must demand that all persons live up to the same high standards that we demand of everyone else.'' 134 Cong. Rec. H6184 (1988) (Statement of Rep. Conyers). Judge Claiborne In 1986, Judge Harry E. Claiborne was impeached, convicted, and removed from office for making false statements under penalties of perjury. In particular, Judge Claiborne had filed false income tax returns in 1979 and 1980, grossly understating his income. As a result, he was convicted by a jury of two counts of willfully making a false statement on a federal tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7206 (a). Subsequently, the House unanimously (406-0) approved four articles of impeachment. The proposition that Claiborne's perjurious personal income tax filings were not impeachable was never even seriously considered. As the House Managers explained: ``[T]he constitutional issues raised by the first two Articles of Impeachment [concerning the filing of false tax returns] are readily resolved. The Constitution provides that Judge Claiborne may be impeached and convicted for ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Article II, Section 4. The willful making or subscribing of a false statement on a tax return is a felony offense under the laws of the United States. The commission of such a felony is a proper basis for Judge Clairborne's impeachment and conviction in the Senate.'' Proceedngs of the United States Senate Impeachment Trial of Judge Harry E. Clairborne, S. Doc. No. 99-48, at 40 (1986) (Claiborne Proceedings'') (emphases added). House Manager Rodino, in his oral argument to the Senate, emphatically made the same point: ``Honor in the eyes of the American people lies in public officials who respect the law, not in those who violate the trust that has been given to them when they are trusted with public office. Judge Harry E. Claiborne has, sad to say, undermined the integrity of the judicial branch of Government. To restore that integrity and to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, Judge Claiborne must be convicted on the fourth Article of Impeachment [that of reducing confidence in the integrity of the judiciary].'' 132 Cong. Rec. S15,481 (1986) (Statement of Rep. Rodino). The Senate agreed. Telling are the words of then-Senator Albert Gore, Jr. In voting to convict Judge Claiborne and remove him from office: ``The conclusion is inescapable that Clairborne filed false income tax returns and that he did so willfully rather than negligently. . . . Given the circumstances, it is incumbent upon the Senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibility and strip this man of his title. An individual who has knowingly falsified tax returns has no business receiving a salary derived from the tax dollars of honest citizens. More importantly, an individual quality of such reprehensible conduct ought not be permitted to exercise the awesome powers which the Constitution entrusts to the Federal Judiciary.'' Claiborne Proceedings, S. Doc. No. 99-48, at 372 (1986). Application to the President To avoid the conclusive force of these recent precedents-- and in particular the exact precedent supporting impeachment for, conviction, and removal for perjury--the only recourse for the President's defenders is to argue that a high crime or misdemeanor for a judge is not necessarily a high crime or misdemeanor for the President. The arguments advanced in support of this dubious proposition do not withstand serious scrutiny. See generally Cooper Testimony, at 193. The Constitution provides that Article III judges ``shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, U.S. Const. Art. III, 1. Thus, these arguments suggest that judges are impeachable for ``misbehavior'' while other federal officials are only impeachable for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. The staff of the House Judiciary Committee in the 1970s and the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal in the 1990s both issued reports rejecting these arguments. In 1974, the staff of the Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Inquiry issued a report which included the following conclusion: ``Does Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states that judges `shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,' limit the relevance of the ten impeachments of judges with respect to presidential impeachment standards as has been argued by some? It does not. The argument is that `good behavior' implies an additional ground for impeachment of judges not applicable to other civil officers. However, the only impeachment provision discussed in the Convention and included in the Constitution is Article II, Section 4, which by its expressed terms, applies to all civil officers, including judges, and defines impeachment offenses as `Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' '' Staff of House Comm. on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong. 2d Sess., Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment (Comm. Print 1974) (``1974 Staff Report'') at 17. The National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal came to the same conclusion. The Commission concluded that ``the most plausible reading of the phrase `during good Behavior' is that it means tenure for life, subject to the impeachment power. . . . The ratification debates about the federal judiciary seem to have proceeded on the assumption that good-behavior tenure meant removal only through impeachment and conviction.'' National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal, Report of the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal 17-18 (1993) (footnote omitted). The record of the 1986 impeachment of Judge Claiborne also argues against different impeachment standards for federal judges and presidents. Judge Claiborne filed a motion asking the Senate to dismiss the articles of impeachment against him for failure to state impeachable offenses. One of the motion's arguments was that ``[t]he standard for impeachment of a judge is different than that for other officers'' and that the Constitution limited ``removal of the judiciary to acts involving misconduct related to discharge of office.'' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Articles of Impeachment on the Grounds They Do Not State Impeachable Offenses 4 (hereinafter cited as ``Claiborne Motion''), reprinted in Hearings Before the Senate Impeachment Trial Committee, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 245 (1986) (hereinafter cited as ``Senate Claiborne Hearings''). Representative Kastenmeier responded that ``reliance on the term `good behavior' as stating a sanction for judges is totally misplaced and virtually all commentators agree that that is directed to affirming the life tenure of judges during good behavior. It is not to set them down, differently, as judicial officers from civil officers.'' Id. at 81-82. He further stated that ``[n]or . . . is there any support for the notion that . . . Federal judges are not civil officers of the United States, subject to the impeachment clause of article II of the Constitution.'' Id. at 81. The Senate never voted on Claiborne's motion. However, the Senate was clearly not swayed by the arguments contained therein because it later voted to convict Judge Claiborne. 132 Cong. Rec. S15,760-62 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 1986). The Senate thus rejected the claim that the standard of impeachable offenses was different for judges than for presidents. Moreover, even assuming that presidential high crimes and misdemeanors could be different from judicial ones, surely the President ought not be held to a lower standard of impeachability than judges. In the course of the 1980s judicial impeachments, Congress emphasized unequivocally that the removal from office of federal judges guilty of crimes indistinguishable from those currently charged against the President was essential to the preservation of the rule of law. If the perjury of just one judge so undermines the rule of law as to make it intolerable that he remain in office, then how much more so does perjury committed by the President of the United States, who alone is charged with the duty ``to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' See generally, Cooper Testimony at 194) It is just as devastating to our system of government when a President commits perjury. As the House Judiciary Committee stated in justifying an article of impeachment against President Nixon, the President not only has ``the obligation that every citizen has to live under the law,'' but in addition has the duty ``not merely to live by the law but to see that law faithfully applied.'' Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, H. Rept. No. 93-1305, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. at 180 (1974). The Constitution provides that he ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 3. When a President, as chief law enforcement officer of the United States, commits perjury, he violates this constitutional oath unique to his office and casts doubt on the notion that we are a nation ruled by laws and not men. Perjury and Obstruction Are as Serious as Bribery Further evidence that perjury and obstruction warrant conviction and removal comes directly from the text of the Constitution. Because the Constitution specifically mentions bribery, no one can dispute that it is an impeachable offense. U.S. Const., art. II, Sec. 4. Because the constitutional language does not limit the term, we must take it to mean all forms of bribery. Our statutes specifically criminalize bribery of witnesses with the intent to influence their testimony in judicial proceedings. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(b)(3) & (4), (c)(2) & (3). See also 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1503 (general obstruction of justice statute), 1512 (witness tampering statute). Indeed, in a criminal case, the efforts to provide Ms. Lewinsky with job assistance in return for submitting a false affidavit charged in the Articles might easily have been charged under these statutes. No one could reasonably argue that the President's bribing a witness to provide false testimony--even in a private lawsuit--does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. The plain language of the Constitution indicates that it is. Having established that point, the rest is easy. Bribing a witness is illegal because it leads to false testimony that in turn undermines the ability of the judicial system to reach just results. Thus, among other things, the Framers clearly intended impeachment to protect the judicial system from these kinds of attacks. Perjury and obstruction of justice are illegal for exactly the same reason, and they accomplish exactly the same ends through slightly different means. Simple logic establishes that perjury and obstruction of justice--even in a private lawsuit--are exactly the types of other high crimes and misdemeanors that are of the same magnitude as bribery. High Crimes and Misdemeanors Although Congress has never adopted a fixed definition of ``high crimes and misdemeanors,'' much of the background and history of the impeachment process contradicts the President's claim that these offenses are private and therefore do not warrant conviction and removal. Two reports prepared in 1974 on the background and history of impeachment are particularly helpful in evaluating the President's defense. Both reports support the conclusion that the facts in this case compel the conviction and removal of President Clinton. Many have commented on the report on ``Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment'' prepared in February 1974 by the staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry. The general principles concerning grounds for impeachment set forth in that report indicate that perjury and obstruction of justice are impeachable offenses. Consider this key language from the staff report describing the type of conduct which gives rise to impeachment: ``The emphasis has been on the significant effects of the conduct--undermining the integrity of office, disregard of constitutional duties and oath of office, arrogation of power, abuse of the governmental process, adverse impact on the system of government.'' 1974 Staff Report at 26 (emphasis added). Perjury and obstruction of justice clearly ``undermine the integrity of office.'' They unavoidably erode respect for the office of the President. Such offenses obviously involve ``disregard of [the President's] constitutional duties and oath of office.'' Moreover, these offenses have a direct and serious ``adverse impact on the system of government.'' Obstruction of justice is by definition an assault on the due administration of justice--a core function of our system of government. The thoughtful report on ``The Law of Presidential Impeachment'' prepared by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York in January of 1974 also places a great deal of emphasis on the corrosive impact of presidential misconduct on the integrity of office: It is our conclusion, in summary, that the grounds for ``impeachment are not limited to or synonymous with crimes . . . Rather, we believe that acts which undermine the integrity of government are appropriate grounds whether or not they happen to constitute offenses under the general criminal law. In our view, the essential nexus to damaging the integrity of government may be found in acts which constitute corruption in, or flagrant abuse of the powers of, official position. It may also be found in acts which, without directly affecting governmental processes, undermine that degree of public confidence in the probity of executive and judicial officers that is essential to the effectiveness of government in a free society.'' Association of the Bar of the City of New York, The Law of Presidential Impeachment, (1974) at 161 (emphasis added). The commission of perjury and obstruction of justice by a President are acts that without doubt ``undermine that degree of public confidence in the probity of the [the President] that is essential to the effectiveness of government in a free society.'' Such acts inevitably subvert the respect for law which is essential to the well-being of our constitutional system. That the President's perjury and obstruction do not directly involve his official conduct does not diminish their significance. The record is clear that federal officials have been impeached for reasons other than official misconduct. As set forth above, two recent impeachments of federal judges are compelling examples. In 1989, Judge Walter Nixon was impeached, convicted, and removed from office for committing perjury before a federal grand jury. Judge Nixon's perjury involved his efforts to fix a state case for the son of a business partner--a matter in which he had no official role. In 1986, Judge Harry E. Claiborne was impeached, convicted, and removed from office for making false statements under penalty of perjury on his income tax returns. That misconduct had nothing to do with his official responsibilities. Nothing in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution suggests that officials are subject to impeachment only for official misconduct. Perjury and obstruction of justice--even regarding a private matter--are offenses that substantially affect the President's official duties because they are grossly incompatible with his preeminent duty to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' Regardless of their genesis, perjury and obstruction of justice are acts of public misconduct--they cannot be dismissed as understandable or trivial. Perjury and obstruction of justice are not private matters; they are crimes against the system of justice, for which impeachment, conviction, and removal are appropriate. The record of Judge Claiborne's impeachment proceedings affirms that conclusion. Representative Hamilton Fish, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and one of the House managers in the Senate trial, stated that ``[i]mpeachable conduct does not have to occur in the course of the performance of an officer's official duties. Evidence of misconduct, misbehavior, high crimes, and misdemeanors can be justified upon one's private dealings as well as one's exercise of public office. That, of course, is the situation in this case.'' 132 Cong. Rec. H4713 (daily ed. July 22, 1986). Judge Claiborne's unsuccessful motion that the Senate dismiss the articles of impeachment for failure to state impeachable offenses provides additional evidence that personal misconduct can justify impeachment. One of the arguments his attorney made for the motion was that ``there is no allegation . . . that the behavior of Judge Claiborne in any way was related to misbehavior in his official function as a judge; it was private misbehavior.'' (Senate Claiborne Hearings, at 77, Statement of Judge Claiborne's counsel, Oscar Goodman). (See also Claiborne Motion, at 3) Representative Kastenmeier responded by stating that ``it would be absurd to conclude that a judge who had committed murder, mayhem, rape, or perhaps espionage in his private life, could not be removed from office by the U.S. Senate.'' (Senate Claiborne Hearings, at 81) Kastenmeier's response was repeated by the House of Representatives in its pleading opposing Claiborne's motion to dismiss. (Opposition to Claiborne Motion at 2) The Senate did not vote on Judge Claiborne's motion, but it later voted to convict him. 132 Cong. Rec. S15,760-62 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 1986). The Senate thus agreed with the House that private improprieties could be, and were in this instance, impeachable offenses. The Claiborne case makes clear that perjury, even if it relates to a matter wholly separated from a federal officer's official duties--a judge's personal tax returns--is an impeachable offense. Judge Nixon's false statements were also in regard to a matter distinct from his official duties. In short, the Senate's own precedents establish that misconduct need not be in one's official capacity to warrant removal. Conclusion This is a defining moment for the Presidency as an institution, because if the President is not convicted as a consequence of the conduct that has been portrayed, then no House of Representatives will ever be able to impeach again and no Senate will ever convict. The bar will be so high that only a convicted felon or a traitor will need to be concerned. Experts pointed to the fact that the House refused to impeach President Nixon for lying on an income tax return. Can you imagine a future President, faced with possible impeachment, pointing to the perjuries, lies, obstructions, and tampering with witnesses by the current occupant of the office as not rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? If this is not enough, what is? How far can the standard be lowered without completely compromising the credibility of the office for all time? Dated: January 11, 1999. ____ APPENDIX [In the Senate of the United States Sitting as a Court of Impeachment] In re Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton Appendix to Trial Memorandum of the Managers Appointed by the U.S. House of Representatives The United States House of Representatives Henry J. Hyde, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Bill McCollum, George W. Gekas, Charles T. Canady, Stephen E. Buyer, Ed Bryant, Steve Chabot, Bob Barr, Asa Hutchinson, Chris Cannon, James E. Rogan, Lindsey O. Graham. Managers on the Part of the House ____ Table of Contents charts A. The President's Contacts Alone With Lewinsky B. The President's Telephone Contacts With Lewinsky C. Lewinsky's Gifts to The President D. The President's Gifts to Lewinsky E. 12/5/97 Facsimile Transmission of Witness List in Jones v. Clinton F. The December 19, 1997 Subpoena to Lewinsky in Jones v. Clinton G. December 19, 1997 Activities Following Lewinsky's Receipt of Subpoena H. The President's December 23, 1997 Response to Interrogatory No. 10 in Jones v. Clinton I. The President's December 23, 1997 Response to Interrogatory No. 11 in Jones v. Clinton J. December 28, 1997, The President's Final Meeting With Lewinsky and Concealment of Gifts K. Currie's Cell Phone Records for 12/28/97 L. The President's Statements About Concealing Gifts M. Lewinsky's Draft Affidavit N. Lewinsky Final Affidavit dated January 7, 1998 Paragraph 8, Jones v. Clinton O. Filing Lewinsky's Affidavit and Motion to Quash (1/14/ 98-1/17/98) P. Mission Accomplished: Lewinsky Signs Her Affidavit and Is Hired By Revlon in New York (1/5/98-1/9/98) Q. The President's Involvement With Lewinsky's Job Search R. Jordan's Testimony About His Pre-Witness List Job Search Efforts S. Activity Following The President's Deposition (1/17/98- 1/1998) T. The President's Statements to Currie 1/18/98 U. The President's Denial of Sexual Relations V. The President's 1/21/98 Denial of Sexual Relations to Blumenthal, Podesta and Morris W. The White House 1/24/98 ``Talking Points'' X. The President's Claims That He Was Truthful With Aides Y. The Three Options of a Grand Jury Witness Z. The President's Grand Jury ``Statement'' ____ [Chart A] THE PRESIDENT'S CONTACTS ALONE WITH LEWINSKY Lewinsky White House Employee (7/95-4/96) 1995 11/15/95 (Wed): The President meets alone twice with Lewinsky in Oval Office study and hallway outside the Oval Office. (Sexual Encounter) 11/17/95 (Fri): The President meets alone twice with Lewinsky in The President's private bathroom outside the Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) 12/5/95 (Tues): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office and study. (No Sexual Encounter) 12/31/95 (Sun): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office and Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) 1996 1/7/96 (Sun): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the bathroom outside the Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) 1/21/96 (Sun): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the hallway outside the Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) 2/4/96 (Sun): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study and in the adjacent hallway. (Sexual Encounter) 2/19/96 (Mon): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office. (No Sexual Encounter) 3/31/96 (Sun): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in hallway outside the Oval Office. (Sexual Encounter) 4/7/96 (Sun): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the hallway outside the Oval Office study and in the Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) 1997 2/28/97 (Fri): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office private bathroom. (Sexual Encounter) 3/29/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) 5/24/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office dining room, study and hallway. (No Sexual Encounter) 7/4/97 (Fri): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study and hallway. (No Sexual Encounter) 7/14/97 (Mon): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in Heinreich's office. (No Sexual Encounter) 7/24/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (No Sexual Encounter) 8/16/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) 10/11/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (No Sexual Encounter) 11/13/97 (Thurs): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (No Sexual Encounter) 12/6/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (No Sexual Encounter) 12/28/97 (Sun): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (No Sexual Encounter) ____ [Chart B] THE PRESIDENT'S TELEPHONE CONTACTS WITH LEWINSKY 1/7/96 (Sun): Conversation--first call to ML's home. 1/7/96 (Sun): Conversation--ML at office. 1/15 or 1/16/96 (Mon or Tue): Conversation, approx. 12:30 a.m.--ML at home.* Approx. 1/28/96 (Sun): Caller ID on ML's office phone indicated POTUS call. 1/30/96 (Tues): Conversation--during middle of workday at ML's office. 2/4/96 (Sun): Conversations--ML at office--multiple calls. 2/7 or 2/8/96 (Wed or Thur): Conversation--ML at home. 2/8 or 2/9/96 (Thur or Fri): Conversation--ML at home.* 2/19/96 (Mon): Conversation--ML at home. Approx. 2/28 2/28 or 3/5/96: Conversation--approx. 20 min.-- after chance meeting in hallway--ML at home. 3/26/96 (Tues): Conversation--approx. 11 a.m.--ML at office. 3/29/96: Conversation--ML at office--approx. 8 p.m.-- invitation to movie. 3/31/96: Conversation--ML at office--approx. 1 p.m.--Pres. ill. 4/7/96 (Easter Sunday): Conversation----ML at home. 4/7/96 (Easter Sunday): Conversation--ML at home--why ML left. 4/12/96 (Fri): Conversation--ML at home--daytime. 4/12 or 4/13/96 (Fri or Sat): Conversation--ML at home--after midnight. 4/22/96 (Mon): Conversations--job talk--ML at home. 4/29 or 4/30/96 (Mon or Tues): Message--after 6:30 a.m. 5/2/96 (Thur): Conversation--ML at home.* 5/6/96 (Mon): Possible phone call. 5/16/96 (Thur): Conversation--ML at home. 5/21/96 (Tues): Conversation--ML at home.* 5/31/96 (Fri): Message. 6/5/96 (Wed): Conversation--ML at home--early evening. 6/23/96 (Sun): Conversation--ML at home.* 7/5 or 7/6/96 (Fri or Sat): Conversation--ML at home.* 7/19/96 (Fri): Conversation--6:30 a.m.--ML at home.* 7/28/96 (Sun): Conversation--ML at home. 8/4/96 (Sun): Conversation--ML at home.* 8/24/96 (Sat): Conversation--ML at home.* 9/5/96 (Thur): Conversation--Pres. In Fla--ML at home.* 9/10/96 (Tues): Message. 9/30/96 (Mon): Conversation.* 10/22/96 (Tues): Conversation--ML at home.* 10/23 or 10/24/96 (early am): Conversation--ML at home. 12/2/96 (Mon): Conversation--approx. 10-15 min.--ML at home. 12/2/96 (Mon): Conversation--later that evening--ML at home-- approx. 10:30 p.m.--Pres fell asleep.* 12/18/96 (Wed): Conversation--approx. 5 min.--10:30 p.m.--ML at home. 12/30/96 (Mon): Message. 1/12/97 (Sun): Conversation--job talk--ML at home.* 2/8/97 (Sat): Conversation--ML at home--mid-day--11:30-12:00. 2/8/97 (Sat): Conversation--job talk--1:30 or 2:00 p.m.--ML at home.* 3/12/97 (Wed): Conversation--three minutes--ML at work. 4/26/97 (Sat): Conversation--late afternoon--20 min.--ML at home. 5/17/97 (Sat): Conversations--multiple calls. 5/18/97 (Sun): Conversations--multiple calls. 7/15/97 (Tues): Conversation--ML at home. 8/1/97 (Fri): Conversation. 9/30/97 (Tues): Conversation.* 10/9 or 10/10/97 (Thur or Fri): Conversation--long, from 2 or 2:30 a.m. until 3:30 or 4:00 a.m.--job talk--argument-- ML at home. 10/23/97 (Thur): Conversation--ML at home--end b/c HRC. 10/30/97 (Thur): Conversation--ML at home--interview prep. 11/12/97 (Wed): Conversation--discuss re: ML visit.* 12/6/97 (Sat): Conversation--approx. 30 min--ML at home. 12/17/ or 12/18/97 (Wed or Thur): Conversation--b/t 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m.--ML at home--witness list. 1/5/98 (Mon): Conversation. *Conversation that involved and may have involved phone sex. [Chart C] LEWINSKY GIFTS TO THE PRESIDENT 10/24/95: Lewinsky (before the sexual relationship began) gives her first gift to The President of a matted poem given by her and other White House interns to commemorate ``National Boss' Day''. It is the only gift the President sent to the archives instead of keeping. 11/20/95: Lewinsky gives The President a Zegna necktie. 3/31/96: Lewinsky gives The President a Hugo Boss Tie. Christmas 1996: Lewinsky gives The President a Sherlock Homes game and a glow in the dark frog. Before 8/16/96: Lewinsky gives The President a Zegna necktie and a t-shirt from Bosnia. Early 1997: Lewinsky gives The President Oy Ve, a small golf book, golf balls, golf tees, and a plastic pocket frog. 3/97: Lewinsky gives The President a care package after he injured his leg including a metal magnet with The Presidential seal for his crutches, a license plate with ``Bill'' for his wheelchair, and knee pads with The Presidential seal. 3/29/97: Lewinsky gives The President her personal copy of Vox, a book about phone sex, a penny medallion with the heart cut out, a framed Valentine's Day ad, and a replacement for the Hugo Boss tie that had the bottom cut off. 5/24/97: Lewinsky gives The President a Banana Republic casual shirt and a puzzle on gold mysteries. 7/14/97: Lewinsky gives The President a wooden B, with a frog in it from Budapest. Before 8/16/97: Lewinsky gives The President The Notebook. 8/16/97: Lewinsky gives The President an antique book on Peter the Great, the card game ``Royalty'', and a book, Disease and Misrepresentation. 10/21/97 or 10/22/97: Lewinsky gives The President a Calvin Klein tie, and pair of sunglasses. 10/97: Lewinsky gives The President a package Before filled with Halloween-related items, such as a Halloween pumpkin lapel pin, a wooden letter opener with a frog on the handle, and a plastic pumpkin filled with candy. 11/13/97: Lewinsky gives The President an antique paperweight that depicted the White House. 12/6/97: Lewinsky gives The President Our Patriotic President: His Life in Pictures, Anecdotes, Sayings, Principles and Biography; an antique standing cigar holder; a Starbucks Santa Monica mug; a Hugs and Kisses box; and a tie from London. 12/28/97: Lewinsky gives The President a hand-painted Easter Egg and ``gummy boobs'' from Urban Outfitters. 1/4/98: Lewinsky gives Currie a package with her final gift to The President containing a book entitled The Presidents of the United States and a love note inspired by the movie Titanic. ____ [Chart D] THE PRESIDENT'S GIFTS TO LEWINSKY 12/5/95: The President gives Lewinsky an autographed photo of himself wearing the Zenga necktie she gave him.* 2/4/96: The President gives Lewinsky a signed ``State of the Union'' Address.* 3/31/96: The President gives Lewinsky cigars. 2/28/97: The President gives Lewinsky a hat pin*, ``Davidoff'' cigars, and the book the Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman as belated Christmas gifts. The President gives Lewinsky a gold brooch.* The President gives Lewinsky an Annie Lennox compact disk. The President gives Lewinsky a cigar. 7/24/97: The President gives Lewinsky an antique flower pin in a wooden box, a porcelain object d'art, and a signed photograph of the President and Lewinsky.* Early 9/97: The President brings Lewinsky several Black Dog items, including a baseball cap*, 2 T-shirts*, a hat and a dress.* 12/28/97: The President gives Lewinsky the largest number of gifts including: 1. a large Rockettes blanket,* 2. a pin of the New York skyline,* 3. a marblelike bear's head from Vancouver,* 4. a pair of sunglasses,* 5. a small box of cherry chocolates, 6. a canvas bag from the Black Dog,* 7. a stuffed animal wearing a T-shirt from the Black Dog.* (*Denotes those items Lewinsky produced to the OIC on 7/29/ 98). ____ [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.000 [Chart F] LEWINSKY SUBPOENA Jones v. Clinton December 19, 1997 The Jones v. Clinton subpoena to Lewinsky called for: (1) Her testimony on January 23, 1998 at 9:30 a.m.; (2) Production of ``each and every gift including but not limited to, any and all dresses, accessories, and jewelry, and/or hat pins given to you by, or on behalf of, Defendant Clinton;'' and (3) ``Every document constituting or containing communications between you and Defendant Clinton, including letters, cards, notes, memoranda and all telephone records.'' ____ [Chart G] DECEMBER 19, 1997 (Friday) Lewinsky is Served with a Subpoena in Jones v. Clinton 1:47-1:48 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan's office. 3:00-4:00 p.m.: Lewinsky is served with a subpoena in Jones v. Clinton. --: Lewinsky telephones Jordan immediately about subpoena. 3:51-3:52 p.m.: Jordan telephones The President and talks to Debra Schiff. 4:17-4:20 p.m.: Jordan telephones White House Social Office. 4:47 p.m.: Lewinsky meets Jordan and requests that Jordan notify The President about her subpoena. 5:01-5:05 p.m.: The President telephones Jordan; Jordan notifies The President about Lewinsky's subpoena. 5:06 p.m.: Jordan telephones attorney Carter to represent Lewinsky. Later that Evening: The President meets alone with Jordan at the White House. ____ [Chart H] DECEMBER 23, 1997 Jones v. Clinton Interrogatory No. 10 Interrogatory No. 10: Please state the name, address, and telephone number of each and every individual (other than Hillary Rodham Clinton) whom you had sexual relations when you held any of the following positions: a. Attorney General of the State of Arkansas; b. Governor of the State of Arkansas; c. President of the United States. (Court modifies scope to incidents from May 8, 1986 to the present involving state or federal employees.) Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 10 (as modified by direction of the Court): None. ____ [Chart I] DECEMBER 23, 1997 Jones v. Clinton Interrogatory No. 11 Interrogratory No. 11: Please state the name, address, and telephone number of each and every individual (other than Hillary Rodham Clinton) with whom you sought to have sexual relations, when you held any of the following positions: a. Attorney General of the State of Arkansas; b. Governor of the State of Arkansas; c. President of the United States. (Court modifies scope to incidents from May 8, 1986 to the present involving state or federal employees.) Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 11 (as modified by direction of the Court): None. ____ [Chart J] DECEMBER 28, 1997 (Sunday) The President's Final Meeting with Lewinsky and The Concealment of the Gifts to Lewinsky 8:16 a.m.: Lewinsky meets The President at the White House at Currie's direction. The President gives Lewinsky numerous gifts. The President and Lewinsky discuss the subpoena, calling for, among other things, the hat pin. The President acknowledges ``that sort of bothered [him] too.'' Lewinsky states to The President: ``Maybe I should put the gifts away outside my house somewhere or give them to someone, maybe Betty [Currie].'' 3:32 p.m.: Currie telephones Lewinsky at home from Currie's cell phone. ``I understand you have something to give me.'' or ``The President said you have something to give me.'' Later that Day: Currie picks up gifts from Lewinsky. ____ [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.001 [Chart L] THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENTS ABOUT CONCEALING GIFTS 12/28/97 ``[Lewinsky]: And then at some point I said to him [The President], `Well, you know, should I--maybe I should put the gifts away outside my house somewhere or give them to someone, maybe Betty.' And he sort of said--I think he responded, `I don't know' or `Let me think about that.' And left that topic.''--(Lewinsky Grand Jury 8/6/98 Tr. 152) ____ [Chart M] AFFIDAVIT OF JANE DOE # 1. My name is Jane Doe # . I am 24 years old and I currently reside at 700 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037. 2. On December 19, 1997, I was served with a subpoena from the plaintiff to give a deposition and to produce documents in the lawsuit filed by Paula Corbin Jones against President William Jefferson Clinton and Danny Ferguson. 3. I can not fathom any reason that the plaintiff would seek information from me for her case. 4. I have never met Ms. Jones, nor do I have any information regarding the events she alleges occurred at the Excelsior Hotel on May 8, 1991 or any other information concerning any of the allegations in her case. 5. I worked at the White House in the summer of 1995 as a White House intern. Beginning in December, 1995, I worked in the Office of Legislative Affairs as a staff assistant for correspondence. In April, 1996, I accepted a job as assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of Defense. I maintained that job until December 26, 1997. I am currently unemployed but seeking a new job. 6. In the course of my employment at the White House, I met President Clinton on several occasions. I do not recall ever being alone with the President, although it is possible that while working in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs I may have presented him with a letter for his signature while no one else was present. This would have lasted only a matter of minutes. 7. I have the utmost respect for the President who has always behaved appropriately in my presence. 8. I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship. I do not know of any other person who had a sexual relationship with the President, was offered employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, or was denied employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship. The occasions that I saw the President, with crowds of other people, after I left my employment at the White House in April, 1996 related to official receptions, formal functions or events related to the U.S. Department of Defense, where I was working at the time. There were other people present on all of these occasions. 9. Since I do not possess any information that could possibly be relevant to the allegations made by Paula Jones or lead to admissible evidence in this case, I asked my attorney to provide this affidavit to plaintiff's counsel. Requiring my deposition in this matter would cause unwarranted attorney's fees and costs, disruption of my life, especially since I am looking for employment, and constitute an invasion of my right to privacy. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Monica S. Lewinsky. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ss: Monica S. Lewinsky, being first duly sworn on oath according to law, deposes and says that she has read the foregoing Affidavit of Jane Doe # by her subscribed, that the matters stated herein are true to the best of her information, knowledge and belief. Monica S. Lewinsky. Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______ day of __________, 1998. __________________________ Notary Public, D.C. My Commission expires: ________ ____ [Chart N] FINAL AFFIDAVIT OF JANE DOE #6 [LEWINSKY] 1/7/98 8. I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship. I do not know of any other person who had a sexual relationship with the President, was offered employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, or was denied employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship. The occasions that I saw the President after I left my employment at the White House in April, 1996, were official receptions, formal functions or events related to the U.S. Department of Defense, where I was working at the time. There were other people present on those occasions. ____ [Chart O] LEWINSKY'S AFFIDAVIT GETS FILED (1/14/98-1/17/98) January 14, 1998 (Wednesday) 7:45 p.m.: Bennett's firm (Sexton) leaves Carter telephone message. --: Carter faxes signed affidavit to Bennett's firm. January 15, 1998 (Thursday) 9:17 a.m.: Sexton leaves Carter telephone message. 12:59 p.m.: Sexton leaves Carter telephone message. --: Currie called by Newsweek. --: Lewinsky drives Currie to meet Jordan. --: Sexton telephones Carter: ``STILL ON TIME?'' --: Carter telephones Court Clerk for Saturday (1/17/98) Filing of Affidavit and motion to quash. January 16, 1998 (Friday) 2 a.m. (Approx.): Carter completes motion to quash Lewinsky's deposition. Carter sends by overnight mail motion to quash and affidavit to Bennett's firm and to the Court. 11:30 a.m.: Sexton message to Carter: ``Please call.'' January 17, 1998 (Saturday) --: Lewinsky Affidavit is submitted to the Court. --: The President is deposed. ____ [Chart P] MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: LEWINSKY SIGNS AFFIDAVIT AND GETS A NEW YORK JOB (1/5/98-1/9/98) January 5, 1998 Lewinsky meets with attorney Carter for an hour; Carter drafts an Affidavit for Lewinsky in an attempt to avert her deposition testimony in Jones v. Clinton scheduled for January 23, 1998. Lewinsky telephones Currie stating that she needs to speak to the President about an important matter; specifically that she was anxious about something she needed to sign--an Affidavit. The President returns Lewinsky's call; Lewinsky mentions the Affidavit she'd be signing; Lewinsky offers to show the Affidavit to The President who states that he doesn't need to see it because he has already seen about fifteen others. january 6, 1998 11:32 a.m.: Carter pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Frank Carter.'' Lewinsky meets Carter and receives draft Affidavit. 2:08-2:10 p.m.: Jordan calls Lewinsky. Lewinsky delivers draft Affidavit to Jordan. 3:14 p.m.: Carter again pages Lewinsky: ``Frank Carter at [telephone number] will see you tomorrow morning at 10:00 in my office.'' 3:26-3:32 p.m.: Jordan telephones Carter. 3:38 p.m.: Jordan telephones Nancy Hernreich, Deputy Assistant to The President. 3:48 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lewinsky. 3:49 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lewinsky to discuss draft Affidavit. Both agree to delete implication that she had been alone with The President. 4:19-4:32 p.m.: The President telephones Jordan. 4:32 p.m.: Jordan telephones Carter. 4:34-4:37 p.m.: Jordan again telephones Carter. 5:15-5:19 p.m.: Jordan telephones White House. 9:26-9:29 a.m.: Jordan telephones Carter. 10:00 a.m.: Lewinsky signs false Affidavit at Carter's Office. --: Lewinsky delivers signed Affidavit to Jordan. 11:58 a.m.-12:09 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White House. 5:46-5:56 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White House (Hernreich's Office). 6:50-6:54 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White House and tells The President that Lewinsky signed an Affidavit. january 8, 1998 9:21 a.m.: Jordan telephones the White House Counsel's Office. 9:21 a.m.: Jordan telephones the White House. --: Lewinsky interviews in New York at MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. (MFH) 11:50-11:51 a.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan. 3:09-3:10 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan. 4:48-4:53 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan and advises that the New York MFH Interview went ``Very Poorly.'' 4:54 p.m.: Jordan telephones Ronald Perelman in New York, CEO of Revlon (subsidiary of MFH) ``to make things happen . . . if they could happen.'' 4:56 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lewinsky stating, ``I'm doing the best I can to help you out.'' 6:39 p.m.: Jordan telephones White House Counsel's Office (Cheryl Mills), possibly about Lewinsky. Evening: Revlon in New York telephones Lewinsky to set up a follow-up interview. 9:02-9:03 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan about Revlon interview in New York. january 9, 1998 --: Lewinsky interviews in New York with Senior V.P. Seidman of MacAndrews & Forbes and two Revlon individuals. Lewinsky offered Revlon job in New York and accepts. 1:29 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan. 4:14 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan to say that Revlon offered her a job in New York. Jordan notifies Currie: ``Mission Accomplished'' and requests she tell The President. Jordan notifies The President of Lewinsky's New York job offer. The President replies ``Thank you very much.'' 4:37 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Carter. 5:04 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan. 5:05 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Currie. 5:08 p.m.: The President telephones Currie. 5:09-5:11 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan. 5:12 p.m.: Currie telephones The President. 5:18-5:20 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lewinsky. 5:21-5:26 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Currie. ____ [Chart Q] THE PRESIDENT'S INVOLVEMENT WITH LEWINSKY JOB SEARCH ``Q Why are you trying to tell someone at the White House that this has happened [Carter had been fired]? [Jordan]: Thought they had a right to know. Q Why? [Jordan]: The President asked me to get Monica Lewinsky a job. I got her a lawyer. The Drudge Report is out and she has new counsel. I thought that was information that they ought to have . . . .'' (Jordan Grand Jury 6/ 9/98 Tr. 45-46) ``Q Why did you think the President needed to know that Frank Carter had been replaced? [Jordan]: Information. He knew that I had gotten her a job, he knew that I had gotten her a lawyer. Information. He was interested in this matter. He is the source of it coming to my attention in the first place . . . .'' (Jordan Grand Jury 6/9/98 Tr. 58-59) ____ [Chart R] JORDAN'S PRE-WITNESS LIST JOB SEARCH EFFORTS ``[Jordan]: I have no recollection of an early November meeting with Ms. Monica Lewinsky. I have absolutely no recollection of it and I have no record of it.'' (Jordan Grand Jury 3/3/98 Tr. 50) * * * * * ``Q Is it fair to say that back in November getting Monica Lewinsky a job on any fast pace was not any priority of yours? [Jordan]: I think that's fair to say.'' (Jordan Grand Jury 5/ 5/98 Tr. 76) * * * * * ``[Lewinsky]: [Referring to 12/6/97 meeting with the President]. I think I said that . . . I was supposed to get in touch with Mr. Jordan the previous week and that things did not work out and that nothing had really happened yet [on the job front]. Q Did the President say what he was going to do? [Lewinsky]: I think he said he would--you know, this was not sort of typical of him, to sort of say, `Oh, I'll talk to him. I'll get on it.' '' (Lewinsky Grand Jury 8/6/98 Tr. 115-116) * * * * * ``Q But what is also clear is that as of this date, December 11th, you are clear that at that point you had made a decision that you would try to make some calls to help get her a job. [Jordan]: There is no question about that.'' (Jordan Grand Jury 5/5/98 Tr. 95) [Chart S] January 17, 1998 Saturday 4:00 p.m. (approx): THE PRESIDENT finishes testifying under oath in Jones v. Clinton, et al. 5:19 p.m.: Jordan telephones White House. 5:38 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Jordan at home. 7:02 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Currie at home but does not speak with her. 702: p.m.: THE PRESIDENT places a call to Jordan's office. 7:13 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Currie at home and asks her to meet with him on Sunday. January 18, 1998 Sunday 6:11 a.m.: Drudge Report Released. --: The President learns of the Drudge Report and [Tripp] tapes. 11:49 a.m.: Jordan telephones the White House. 12:30 p.m.: Jordan has lunch with Bruce Lindsey. Lindsey informs Jordan about the Drudge Report and [Tripp] tapes. 12:50 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Jordan at home. 1:11 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Currie at home. 2:15 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White House. 2:55 p.m.: Jordan telephones THE PRESIDENT. 5:00 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT meets with Currie, concerning his contacts with Lewinsky. 5:12 p.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Kay at home.'' 6:22 p.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Kay at home.'' 7:06 p.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Kay at home.'' 7:19 p.m.: Jordan telephones Cheryl Mills, White House Counsel's Office. 8:28 p.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Call Kay.'' 10:09 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Currie at home. 11:02 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Currie at home and asks if she reached Lewinsky. January 19, 1998 Monday--Martin Luther King Day 7:02 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Kay at home at 8:00 this morning.'' 8:08 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Kay .'' 8:33 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Kay at home.'' 8:37 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Kay at home. It's a social call. Thank you.'' 8:41 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Kay is at home. Please call.'' 8:43 a.m.: Currie telephones The President from home to say she has been unable to reach Lewinsky. 8:44 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Kate re: family emergency.'' 8:50 a.m. THE PRESIDENT telephones Currie at home. 8:51 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Msg. From Kay. Please call, have good news.'' 8:56 a.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Jordan at home. 10:29 a.m.: Jordan telephones the White House from his office. 10:35 a.m.: Jordan telephones Nancy Hernreich at the White House. 10:36 a.m.: Jordan pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Mr. Jordan at [number redacted].'' 10:44 a.m.: Jordan telephones Erskine Bowles at the White House. 10:53 a.m.: Jordan telephones Carter. 10:58 a.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Jordan at his office. 11:04 a.m.: Jordan telephones Bruce Lindsey at the White House. 11:16 a.m.: Jordan pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Mr. Jordan at [number redacted].'' 11:17 a.m.: Jordan telephones Lindsey at the White House. 12:31 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White House from a cellular phone. --:Jordan lunches with Carter. 1:45 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Currie at home. 2:29 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White House from a celluar phone. 2:44 p.m.: Jordan enters the White House and over the course of an hour meets with THE PRESIDENT, Erskine Bowles, Bruce Lindsay, Cheryl Mills, Charles Ruff, Rahm Emanuel and others. 2:46 p.m.: Carter pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Frank Carter at [number redacted].'' 4:51 p.m.: Jordan telephones Currie at home. 4:53 p.m.: Jordan telephones Carter at home. 4:54 p.m.: Jordan telephones Carter at his office. Carter informs Jordan that Lewinsky has replaced Carter with a new attorney. 4:58 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lindsey, White House Counsel's Office. 4:59 p.m.: Jordan telephones Mills, White House Counsel's Office. 5:00 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lindsey, White House Counsel's Office. 5:00 p.m.: Jordan telephones Ruff, White House Counsel's Office. 5:05 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lindsey, White House Counsel's Office. 5:05 p.m.: Jordan again telephones Lindsey, White House Counsel's Office. 5:05 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White House. 5:09 p.m.: Jordan telephones Mills, White House Counsel's Office. 5:14 p.m.: Jordan telephones Carter concerning his termination as Lewinsky's attorney. 5:22 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lindsey, White House Counsel's Office. 5:22 p.m.: Jordan telephones Mills, White House Counsel's Office. 5:55 p.m.: Jordan telephones Currie at home. 5:56 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Jordan at his office; Jordan informs The President that Carter was fired. 6:04 p.m.: Jordan telephones Currie at home. 6:26 p.m.: Jordan telephones Stephen Goodin, an aide to THE PRESIDENT. ____ [Chart T] THE PRESIDENT'S POST-DEPOSITION STATEMENTS TO CURRIE 1/18/98 ``I was never really alone with Monica, right?'' ``You were always there when Monica was there, right?'' ``Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?'' ``You could see and hear everything, right?'' ``She wanted to have sex with me, and I cannot do that.''--(Currie Grand Jury 7/22/98 Tr. 6-7; Currie Grand Jury 1/27/98 Tr. 70-75) ____ [Chart U] THE PRESIDENT'S DENIALS 1/21/98 ``And it was at that point that he gave his account of what had happened to me [sic] and he said that Monica--and it came very fast. He said, `Monica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me.' He rebuffed her. He said, `I've gone down that road before, I've caused pain for a lot of people and I'm not going to do that again.' She threatened him. She said that she would tell people they'd had an affair, that she was known as the stalker among her peers, and that she hated it and if she had an affair or said she had an affair then she wouldn't be the stalker any more.''--(Blumenthal Grand Jury 6/4/98 Tr. 49) ``And he said, `I feel like a character in a novel. I feel like somebody who is surrounded by an oppressive force that is creating a lie about me and I can't get the truth out. I feel like the character in the novel Darkness at Noon.' And I said to him, I said, `When this happened with Monica Lewinsky, were you alone? He said, `Well, I was within eyesight or earshot of someone.'''--(Blumenthal Grand Jury 6/ 4/98 Tr. 50) ____ [Chart V] ``Q. Okay. Share that with us. A. Well, I think he said--he said that--there was some spate of, you know, what sex acts were counted, and he said that he had never had sex with her in any way whatsoever-- Q. Okay. A--that they had not had oral sex''--(John Podesta Grand Jury 6/16/98 Tr. 92) * * * * * ``And I said, `They're just too shocked by this. It's just too new, it's too raw.' And I said, `And the problem is they're willing to forgive you [The President] for adultery, but not for perjury or obstruction of justice or the various other things.'''--(Dick Morris Grand Jury 8/18/98 Tr. 10, 12, 20) * * * * * ``And I said, `They're just not ready for it,' meaning the voters.' And he [The President] said, `Well, we just have to win, then.'''--(Dick Morris Grand Jury 8/18/98 Tr. 30) ____ [Chart W] ``TALKING POINTS'' * January 24, 1998 * * * * * ``Q. Well, for example, Ms. Lewinsky is on tape indicating that the President does not believe oral sex is adultery. Would oral sex, to the President, constitute a sexual relationship?'' ``A: Of course it would.'' * * * * * * Produced by the White House pursuant to OIC Subpoena. ____ [Chart X] THE PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE WAS TRUTHFUL WITH AIDES [President]: And so I said to them things that were true about this relationship. That I used--in the language I used, I said, there's nothing going on between us. That was true. I said, I have not had sex with her as I defined it. That was true. And did I hope that I would never have to be here on this day giving this testimony? Of course. But I also didn't want to do anything to complicate this matter further. So I said things that were true. They may have been misleading, and if they were I have to take responsibility for it, and I'm sorry.--(The President Grand Jury 8/17/98 Tr. 106) ____ [Chart Y] GRAND JURY WITNESSES A person testifying before a federal grand jury has three options under the law: (1) To obey the oath and testify to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; (2) To lie; (3) To assert the Fifth Amendment or another legally recognized privilege. ____ [Chart Z] PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT GRAND JURY TESTIMONY ``When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse. They did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition. But they did involve inappropriate intimate contact. These inappropriate encounters ended, at my insistence, in early 1997. I also had occasional telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included inappropriate sexual banter. I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this conduct, and I take full responsibility for my actions. While I will provide the grand jury whatever other information I can, because of privacy considerations affecting my family, myself, and others, and in an effort to preserve the dignity of the office I hold, this is all I will say about the specifics of these particular matters. I will try to answer, to the best of my ability, other questions including questions about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; questions about my understanding of the term `sexual relations', as I understood it to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition; and questions concerning alleged subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and intimidation of witnesses. That, Mr. Bittman, is my statement.'' ____ Table of Contents Exhibits Telephone records (1) Summary chart, 12/19/97 (2) Currie Cell phone records, 12/28/97 (3) Summary chart, 1/6/98 (4) Summary chart, 1/7/98 (5) Summary chart, 1/15/98-1/16/98 (6) Summary chart, 1/17/98 (7) Summary chart, 1/18/98 (8) Summary chart, 1/19/98 Court Documents (9) Jones v. Clinton. Jan. 29, 1998 District Court Order regarding discovery (10) President Clinton's Answer to First Amended Complaint. Jones v. Clinton (11) In re: Sealed Case, Nos. 98-3053 & 3059, U.S. court of Appels, District of Columbia (12) Jane Doe #6 (Lewinsky) Affidavit filed in Jones v. Clinton (13) ``Sexual Relations'' definition Miscellaneous (14) 1/18/98 Drudge Report (15) Jones' attorneys fax cover sheet of witness list to Bennett (16) White House ``Talking Points,'' January 24, 1998 (17) LA Times 1/25/98 Article regarding White House ``Talking Points'' (18) Response of William J. Clinton to Judiciary Committee Questions (19) President Clinton Grand Jury Tr. 138 L. 16-23 (From GJ Tape 2) (20) President Clinton Grand Jury Tr. 100 L. 20-25, Tr. 105 L. 19-25, Tr. 106 L. 1-12 (From GJ Tape 3) (21) President Clinton Deposition Tr. 75 L. 2-8, Tr. 76 L. 24-25, Tr. 77 L. 1-2, (From Dep. Tape 1) (22) President Clinton Deposition Tr. 52 L. 18-25, Tr. 53 L. 1-9, 10-18, Tr. 58 L. 22-25, Tr. 59 L. 1-3, 7-16, 17-20 (From Dep. Tape 3) (23) President Clinton Deposition Tr. 78 L. 4-23, (From Dep. Tape 4) (24) President Clinton Deposition Tr. 53 L. 22-25, Tr. 54 L. 1-7, 20-25, Tr. 55 L. 1-3 (From Dep. Tape 5) (25) President Clinton Deposition Tr. 204 L. 5-14, (From Dep. Tape 8) (26) President Clinton Grand Jury Tr. 9-11 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.107 ____ [In the Senate of the United States Sitting as a Court of Impeachment] In re Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON David E. Kendall Charles F.C. Ruff Nicole K. Seligman Gregory B. Craig Emmet T. Flood Bruce R. Lindsey Max Stier Cheryl D. Mills Glen Donath Lanny A. Breuer Alicia L. Marti Office of the White House Counsel Williams & Connolly The White House 725 12th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20502 Washington, D.C. 20005 January 13, 1999. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION A. The Constitutional Standard for Impeachment Has Not Been Satisfied B. The President Did Not Commit Perjury or Obstruct Justice C. Compound Charges and Vagueness II. BACKGROUND A. The Whitewater Investigative Dead-End B. The Paula Jones Litigation C. The President's Grand Jury Testimony About Ms. Lewinsky D. Proceedings in the House of Representatives III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD AND BURDEN OF PROOF FOR DECISION A. The Offenses Alleged Do Not Meet the Constitutional Standard of High Crimes and Misdemeanors 1. The Senate Has a Constitutional Duty to Confront the Question Whether Impeachable Offenses Have Been Alleged 2. The Constitution Requires a High Standard of Proof of ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' for Removal a. The Constitutional Text and Structure Set an Intentionally High Standard for Removal b. The Framers Believed that Impeachment and Removal Were Appropriate Only for Offenses Against the System of Government 3. Past Precedents Confirm that Allegations of Dishonesty Do Not Alone State Impeachable Offenses a. The Fraudulent Tax Return Allegation Against President Nixon b. The Financial Misdealing Allegation Against Alexander Hamilton 4. The Views of Prominent Historians and Legal Scholars Confirm that Impeachable Offenses Are Not Present a. No Impeachable Offense Has Been Stated Here b. To Make Impeachable Offenses of These Allegations Would Forever Lower the Bar in a Way Inimical to the Presidency and to Our Government of Separated Powers 5. Comparisons to Impeachment of Judges Are Wrong B. The Standard of Proof IV. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ACQUITTED ON ARTICLE I A. Applicable Law B. Structure of the Allegations C. Response to the Particular Allegations in Article I 1. The President denies that he made materially false or misleading statements to the grand jury about ``the nature and details of his relationship'' with Monica Lewinsky 2. The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury about testimony he gave in the Jones case 3. The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury about the statements of his attorney to Judge Wright during the Jones deposition 4. The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury when he denied attempting ``to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence'' in the Jones case V. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ACQUITTED ON ARTICLE II A. Applicable Law B. Structure of the Allegations C. Response to the Particular Allegations in Article II 1. The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997, he ``corruptly encouraged'' Monica Lewinsky ``to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading'' 2. The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997, he ``corruptly encouraged'' Monica Lewinsky ``to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally'' in the Jones litigation 3. The President denies that he ``corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence''-- gifts he had given to Monica Lewinsky--in the Jones case a. Ms. Lewinsky's December 28 Meeting with the President b. Ms. Currie's Supposed Involvement in Concealing Gifts c. The Obstruction-by-Gift-Concealment Charge Is at Odds With the President's Actions 4. The President denies that he obstructed justice in connection with Monica Lewinsky's efforts to obtain a job in New York in an effort to ``corruptly prevent'' her ``truthful testimony'' in the Jones case a. The Complete Absence of Direct Evidence Supporting This Charge b. Background of Ms. Lewinsky's New York Job Search c. The Committee Report's Circumstantial Case (1) Monica Lewinsky's December 11 meeting with Vernon Jordan (2) The January job interviews and the Revlon employment offer d. Conclusion 5. The President denies that he ``corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge'' concerning Monica Lewinsky's affidavit 6. The President denies that he obstructed justice by relating ``false and misleading statements'' to ``a potential witness,'' Betty Currie, ``in order to corruptly influence [her] testimony'' 7. The President denies that he obstructed justice when he relayed allegedly ``false and misleading statements'' to his aides VI. THE STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES OF THE ARTICLES PRECLUDE A CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND VOTE A. The Articles Are Both Unfairly Complex and Lacking in Specificity 1. The Structure of Article I 2. The Structure of Article II B. Conviction on These Articles Would Violate the Constitutional Requirement That Two-Thirds of the Senate Reach Agreement that Specific Wrongdoing Has Been Proven 1. The Articles Bundle Together Disparate Allegations in Violation of the Constitution's Requirements of Concurrence and Due Process a. The Articles Violate the Constitution's Two-Thirds Concurrence Requirement b. Conviction on the Articles Would Violate Due Process Protections that Forbid Compound Charges in a Single Accusation C. Conviction on These Articles Would Violate Due Process Protections Prohibiting Vague and Nonspecific Accusations 1. The Law of Due Process Forbids Vague and Nonspecific Charges 2. The Allegations of Both Articles Are Unconstitutionally Vague D. The Senate's Judgment Will Be Final and That Judgment Must Speak Clearly and Intelligibly VII. THE NEED FOR DISCOVERY VIII. CONCLUSION TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON I. Introduction Twenty-six months ago, more than 90 million Americans left their homes and work places to travel to schools, church halls and other civic centers to elect a President of the United States. And on January 20, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton was sworn in to serve a second term of office for four years. The Senate, in receipt of Articles of Impeachment from the House of Representatives, is now gathered in trial to consider whether that decision should be set aside for the remaining two years of the President's term. It is a power contemplated and authorized by the Framers of the Constitution, but never before employed in our nation's history. The gravity of what is at stake--the democratic choice of the American people--and the solemnity of the proceedings dictate that a decision to remove the President from office should follow only from the most serious of circumstances and should be done in conformity with Constitutional standards and in the interest of the Nation and its people. The Articles of Impeachment that have been exhibited to the Senate fall far short of what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they placed in the hands of the Congress the power to impeach and remove a President from office. They fall far short of what the American people demand be shown and proven before their democratic choice is reversed. And they even fall far short of what a prudent prosecutor would require before presenting a case to a judge or jury. Take away the elaborate trappings of the Articles and the high-flying rhetoric that has accompanied them, and we see clearly that the House of Representatives asks the Senate to remove the President from office because he: used the phrase ``certain occasions'' to describe the frequency of his improper intimate contacts with Ms. Monica Lewinsky. There were, according to the House Managers, eleven such contacts over the course of approximately 500 days. Should the will of the people be overruled and the President of the United States be removed from office because he used the phrase ``certain occasions'' to describe eleven events over some 500 days? That is what the House of Representatives asks the Senate to do. used the word ``occasional'' to describe the frequency of inappropriate telephone conversations between he and Monica Lewinsky. According to Ms. Lewinsky, the President and Ms. Lewinsky engaged in between ten and fifteen such conversations spanning a 23-month period. Should the will of the people be overruled and the President of the United States be removed from office because he used the word ``occasional'' to describe up to 15 telephone calls over a 23-month period? That is what the House of Representatives asks the Senate to do. said the improper relationship with Ms. Lewinsky began in early 1996, while she recalls that it began in November 1995. And he said the contact did not include touching certain parts of her body, while she said it did. Should the will of the people be overruled and the President of the United States be removed from office because two people have a different recollection of the details of a wrongful relationship--which the President has admitted? That is what the House of Representatives asks the Senate to do. The Articles of Impeachment are not limited to the examples cited above, but the other allegations of wrongdoing are similarly unconvincing. There is the charge that the President unlawfully obstructed justice by allegedly trying to find a job for Monica Lewinsky in exchange for her silence about their relationship. This charge is made despite the fact that no one involved in the effort to find work for Ms. Lewinsky--including Ms. Lewinsky herself--testifies that there was any connection between the job search and the affidavit. Indeed, the basis for that allegation, Ms. Lewinsky's statements to Ms. Tripp, was expressly repudiated by Ms. Lewinsky under oath. There is also the charge that the President conspired to obstruct justice by arranging for Ms. Lewinsky to hide gifts that he had given her, even though the facts and the testimony contain no evidence that he did so. In fact, the evidence shows that the President gave her new gifts on the very day that the articles allege he conspired to conceal his gifts to her. In the final analysis, the House is asking the Senate to remove the President because he had a wrongful relationship and sought to keep the existence of that relationship private. Nothing said in this Trial Memorandum is intended to excuse the President's actions. By his own admission, he is guilty of personal failings. As he has publicly stated, ``I don't think there is a fancy way to say that I have sinned.'' He has misled his family, his friends, his staff, and the Nation about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He hoped to avoid exposure of personal wrongdoing so as to protect his family and himself and to avoid public embarrassment. He has acknowledged that his actions were wrong. By the same token, these actions must not be mischaracterized into a wholly groundless excuse for removing the President from the office to which he was twice elected by the American people. The allegations in the articles and the argument in the House Managers' Trial Memorandum do not begin to satisfy the stringent showing required by our Founding Fathers to remove a duly elected President from office, either as a matter of fact or law. a. the constitutional standard for impeachment has not been satisfied There is strong agreement among constitutional and legal scholars and historians that the substance of the articles does not amount to impeachable offenses. On November 6, 1998, 430 Constitutional law professors wrote: ``Did President Clinton commit `high Crimes and Misdemeanors' warranting impeachment under the Constitution? We . . . believe that the misconduct alleged in the report of the Independent Counsel . . . does not cross the threshold. . . . [I]t is clear that Members of Congress could violate their constitutional responsibilities if they sought to impeach and remove the President for misconduct, even criminal misconduct, that fell short of the high constitutional standard required for impeachment.'' On October 28, 1998, more than 400 historians issued a joint statement warning that because impeachment had traditionally been reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors in the exercise of executive power, impeachment of the President based on the facts alleged in the OIC Referral would set a dangerous precedent. ``If carried forward, they will leave the Presidency permanently disfigured and diminished, at the mercy as never before of caprices of any Congress. The Presidency, historically the center of leadership during our great national ordeals, will be crippled in meeting the inevitable challenges of the future.'' We address why the charges in the two articles do not rise to the level of `high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' in Section III, Constitutional Standard and Burden of Proof. B. The President Did Not Commit Perjury or Obstruct Justice Article I alleges perjury before a federal grand jury. Article II alleges obstruction of justice. Both perjury and obstruction of justice are statutory crimes. In rebutting the allegations contained in the articles of impeachment, this brief refers to the facts as well as to laws, legal principles, court decisions, procedural safeguards, and the Constitution itself. Those who seek to remove the President speak of the ``rule of law.'' Among the most fundamental rules of law are the principles that those who accuse have the burden of proof, and those who are accused have the right to defend themselves by relying on the law, established procedures, and the Constitution. These principles are not ``legalisms'' but rather the very essence of the ``rule of law'' that distinguishes our Nation from others. We respond, in detail, to those allegations whose substance we can decipher in Section IV, The President Should Be Acquitted on Article I, and in Section V, The President Should Be Acquitted on Article II. C. Compound Charges and Vagueness If there were any doubt that the House of Representatives has utterly failed in its constitutional responsibility to the Senate and to the President, that doubt vanishes upon reading the Trial Memorandum submitted by the House Managers. Having proferred two articles of impeachment, each of which unconstitutionally combines multiple offenses and fails to give even minimally adequate notice of the charges it encompasses, the House--three days before the Managers are to open their case--is still expanding, not refining, the scope of those articles. In further violation of the most basic constitutional principles, their brief advances, merely as ``examples,'' nineteen conclusory allegations--eight of perjury under Article I and eleven of obstruction of justice under Article II, some of which have never appeared before, even in the Report submitted by the Judiciary Committee (``Committee Report''), much less in the Office of Independent Counsel (``OIC'') Referral or in the articles themselves.\1\ If the target the Managers present to the Senate and to the President is still moving now, what can the President expect in the coming days? Is there any point at which the President will be given the right accorded a defendant in the most minor criminal case--to know with certainty the charges against which he must defend? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ For example, the House managers add a charge that the President engaged in ``legalistic hair splitting [in his response to the 81 questions] in an obvious attempt to skirt the whole truth and to deceive and obstruct'' the Committee. This charge was specifically rejected by the full House of Representatives when it rejected Article IV. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Senate, we know, fully appreciates these concerns and has, in past proceedings, dealt appropriately with articles far less flawed than these. The constitutional concerns raised by the House's action are addressed in Section VI, The Structural Deficiencies of the Articles Preclude a Constitutionally Sound Vote. II. Background A. The Whitewater Investigative Dead-End The Lewinsky investigation emerged in January 1998 from the long-running Whitewater investigation. On August 5, 1994, the Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Court Circuit appointed Kenneth W. Starr as Independent Counsel to conduct an investigation centering on two Arkansas entities, Whitewater Development Company, Inc., and Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association. In the spring of 1997, OIC investigators, without any expansion of jurisdiction, interviewed Arkansas state troopers who had once been assigned to the Governor's security detail, and ``[t]he troopers said Starr's investigators asked about 12 to 15 women by name, including Paula Corbin Jones. . . .'' Woodward & Schmidt, ``Starr Probes Clinton Personal Life,'' The Washington Post (June 25, 1997) at A1 (emphasis added). ``The nature of the questioning marks a sharp departure from previous avenues of inquiry in the three-year old investigation. . . . Until now, . . . what has become a wide-ranging investigation of many aspects of Clinton's governorship has largely steered clear of questions about Clinton's relationships with women. . . .'' \2\ One of the most striking aspects of this new phase of the Whitewater investigation was the extent to which it focused on the Jones case. One of the troopers interviewed declared, ``[t]hey asked me about Paula Jones, all kinds of questions about Paula Jones, whether I saw Clinton and Paula together and how many times.'' \3--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Ibid. Trooper Roger Perry, a 21-year veteran of the Arkansas state police, stated that he ``was asked about the most intimate details of Clinton's life: `I was left with the impression that they wanted me to show he was a womanizer. . . . All they wanted to talk about was women.' '' Ibid. (Ellipsis in original). \3\ Ibid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In his November 19, 1998, testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Starr conceded that his agents had conducted these interrogations and acknowledged that at that time, he had not sought expansion of his jurisdiction from either the Special Division or the Attorney General.\4\ Mr. Starr contended that these inquiries were somehow relevant to his Whitewater investigation: ``we were, in fact interviewing, as good prosecutors, good investigators do, individuals who would have information that may be relevant to our inquiry about the President's involvement in Whitewater, in Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan and the like.''\5\ It seems irrefutable, however, that the OIC was in fact engaged in an unauthorized attempt to gather embarrassing information about the President--information wholly unrelated to Whitewater or Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, but potentially relevant to the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Transcript of November 19, 1998 House Judiciary Committee Hearing at 377-378. \5\ Ibid. at 378. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. The Paula Jones Litigation The Paula Jones lawsuit made certain allegations about events she said had occurred three years earlier, in 1991, when the President was Governor of Arkansas. Discovery in the case had been stayed until the Supreme Court's decision on May 27, 1997, denying the President temporary immunity from suit.\6\ Shortly thereafter, Ms. Jones' legal team began a public relations offensive against the President, headed by Ms. Jones' new spokesperson, Mr. Susan Carpenter-McMillan, and her new counsel affiliated with the conservation Rutherford Institute.\7\ ``I will never deny that when I first heard about this case I said, ``Okay, good. We're gonna get that little slimeball,' said Ms. Carpenter-McMillan.''\8\ While Ms. Jones' previous attorneys, Messrs. Gilbert Davis and Joseph Cammarata, had largely avoided the media, as the Jones civil suit increasingly became a partisan vehicle to try to damage the President, public personal attacks became the order of the day.\9\ As is now well known, this effort led ultimately to the Jones lawyers being permitted to subpoena various women, to discover the nature of their relationship, if any, with the President, allegedly for the purpose of determining whether they had information relevant to the sexual harassment charge. Among these women was Ms. Lewinsky. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). \7\ Ms. Jones was described as having ``accepted financial support of a Virginia conservative group,'' which intended to ``raise $100,000 or more on Jones's behalf, although the money will go for expenses and not legal fees.'' ``Jones Acquires New Lawyers and Backing,'' The Washington Post (October 2, 1998) at A1. Jones' new law firm, the Dallas- based Radar, Campbell, Fisher and Pyke, had ``represented conservatives in antiabortion cases and other causes.'' Ibid. See also Dallas Lawyers Agree to Take on Paula Jones' Case-- Their Small Firm Has Ties to Conservative Advocacy Group,'' The Los Angeles Times (Oct. 2, 1997) (Rutherford Institute a ``conservative advocacy group.''). \8\ ``Cause Celebre: An Antiabortion Activist Makes Herself the Unofficial Mouthpiece for Paula Jones.'' The Washington Post (July 23, 1998) at C1. Ms. Carpenter-McMillan, ``a cause-oriented, self-defined conservative feminist''', described her role as `flaming the White House'' and declared ```Unless Clinton wants to be terribly embarrassed, he'd better cough up what Paula needs. Anybody that comes out and testifies against Paula better have the past of a Mother Teresa, because our investigators will investigate their morality.''' ``Paula Jones' Team Not All About Teamwork,'' USA Today (Sept. 29, 1997) at 4A. \9\ After Ms. Jones' new team had been in action for three months, one journalist commented: ``In six years of public controversy over Clinton's personal life, what is striking in some ways is how little the debate changes. As in the beginning, many conservatives nurture the hope that the past will be Clinton's undoing. Jone's adviser, Susan Carpenter- McMillan, acknowledged on NBC's `Meet the Press' yesterday that her first reaction when she first heard Jone's claims about Clinton was, ``Good, we're going to get that little slime ball.'' (Harris, ``Jones Case Tests Political Paradox,'' The Washington Post (Jan. 19, 1998) at A1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In January 1998, Mr. Linda Tripp notified the OIC of certain information she believed she had about Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case. At that time, the OIC investigation began to intrude formally into the Jones case: the OIC met with Ms. Tripp through the week of January 12, and with her cooperation taped Ms. Lewinsky discussing the Jones case and the President. Ms. Tripp also informed the OIC that she had been surreptitiously taping conversations with Ms. Lewinsky in violation of Maryland law, and in exchange for her cooperation, the OIC promised Ms. Tripp immunity from federal prosecution, and assistance in protecting her from state prosecution.\10\ On Friday, January 16, after Ms. Tripp wore a body wire and had taped conversations with Ms. Lewinsky for the OIC, the OIC received jurisdiction from the Attorney General and formalized an immunity agreement with Ms. Tripp in writing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Supplemental Materials to the Referral to the United States House of Representatives Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code Section 595(C), H. Doc. 105-316 (hereinafter ``Supp.'') at 3758-3759, 4371-4373 (House Judiciary Committee) (Sept. 28, 1998). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The President's deposition in the Jones case was scheduled to take place the next day, on Saturday, January 17. As we now know, Ms. Tripp met with and briefed the lawyers for Ms. Jones the night before the deposition on her perception of the relationship between Ms. Lewinsky and the President-- doing so based on confidences Ms. Lewinsky had entrusted to her.\11\ She was permitted to do so even though she has been acting all week at the behest of the OIC and was dependent on the OIC to use its best efforts to protect her from state prosecution. At the deposition the next day, the President was asked numerous questions about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky by lawyers who already knew the answers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ Baker, ``Linda Tripp Briefed Jones Team on Tapes: Meeting Occurred Before Clinton Deposition,'' The Washington Post (Feb. 14, 1998) at A1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Jones case, of course, was not about Ms. Lewinsky. She was a peripheral player and, since her relationship with the President was concededly consensual, irrelevant to Ms. Jones' case. Shortly after the President's deposition, Chief Judge Wright ruled that evidence pertaining to Ms. Lewinsky would not be admissible at the Jones trial because ``it is not essential to the core issues in this case.'' \12\ The Court also ruled that, given the allegations at issue in the Jones case, the Lewinsky evidence ``might be inadmissible as extrinsic evidence'' under the Federal Rules of Evidence because it involved merely the ``specific instances of conduct'' of a witness.\13--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ Order, at 2, Jones v. Clinton, No. LR-C-94-290 (E.D. Ark.) (Jan. 29, 1998). \13\ Ibid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On April 1, 1998, the Court ruled that Ms. Jones had no case and granted summary judgment for the President. Although Judge Wright ``viewed the record in the light most favorable to [Ms. Jones] and [gave] her the benefit of all reasonable factual inferences,'' \14\ the Court ruled that, as a matter of law, she simply had no case against President Clinton, both because ``there is no genuine issue as to any material fact'' and because President Clinton was ``entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'' Id. at 11-12. After reviewing all the proffered evidence, the Court ruled that ``the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for'' Ms. Jones. Id. at 39. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ Jones v. Clinton, No. LR-C-94-290 (E.D. Ark.), Memorandum Opinion and Order (April 1, 1998), at 3 n.3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- c. the president's grand jury testimony about ms. lewinsky On August 17, 1998, the President voluntarily testified to the grand jury and specifically acknowledged that he had had a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky involving ``improper intimate contact,'' and that he `'engaged in conduct that was wrong.'' App. at 461.\15\ He described how the relationship began and how he had ended it early in 1997--long before any public attention or scrutiny. He stated to the grand jury ``it's an embarrassing and personally painful thing, the truth about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky,'' App. at 533, and told the grand jurors, ``I take full responsibility for it. It wasn't her fault, it was mine.'' App. at 589-90. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ Appendices to the Referral to the United States House of Representatives Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code Section 595(c), H. Doc. 105-311 (hereinafter ``App.'') at 461 (House Judiciary Committee) (Sept. 18, 1998). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The President also explained how he had tried to navigate the deposition in the Jones case months earlier without admitting what he admitted to the grand jury--that he had been engaged in an improper intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Id. a 530-531. He further testified that the ``inappropriate encounters'' with Ms. Lewinsky had ended, at his insistence, in early 1997. He declined to describe, because of considerations of personal privacy and institutional dignity, certain specifics about his conduct with Ms. Lewinsky,\16\ but he indicated his willingness to answer,\17\ and he did answer, the other questions put to him about his relationship with her. No one who watched the videotape of this grand jury testimony had any doubt that the President admitted to having had an improper intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ ``While I will provide the grand jury whatever other information I can, because of privacy considerations affecting my family, myself, and others, and in an effort to preserve the dignity of the office I hold, this is all I will say about the specifics of these particular matters.'' App. at 461. \17\ ``I will try to answer, to the best of my ability, other questions including questions about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, questions about my understanding of the term `sexual relations,' as I understood it to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition; and questions concerning alleged subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and intimidation of witnesses.'' App. at 461. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d. proceedings in the house of representatives On September 9, 1998, Mr. Starr transmitted a Referral to the House of Representatives that alleged eleven acts by the President related to the Lewinsky matter that, in the opinion of the OIC, ``may constitute grounds for an impeachment.'' \18\ The allegations fell into three broad categories: lying under oath, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ Referral from Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr in Conformity with the Requirements of Title 28, United States Code, Section 595(c), at 1 (House Judiciary Committee) (printed September 11, 1998). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The House Judiciary held a total of four hearings and called but one witness: Kenneth W. Starr. The Committee allowed the President's lawyers two days in which to present a defense. The White House presented four panels of distinguished expert witnesses who testified that the facts, as alleged, did not constitute an impeachable offense, did not reveal an abuse of power, and would not support a case for perjury or obstruction of justice that any reasonable prosecutor would bring. White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff presented argument to the Committee on behalf of the President, which is incorporated into this Trial Memorandum by reference.\19--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ Also incorporated by reference into this Trial Memorandum are the four prior submissions of the President to the House of Representatives: Preliminary Memorandum Concerning Referral of Office of Independent Counsel (September 11, 1998) (73 pages); Initial Response to Referral of Office of Independent Counsel (September 12, 1998) (42 pages); Memorandum Regarding Standards of Impeachment (October 2, 1998) (30 pages); Submission by Counsel for President Clinton to the Committee on the House Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives (December 8, 1998) (184 pages). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On December 11 and 12, the Judiciary Committee voted essentially along party lines to approve four articles of impeachment. Republicans defeated the alternative resolution of censure offered by certain Committee Democrats. Almost immediately after censure failed in the Committee, the House Republican leadership declared publicly that no censure proposal would be considered by the full House when it considered the articles of impeachment.\20--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ See Baker & Eilperin, ``GOP Blocks Democrats' Bid to Debate Censure in House: Panel Votes Final, Trimmed Article of Impeachment,'' The Washington Post (Dec. 13, 1998) at A1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On December 19, 1998, voting essentially on party lines, the House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment: Article I, which alleged perjury before the grand jury, passed by a vote of 228 to 206 and Article III, which alleged obstruction of justice, passed by a vote of 221 to 212. The full House defeated two other Articles: Article II, which alleged that the President committed perjury in his civil deposition, and Article IV, which alleged abuse of power. Consideration of a censure resolution was blocked, even though members of both parties had expressed a desire to vote on such an option. From beginning to end the House process was both partisan and unfair. Consider: The House released the entire OIC Referral to the public without ever reading it, reviewing it, editing it, or allowing the President's counsel to review it; The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said he had ``no interest in not working in a bipartisan way''; \21--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ Associated Press (March 25, 1998). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Chairman also pledged a process the American people would conclude was fair; \22--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ ``This whole proceeding will fall on its face if it's not perceived by the American people to be fair.'' Financial Times (Sept. 12, 1998). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Speaker-Designate of the House endorsed a vote of conscience on a motion to censure;\23--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ ``The next House Speaker, Robert Livingston, said the coming impeachment debate should allow lawmakers to make a choice between ousting President Clinton and imposing a lesser penalty such as censure. The Louisiana Republican said the House can't duck a vote on articles of impeachment if reported next month by its Judiciary Committee. But an `alternative measure is possible' he said, and the GOP leadership should `let everybody have a chance to vote on the option of their choice.' '' Wall Street Journal (Nov. 23, 1998). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Members of the House were shown secret ``evidence'' in order to influence their vote--evidence which the President's counsel still has not been able to review. III. The Constitutional Standard and Burden of Proof for Decision A. The Offenses Alleged Do Not Meet the Constitutional Standard of High Crimes and Misdemeanors 1. The Senate Has a Constitutional Duty to Confront the Question Whether Impeachable Offenses Have Been Alleged It is the solemn duty of the Senate to consider the question whether the articles state an impeachable offense.\24\ That Constitutional question has not, in the words of one House Manager, ``already been resolved by the House.'' \25\ To the contrary, that question now awaits the Senate's measured consideration and independent judgment. Indeed, throughout our history, resolving this question has been an essential part of the Senate's constitutional obligation to ``try all Impeachments.'' U.S. Const. Art. Sec. 3, cl.7. In the words of John Logan, a House Manager in the 1868 proceedings: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ In the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, the President's counsel answered (to at least one article) that the matters alleged ``do not charge or allege the commission of any act whatever by this respondent, in his office of President of the United States, nor the omission by this respondent of any act of official obligation or duty in his office of President of the United States.'' 1 Trial of Andrew Johnson (1868) (``TAJ'') 53. \25\ See Statement of Rep. Bill McCollum: ``[A]re these impeachable offenses, which I think has already been resolved by the House. I think constitutionally that's our job to do.'' Fox News Sunday (January 3, 1999). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``It is the rule that all questions of law or fact are to be decided, in these proceedings, by the final vote upon the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is also the rule, that in determining this general issue senators must consider the sufficiency or insufficiency in law or in fact of every article of accusation.''\26--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ Closing argument of Manager John H. Logan, 2 TAJ 18 (emphasis added). See also Office of Senate Legal Counsel, Memorandum on Impeachment Issues at 25-26 (Oct. 7, 1988) (``Because the Senate acts as both judge and jury in an impeachment trial, the Senate's conviction on a particular article of impeachment reflects the Senate's judgment not only that the accused engaged in the misconduct underlying the article but also that the article stated an impeachable offense''). We respectfully suggest that the articles exhibited here do not state wrongdoing that constitutes impeachable offenses under our Constitution. 2. The Constitution Requires a High Standard of Proof of ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' for Removal a. The Constitutional Text and Structure Set an Intentionally High Standard for Removal The Constitution provides that the President shall be removed from office only upon ``Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' U.S. Constitution, Art. II, section 4. The charges fail to meet the high standard that the Framers established.\27--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ For a more complete discussion of the Standards for Impeachment, please see Submission by Counsel for President Clinton to the House Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives at 24-43 (December 8, 1998); Memorandum Regarding Standards of Impeachment (October 2, 1998); and Impeachment of William Jefferson, President of the United States, Report of the Committee on the Judiciary to Accompany H. Res. 611, H. Rpt. 105-830, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. at 332-39 (citing Minority Report). References to pages 2-203 of the Committee Report will be cited hereinafter as ``Committee Report.'' References to pages 329-406 of the Committee Report will be cited hereinafter as ``Minority Report.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The syntax of the Constitutional standard ``Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' (emphasis added) strongly suggests, by the interpretive principle noscitur a sociis,28 that, to be impeachable offenses, high crimes and misdemeanors must be of the seriousness of ``Treason'' and ``Bribery.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\ `` `It is known from its associates' . . . the meaning of a word is or may be known from the accompanying words.'' Black's Law Dictionary 1209 (4th ed. 1968). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our Constitutional structure reaffirms that the standard must be a very high one. Ours is a Constitution of separated powers. In that Constitution, the President does not serve at the will of Congress, but as the directly elected,\29\ solitary head of the Executive Branch. The Constitution reflects a judgment that a strong Executive, executing the law independently of legislative will, is a necessary protection for a free people. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ Of course, that election takes place through the mediating activity of the Electoral College. See U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 2-3 and Amend. XII. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These elementary facts of constitutional structure underscore the need for a very high standard for impeachment. The House Managers, in their Brief, suggest that the failure to remove the President would raise the standard for impeachment higher than the Framers intended. They say that if the Senate does not remove the President, ``The bar will be so high that only a convicted felon or a traitor will need to be concerned.'' But that standard is just a modified version of the plain language of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which says a President can only be impeached and removed for ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The Framers wanted a high bar. It was not the intention of the Framers that the President should be subject to the will of the dominant legislative party. As Alexander Hamilton said in a warning against the politicization of impeachment: ``There will always be the greater danger that the decision will be regulated more by comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'' Federalist 65. Our system of government does not permit Congress to unseat the President merely because it disagrees with his behavior or his policies. The Framers' decisive rejection of parliamentary government is one reason they caused the phrase ``Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' to appear in the Constitution itself. They chose to specify those categories of offenses subject to the impeachment power, rather than leave that judgment to the unfettered whim of the legislature. Any just and proper impeachment process must be reasonably viewed by the public as arising from one of those rare cases when the Legislature is compelled to stand in for all the people and remove a President whose continuation in office threatens grave harm to the Republic. Indeed, it is not exaggeration to say--as a group of more than 400 leading historians and constitutional scholars publicly stated--that removal on these articles would ``mangle the system of checks and balances that is our chief safeguard against abuses of public power.'' \30\ Removal of the President on these grounds would defy the constitutional presumption that the removal power rests with the people in elections, and it would do incalculable damage to the institution of the Presidency. If ``successful,'' removal here ``will leave the Presidency permanently disfigured and diminished, at the mercy as never before of the caprices of any Congress.'' \31--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \30\ Statement of Historians in Defense of the Constitution (Oct. 28, 1998) (``Statement of Historians''); see also Schmitt, ``Scholars and Historians Assail Clinton Impeachment Inquiry,'' The New York Times (Oct. 19, 1998) at A18. \31\ Statement of Historians. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Framers made the President the sole nationally elected public official (together with the Vice-President), responsible to all the people. Therefore, when articles of impeachment have been exhibited, the Senate confronts this inescapable question: is the alleged misconduct so profoundly serious, so malevolent to our Constitutional system, that it justifies undoing the people's decision? Is the wrong alleged of a sort that not only demands removal of the President before the ordinary electoral cycle can do its work, but also justifies the national trauma that accompanies the impeachment trial process itself? The wrongdoing alleged here does not remotely meet that standard. b. The Framers Believed that Impeachment and Removal Were Appropriate Only for Offenses Against the System of Government ``[H]igh Crimes and Misdemeanors'' refers to nothing short of Presidential actions that are ``great and dangerous offenses'' or ``attempts to subvert the Constitution.'' \32\ Impeachment was never intended to be a remedy for private wrongs. It was intended to be a method of removing a President whose continued presence in the Office would cause grave danger to the Nation and our Constitutional system of government.\33\ Thus, ``in all but the most extreme instances, impeachment should be limited to abuse of public office, not private misconduct unrelated to public office.'' \34--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\ George Mason, 2 Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 550 (Rev. ed. 1966). \33\ As the 1975 Watergate staff report concluded ``Impeachment is the first step in remedial process--removal from office and possible disqualification from holding future office. The purpose of impeachment is not personal punishment; its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government. . . . In an impeachment proceeding a President is called to account for abusing powers that only a President possesses.'' Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, Report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry, House Comm. on Judiciary, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. at 24 (1974) (``Nixon Impeachment Inquiry''). \34\ Minority Report at 337. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Impeachment was designed to be a means of redressing wrongful public conduct. As scholar and Justice James Wilson wrote, ``our President . . . is amendable to [the laws] in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment.'' \35\ As such, impeachment is limited to certain forms of wrongdoing. Alexander Hamilton described the subject of the Senate's impeachment jurisdiction as ``those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to the society itself.'' 36 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \35\ 2 Elliot, The Debate in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 480 (reprint of 2d ed.) \36\ The Federalist No. 65 at 331 (Gary Wills ed. 1982). As one of the most respected of the early commentators explained, the impeachment ``power partakes of a political character, as it respects injuries to the society in its political character.'' Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, Sec. 744. (reprint of 1st ed. 1833). The Framers ``intended that a president be removable from office for the commission of great offenses against the Constitution.'' \37\ Impeachment therefore addresses public wrongdoing, whether denominated a ``political crime [ ] against the state,'' \38\ or ``an act of malfeasance or abuse of office,'' \39\ or a ``great offense [ ] against the federal government.'' \40\ Ordinary civil and criminal wrongs can be addressed through ordinary judicial processes. And ordinary political wrongs can be addressed at the ballot box and by public opinion. Impeachment is reserved for the most serious public misconduct, those aggravated abuses of executive power that, given the President's four-year term, might otherwise go unchecked. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \37\ John Labovitz, Presidential Impeachment 94 (1978). \38\ Raoul Berger, Impeachment 61 (1973). \39\ Rotunda, An Essay on the Constitutional Parameters of Federal Impeachment, 76 Ky. L.J. 707, 724 (1987/1988). \40\ Gerhardt, The Constitutional Limits to Impeachment and Its Alternatives, 68 Tex. L. Rev. 1, 85 (1989). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Past Precedents Confirm that Allegations of Dishonesty Do Not Alone State Impeachable Offenses Because impeachment of a President nullifies the popular will of the people, as evidence by an election, it must be used with great circumspection. As applicable precedents establish, it should not be used to punish private misconduct. a. The Fraudulent Tax Return Allegation Against President Nixon Five articles of impeachment were proposed against then- President Nixon by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives in 1974. Three were approved and two were not. The approved articles alleged official wrongdoing. Article I charged President Nixon with ``using the powers of his high office [to] engage [ ] . . . in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct'' the Watergate investigation.\41\ Article II described the President as engaging in ``repeated and continuing abuse of the powers of the Presidency in disregard of the fundamental principle of the rule of law in our system of government'' thereby ``us[ing] his power as President to violate the Constitution and the law of the land.'' \42\ Article III charged the President with refusing to comply with Judiciary Committee subpoenas in frustration of a power necessary to ``preserve the integrity of the impeachment process itself and the ability of Congress to act as the ultimate safeguard against improper Presidential conduct.'' \43--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \41\ Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, Report of the Comm. on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess, H. Rep. 93-1305 (Aug. 20, 1974) (hereinafter ``Nixon Report'') at 133. \42\ Nixon Report at 180. \43\ Id. 212-13. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On article not approved by the House Judiciary Committee charged that President Nixon both ``knowingly and fraudulently failed to report certain income and claimed deductions [for 1969-72] on his Federal income tax returns which were not authorized by law.'' \44\ The President had signed his returns for those years under penalty of perjury,\45\ and there was reason to believe that the underlying facts would have supported a criminal prosecution against President Nixon himself.\46--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \44\ Id. at 220. The President was alleged to have failed to report certain income, to have taken improper tax deductions, and to have manufactured (either personally or through his agents) false documents to support the deductions taken. \45\ Given the underlying facts, that act might have provided the basis for multiple criminal charges; conviction on, for example, the tax evasion charge, could have subjected President Nixon to a 5-year prison term. \46\ See Nixon Report at 344 (``the Committee was told by a criminal fraud tax expert that on the evidence presented to the Committee, if the President were an ordinary taxpayer, the government would seek to send him to jail'') (Statement of Additional Views of Mr. Mezvinsky, et al.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Specifying the applicable standard for impeachment, the majority staff concluded that ``[b]ecause impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is to be predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the president office.'' \47--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \47\ Nixon Impeachment Inquiry at 26 (emphasis added). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- And the minority views of many Republican members were in substantial agreement: ``the framers . . . were concerned with preserving the government from being overthrown by the treachery or corruption of one man. . . . [I]t is our judgment, based upon this constitutional history, that the Framers of the United States Constitution intended that the President should be removable by the legislative branch only for serious misconduct dangerous to the system of government established by the Constitution.'' \48--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \48\ Nixon Report at 364-365 (Minority Views of Messrs. Hutchinson, Smith, Sandman, Wiggins, Dennis, Mayne, Lott, Moorhead, Maraziti and Latta). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The legal principle that impeachable offenses required misconduct dangerous to our system of government provided one basis for the Committee's rejection of the fraudulent-tax- return charge. As Congressman Hogan (R-Md.) put the matter, the Constitution's phrase ``high crime signified a crime against the system of government, not merely a serious crime,''\49\ As noted, the tax-fraud charge, involving an act which did not demonstrate public misconduct, was rejected by an overwhelming (and bipartisan) 26-12 margin.\50--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \49\ Id. (quoting with approval conclusion of Nixon Impeachment Inquiry). \50\ Nixon Report at 220. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- b. The Financial Misdealing Allegation Against Alexander Hamilton In 1792, Congress investigated Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton for alleged financial misdealings with a convicted swindler. Hamilton had made payments to the swindler and had urged his wife (Hamilton's paramour) to burn incriminating correspondence. Members of Congress investigated the matter and it came to the attention of President Washington and future Presidents Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. This private matter was not deemed worthy of removing Mr. Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury.\51\ Even when it eventually became public, it was no barrier to Hamilton's appointment to high position in the United States Army. Although not insignificant, Hamilton's behavior was essentially private. It was certain not regarded as impeachable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \51\ See generally Rosenfeld, ``Founding Fathers Didn't Flinch,'' The Los Angeles Times (September 18, 1980). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. The Views of Prominent Historians and Legal Scholars Confirm that Impeachable Offenses Are not Present a. No Impeachable Offense Has Been Stated Here There is strong agreement among consititutional scholars and historians that the articles do not charge impeachable offenses. As Professor Michael Gerhardt summarized in his recent testimony before a subcommitte of the House of Representatives, there is ``widespread recognition [of] a paradigmatic case for impeachment.''\52\ In such a case, ``there must be a nexus between the misconduct of an impeachable official and the latter's official duties.''\53--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \52\ Statement of Professor Michael J. Gerhardt Before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee Regarding the Background and History of Impeachment (November 9, 1998) at 13 (``Subcommittee Hearings''). \53\Ibid. (emphasis added). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is no such nexus here. Indeed the allegations are so far removed from official wrongdoing that their assertion here threatens to weaken significantly the Presidency itself. As the more than 400 prominent historians and constitutional scholars warned in their public statement: ``[t]he theory of impeachment underlying these efforts is unprecedented in our history . . . [and is] are extremely ominous for the future of our political insitutions. If carried forward, [the current processes] will leave the Presidency permanently disfigured and diminished, at the mercy as never before of the caprices of any Congress.\54--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \54\ Statement of Historians. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Similarly, in a letter to the House of Representatives, an extraordinary group of 430 legal scholars argued together that these offenses, even if proven true, did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.\55\ The gist of these scholarly objections is that the alleged wrongdoing is insufficiently connected to the exercise of public office. Because the articles charge wrongdoing of an essentially private nature, any harm such behavior poses is too removed from our system of government to justify unseating the President. Numerous scholars, opining long before the current controversy, have emphasized the necessary connection of impeachable wrongs to threats against the state itself. They have found that impeachment should be reserved for: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \55\ See Letter of 430 Law Professors to Messrs. Gingrich, Gephardt, Hyde and Conyers (released Nov. 6, 1998). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``offenses against the government'';\56--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \56\ Labovitx, Presidential Impeachment at 26. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``political crime against the state''; \57--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \57\ Berger, Impeachment at 61. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``serious assaults on the integrity of the processes of government''; \58--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \58\ Charles L. Black, Jr. Impeachment: A Handbook 38-39 (1974). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``wrongdoing convincingly established [and] so egregious that [the President's] continuation in office is intolerable'';\59--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \59\ Labovitz Presidential Impeachment at 110. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``malfeasance or abuse of office,''\60\ bearing a ``functional relationship'' to public office; \61--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \60\ Rotunda, 76 Ky. L.J. at 726. \61\ Ibid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``great offense[s] against the federal government''; \62--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \62\ Gerhardt, 68 Tex. L. Rev. at 85. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``acts which, like treason and bribery, undermine the integrity of government.'' 63 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \63\ Committee on Federal Legislation of the Bar Ass'n of the City of New York, The Law of Presidential Impeachment 18 (1974). The articles contain nothing approximating that level of wrongdoing. Indeed the House Managers themselves acknowledge that ``the President's [alleged] perjury and obstruction do not directly involve his official conduct.'' 64 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \64\ House Br. at 109. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- b. To Make Impeachable Offenses of These Allegations would Forever Lower the Bar in a Way Inimical to the Presidency and to Our Government of Separated powers These articles allege (1) sexual misbehavior, (2) statements about sexual misbehavior and (3) attempts to conceal the fact of sexual misbehavior. These kinds of wrongs are simply not subjects fit for impeachment. To remove a President on this basis would lower the impeachment bar to an unprecedented level and create a devastating precedent. As Professor Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., addressing this problem, has testified: ``Lowering the bar for impeachment creates a novel . . . revolutionary theory of impeachment, [and] . . . would send us on an adventure with ominous implications for the separation of powers that the Constitution established as the basis of our political order. It would permanently weaken the Presidency.'' 65 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \65\ Subcommittee Hearings (Written Statement of Arthur Schlesinger, Tr. at 2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The lowering of the bar that Professor Schlesinger described must stop here. Professor Jack Rakove made a similar point when he stated that ``Impeachment [is] a remedy to be deployed only in . . . unequivocal cases where . . . the insult to the constitutional system is grave.'' 66 Indeed, he said, there ``would have to be a high degree of consensus on both sides of the aisle in Congress and in both Houses to proceed.'' 67 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \66\ Subcommittee Hearings (Written Statement of Professor Jack Rakove at 4). \67\ Subcommittee Hearings (Oral Testimony of Professor Rakove). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bipartisan consensus was, of course, utterly lacking in the House of Representatives. No civil officer--no President, no judge, no cabinet member--has ever been impeached by so narrow a margin as supported the articles exhibited here.68 The closeness and partisan division of the vote reflect the constitutionally dubious nature of the charges. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \68\ The present articles were approved by margins of 228-206 (Article I) and 221-212 (Article II). All prior resolutions were approved by substantially wider margins in the House of Representatives. See Impeachments of the following civil officers: Judge John Pickering (1803) (45-8; Justice Samuel Chase (1804) (73-32; Judge James Peck (1830) 143-49; Judge West Humphreys (1862) (no vote available, but resolution of impeachment voted ``without division,'' see 3 Hinds Precedents of the House of Representatives Sec. 2386); President Andrew Johnson (1868) (128-47; Judge James Belknap (1876) (unanimous); Judge Charles Swayne (1903) (unanimous); Judge Robert Archbald (1912) (223-1); Judge George English (1925) (306-62); Judge Harold Louderback (1932) (183--143); Judge Halsted Ritter (1933) (181-146); Judge Harry Claiborne (1986) (406-0); Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr. (1988) (417-0); Judge Alcee L. Hastings (1988) (413-3). The impeachment resolution against Senator William Bount in 1797 was by voice vote and so no specific count was recorded. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- When articles are based on sexual wrongdoing, and when they have passed only by the narrowest, partisan margin, the future of our constitutional politics is in the balance. The very stability of our Constitutional government may depend upon the Senate's response to these articles. Nothing about this case justifies removal of a twice-elected President, because no ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' are alleged. 5. Comparisons to Impeachment of Judges Are Wrong The House Managers suggest that perjury per se is an impeachable offense because (1) several federal judges have been impeached and removed for perjury, and (2) those precedents control this case. See House Br. at 95-105. That notion is erroneous. It is blind both to the qualitative differences among different allegations of perjury and the very basic differences between federal judges and the President. First, the impeachment and removal of a Federal judge, while a very solemn task, implicates very different considerations than the impeachment of a president. Federal judges are appointed without public approval and enjoy life tenure without public accountability. Consequently, they hold their offices under our Constitution only ``during good behavior.'' Under our system, impeachment is the only way to remove a Federal judge from office--even a Federal judge sitting in jail.69 By contrast, a president is elected by the Nation to a term, limited to a specified number of years, and he faces accountability in the form of elections. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \69\ Former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, during a recent judicial impeachment proceeding, cogently explained the unique position that Federal judges hold in our Constitutional system: ``The judges of our Federal courts occupy a unique position of trust and responsibility in our government: They are the only members of any branch that hold their office for life; they are purposely insulated from the immediate pressures and shifting currents of the body politic. But with the special prerogative of judicial independence comes the most exacting standard of public and private conduct . . . The high standard of behavior for judges is inscribed in article III of the Constitution, which provides that judges ``shall hold offices during good behavior. . . .'' (132 Cong. Rec. H4712 (July 22, 1986) (impeachment of Judge Harry E. Claiborne) (emphasis added). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Second, whether an allegedly perjurious statement rises to the level of an impeachable offense depends necessarily on the particulars of that statement, and the relation of those statements to the fulfillment of official responsibilities. In the impeachment of Judge Harry Claiborne, the accused had been convicted of filing false income tax returns.\70\ As a judge, Claiborne was charged with the responsibility of hearing tax-evasion cases. Once convicted, he simply could not perform his official functions because his personal probity had been impaired such that he could not longer be an arbiter of others' oaths. His wrongdoing bore a direct connection to the performance of his judicial tasks. The inquiry into President Nixon disclosed similar wrongdoing, but the House Judiciary Committee refused to approve an article of impeachment against the President on that basis. The case of Judge Walter Nixon is similar. He was convicted of making perjurious statements concerning his intervention in a judicial proceeding, which is to say, employing the power and prestige of his office to obtain advantage for a party.\71\ Although the proceeding at issue was not in his court, his use of the judicial office for the private gain of a party to a judicial proceeding directly implicated his official functions. Finally, Judge Alcee Hastings was impeached and removed for making perjurious statements at his trial for conspiring to fix cases in his own court.\72\ As with Judges Claiborne and Nixon, Judge Hastings' perjurious statements were immediately and incurably detrimental to the performance of his official duties. The allegations against the President, which (as the Managers acknowledge) ``do not directly involve his official conduct,'' House Br. at 109, simply do not involve wrongdoing of gravity sufficient to foreclose effective performance of the Presidential office. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \70\ Proceedings of the United States Senate in the Impeachment Trial of Harry E. Claiborne, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., S. Doc. 99-48 at 291-98 (1986) (``Claiborne Proceedings''). \71\ Proceedings of the United States Senate in the Impeachment Trial of Walter L. Nixon, Jr., 101st Cong., 1st Sess., S. Doc. 101-22 at 430-440 (1989) (``Judge Nixon Proceedings''). \72\ See Proceedings of the United States Senate in the Impeachment Trial of Alcee L. Hastings, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., S. Doc. 101-18 (1989). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Impeachment scholar John Labovitz, writing of the judicial impeachment cases predating Watergate, observed that: ``For both legal and practical reasons, th[e] [judicial impeachment] cases did not necessarily affect the grounds for impeachment of a president. The practical reason was that it seemed inappropriate to determine the fate of an elected chief executive on the basis of law developed in proceedings directed at petty misconduct by obscure judges. The legal reason was that the Constitution provides that judges serve during good behavior. . . . [T]he [good behavior] clause made a difference in judicial impeachments, confounding the application of these cases to presidential impeachment''.\73 \73\ Labovitz, Presidential Impeachment at 92-93 (emphasis added). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thus, the judicial precedents relied upon by the House Managers have only ``limited force when applied to the impeachment of a President.''\74--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \74\ Office of Senate Legal Counsel, Memorandum on Impeachment Issues at 26 (Oct. 7, 1988) (summarizing view of some commentators). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The most telling rejoinder to the House's argument comes from President Ford. His definition of impeachable offenses, offered as a congressman in 1970 in connection with an effort to impeach Associate Justice William O. Douglas--that it is, in essence, ``whatever the majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be''--has been cited. Almost never noted is the more important aspect of then-Congressman Ford's statement--that, in contrast to the life-tenure of judges, because presidents can be removed by the electorate, ``to remove them in midterm . . . would indeed require crimes of the magnitude of treason and bribery.''\75--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \75\ 116 Cong. Rec. 11912, 11913, (1970). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- b. the standard of proof Beyond the question of what constitutes an impeachable offense, each Senator must confront the question of what standard the evidence must meet to justify a vote of ``guilty.'' The Senate has, of course, addressed this issue before--most recently in the trials of Judge Claiborne and Judge Hastings. We recognize that the Senate chose in the Claiborne proceedings, and reaffirmed in the Hastings trial, not to impose itself any single standard of proof but, rather, to leave that judgment to the conscience of each senator. Many Senators here today were present for the debate on this issue and chose a standard by which to test the evidence. For many Senators, however, the issue is a new one. And none previously has had to face the issue in the special context of a Presidential impeachment. We argued before the House Judiciary Committee that it must treat a vote to impeach as, in effect, a vote to remove the President from office and that a decision of such moment ought not to be based on anything less than ``clear and convincing'' evidence. That standard is higher than the ``preponderance of the evidence'' test applicable to the ordinary civil case but lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt test applicable to a criminal case. Nonetheless, we felt that the clear and convincing standard was consistent with the grave responsibility of triggering a process that might result in the removal of a president. In fact, it had been the standard agreed upon by both Watergate Committee majority and minority counsel (as well as counsel for President Nixon) twenty-four years ago. Certainly no lesser standard should be applied in the Senate. Indeed, we submit that the gravity of the decision the Senate must reach should lead each Senator to go further and ask whether the House has established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Both lawyers and laymen too often treat the standard of proof as meaningless legal jargon with no application to the real world of difficult decisions. But it is much more than that. In our system of justice, it is the guidepost that shows the way through the labyrinth of conflicting evidence. It tells the factfinder to look within and ask: ``Would I make the most important decisions of my life based on the degree of certainty I have about these facts?'' In the unique legal-political setting of an impeachment trial, it protects against partisan overreaching, and it assures the public that this grave decision has been made with care. In sum, it is a disciplining force to carry into the deliberations. This point is given added weight by the language of the Constitution. Article I, section 3, clause 6 of the United States Constitution gives to the Senate ``the Power to try all Impeachments. . . . and no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.'' (Emphasis added.) Use of the words ``try'' and ``convicted'' strongly suggests that an impeachment trial is akin to a criminal proceeding and that the beyond-a- reasonable-doubt standard of criminal proceedings should be used. This position was enunciated in the Minority Views contained in the Report of the House Judiciary Committee on the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon (H.Rep. 93-1305 at 377-381) and has been espoused as the correct standard by such Senators as Robert Taft, Jr., Sam Ervin, Strom Thurmond and John Stennis.\76--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \76\ Claiborne Proceedings at 106-107. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even if the clear and convincing standard nonetheless is appropriate for judicial impeachments, it does not follow that it should be applied where the Presidency itself is at stake. With judges, the Senate must balance its concern for the independence of the judiciary against the recognition that, because judges hold life-time tenure, impeachment is the only available means to protect the public against those who are corrupt. On the other hand, when a President is on trial, the balance to be struck is quite different. Here the Senate is asked, in effect, to overturn the results of an election held two years ago in which the American people selected the head of one of the three coordinate branches of government. It is asked to take this action in circumstances where there is no suggestion of corruption or misuse of office--or any other conduct that places our system of government at risk in the two remaining years of the President's term, when once again the people will judge who they wish to lead them. In this setting, the evidence should be tested by the most stringent standard we know--proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Only then can the American people be confident that this most serious of constitutional decisions has been given the careful consideration it deserves. IV. The President Should Be Acquitted on Article I The evidence does not support the allegations of Article I. a. applicable law Article I alleges perjury, along with false and misleading statements, before a federal grand jury. Perjury is a statutory crime that is set forth in the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1623.\77\ Before an accused may be found guilty of perjury before a grand jury, a prosecutor most prove all elements of the offense. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \77\ Section 1623 provides in relevant part: ``(a) Whoever under oath . . . in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information . . . knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.'' (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1623(a) (1994)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the criminal law context, Sec. 1623 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the following elements: that an accused (1) while under oath (2) knowingly (3) made a false statement as to (4) material facts. The ``materiality'' element is fundamental: it means that testimony given to a grand jury may be found perjurious only if it had a tendency to influence, impede, or hamper the grand jury's investigation. See, e.g., United States v. Reilly, 33 F.3d 1396, 1419 (3d Cir. 1994); United States v. Barrett, 111 F.3d 947, 953 (D.C. Cir. 1997). If an answer provided to a grand jury has no impact on the grand jury's investigation, or if it relates to a subject that the grand jury is not considering, it is incapable as a matter of law of being perjurious. Thus, alleged false testimony concerning details that a grand jury is not investigating cannot as a matter of law constitute perjury, since such testimony by definition is immaterial. See, e.g., United States v. Lasater, 535 F.2d 1041, 1048 (8th Cir. 1976) (where defendant admitted signing letter and testified to its purpose, his denial of actually writing letter was not material to grand jury investigation and was incapable of supporting perjury charge); United States v. Pyle, 156 F.2d 852, 856 (D.C. Cir. 1946) (details such as whether defendant ``paid the rent on her Washington apartment, as she testified that she did'' were ``not pertinent to the issue being tried;'' therefore, ``the false statement attributed to [defendant] was in no way material in the case in which she made it and did not constitute perjury within the meaning of the statute.'') In other words, mere falsity--even knowing falsity--is not perjury if the statement at issue is not ``material'' to the matter under consideration. An additional ``element'' of perjury prosecutions, at least as a matter of prosecutorial practice, is that a perjury conviction cannot rest solely on the testimony of one witness. In United States v. Weiler, 323 U.S. 606, 608-09 (1945), the Supreme Court observed that the ``special rule which bars conviction for perjury solely upon the evidence of a single witness is deeply rooted in past centuries.'' While Sec. 1623 does not literally incorporate the so-called ``two- witness'' rule, the case law makes clear that perjury prosecutions under this statute require a high degree of proof, and that prosecutors should not, as a matter of reason and practicality, try to bring perjury prosecutions based solely on the testimony of a single witness. As the Supreme Court has cautioned, perjury cases should not rest merely upon ``an oath against an oath.'' Id. at 609. Indeed, that is exactly the point that experienced former federal prosecutors made to the House Judiciary Committee. A panel of former federal prosecutors, some Republican, testified that they would not charge perjury based upon the facts in this case. For example, Mr. Thomas Sullivan, a former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, told the Committee that ``the evidence set out in the Starr report would not be prosecuted as a criminal case by a responsible federal prosecutor.'' See Transcript of ``Prosecutorial Standards for Obstruction of Justice and Perjury'' Hearing (Dec. 9, 1998); see generally Minority Report at 340-47. As Mr. Sullivan emphasized, ``because perjury and obstruction charges often arise from private dealings with few observers, the courts have required either two witnesses who testified directly to the facts establishing the crime, or, if only one witness testifies to the facts constituting the alleged perjury, that there be substantial corroborating proof to establish guilt.'' See Transcript of ``Prosecutorial Standards for Obstruction of Justice and Perjury'' Hearing (Dec. 9, 1998). The other prosecutors on the panel agreed. Mr. Richard J. Davis, who served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and as a Task Force Leader for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, testified that ``it is virtually unheard of to bring a perjury prosecution based solely on the conflicting testimony of two people.'' Id. A review of the perjury alleged here thus requires both careful scrutiny of the materiality of any alleged falsehood and vigilance against conviction merely on an ``oath against an oath.'' Weiler, 323 U.S. at 609. b. structure of the allegations Article I charges that the President committed perjury when he testified before the grand jury on August 17, 1998. It alleges he ``willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning ``one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.'' As noted above, the article does not provide guidance on the particular statements alleged to be perjurious, false and misleading. But by reference to the different views in the House Committee Report, the presentation of House Majority Counsel David Schippers, the OIC Referral, and the Trial Memorandum of the House Managers, we have attempted to identify certain statements from which members of the House might have chosen. Subpart (1) alleges that the President committed perjury before the grand jury about the details of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky--including apparently such insignificant matters as mis-remembering the precise month on which certain inappropriate physical contact started, understating as ``occasional'' his infrequent inappropriate physical and telephone contacts with Ms. Lewinsky over a period of many months, characterizing their relationship as starting as a friendship, and touching Ms. Lewinsky in certain ways and for certain purposes during their intimate encounters. Subpart (2) of Article I alleges that the President made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury when he testified about certain responses he had given in the Jones civil deposition. The House Managers erroneously suggest that in the grand jury President Clinton was asked about and reaffirmed his entire deposition testimony, including his deposition testimony about whether he had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky. See House Br. at 2, 60. That is demonstrably false. Those statements that the President did in fact make in the grand jury, by way of explaining his deposition testimony, were truthful. Moreover, to the extent this subpart repeats allegations of Article II of the original proposed articles of impeachment, the full House of Representatives has explicitly considered and specifically rejected those charges, and their consideration would violate the impeachment procedures mandated by the Constitution. Subparts (3) and (4) allege that the President lied in the grand jury when he testified about certain activities in late 1997 and early 1998. They are based on statements about conduct that the House Managers claim constitutes obstruction of justice under Article II and in many respects track Article II. Compare Article I (3) (perjury in the grand jury concerning alleged ``prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge'') with Article II (5) (obstructing justice by ``allow[ing] his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge) and compare Article I (4) (perjury in the grand jury concerning alleged ``corrupt efforts to influence testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence'') with Article II (3), (6), (7) (obstructing justice when he (3) ``engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence,'' i.e., gifts; (6) ``corruptly influence[d] the testimony'' of Betty Currie; (7) ``made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses''). These perjury allegations are without merit both because the obstruction charges upon which they are based are wrong and because the statements that President Clinton made in the grand jury about these charges are true. Because of the close parallel, and for sake of brevity in this submission, we have dealt comprehensively with these overlapping allegations in the next section addressing Article II (obstruction of justice), and address them only briefly in this section. c. response to the particular allegations in article i The president testified truthfully before the grand jury. There must be no mistake about what the President said. He admitted to the grand jury that he had engaged in an inappropriate intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky over a period of many months. He admitted to the grand jury that he had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky. He admitted to the grand jury that he had mislead his family, his friends and staff, and the entire Nation about the nature of that relationship. No one who heard the President's August 17 speech or watched the President's videotaped grand jury testimony had any doubt that he had admitted to an ongoing physical relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The article makes general allegations about his testimony but does not specify alleged false statements, so direct rebuttal is impossible. In light of this uncertainty, we set forth below responses to the allegations that have been made by the House Managers, the House Committee, and the OIC, even though they were not adopted in the article, in an effort to try to respond comprehensively to the charges. 1. The President denies that he made materially false or misleading statements to the grand jury about ``the nature and details of his relationship'' with Monica Lewinsky (a) Early in his grand jury testimony, the President specifically acknowleded that he had had a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that involved ``improper intimate contact.'' App. at 461. He described how the relationship began and how it ended early in 1997--long before any public attention or scrutiny. In response to the first question about Ms. Lewinsky, the President read the following statement: ``When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse. They did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition. But they did involve inappropriate intimate contact. ``These inappropriate encounteres ended, at my insistence, in early 1997. I also had occasional telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included inappropriate sexual banter. ``I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this conduct, and I take full responsibility for my actions. ``While I will provide the grand jury whatever other information I can, because of privacy considerations affecting my family, myself, and others, and in an effort to preserve the dignity of the office I hold, this is all I will say about the specifics of these particular matters. ``I will try to answer, to the best of my ability, other questions including questions about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; questions about my understanding of the term `sexual relations', as I understood it to be denied at my January 17th, 1998 deposition; and questions concerning alleged subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and intimidation of witnesses.'' App. at 460-62. The President occasionally referred back to this statement--but only when asked very specific questions about his physical relationship with Ms. Lewinsky--and he otherwise responded fully to four hours of interrogation about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, his answers in the civil deposition, and his conduct surrounding the Jones deposition. The articles are silent on precisely what statements the President made about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that were allegedly perjurious. But between the House Brief and the Committee Report, both drafted by the Managers, it appears there are three aspects of this prepared statement that are alleged to be false and misleading because Ms. Lewinsky's recollection differs--albeit with respect to certain very specific, utterly immaterial matters: first, when the President admitted that inappropriate conduct occurred ``on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in 1997,'' he allegedly committed perjury because in the Managers' view, the first instance of inappropriate conduct apparently occurred a few months prior to ``early 1996,'' see House Br. at 53; second, when the President admitted to inappropriate conduct ``on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in 1997,'' he allegedly committed perjury because, according to the House Committee, there were eleven total sexual encounters and the term ``on certain occasions'' implied something other than eleven. see Committee Report at 34; and third, when the President admitted that he ``had occasional telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included sexual banter,'' he allegedly committed perjury because, according to the House Committee (although not Ms. Lewinsky), seventeen conversations may have included sexually explicit conversation, ibid. Apart from the fact that the record itself refutes some of the allegations (for example, seven of the seventeen calls were only ``possible,'' according even to the OIC, App. at 116-26, and Ms. Lewinsky recalled fewer than seventeen, App. at 744), simply to state them is to reveal their utter immateriality. \78--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \78\ Even the OIC Referral did not allege perjury based on these latter two theories and mentioned the first only briefly. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The President categorically denies that his prepared statement was perjurious, false and misleading in any respect. He offered his written statement to focus the questioning in a manner that would allow the OIC to obtain the information it needed without unduly dwelling on the salacious details of his relationship. It preceded almost four hours of follow-up questions about the relationship. It is utterly remarkable that the Managers now find fault even with the President's very painful public admission of inappropriate conduct. In any event, the charges are totally without merit. The Committee Report takes issue with the terms ``on certain occasions'' and ``occasional,'' but neither phrase implies a definite or maximum number. ``On certain occasions''--the phrase introducing discussion of the physical contacts--has virtually no meaning other than ``it sometimes happened.'' It is unfathomable what objective interpretation the Majority gives to this phrase to suggest that it could be false. An attack on the phrase ``occasional''--the phrase introducing discussion of the inappropriate telephone contacts--is little different. Dictionaries define ``occasional'' to mean ``occurring at irregular or infrequent intervals'' or ``now and then.'' \79\ It is a measure of the Committee Report's extraordinary overreaching to suggest that the eleven occasions of intimate contact alleged by the House Majority over well more than a year did not occur, by any objective reading, ``on certain occasions.'' And since even the OIC Referral acknowledges that the inappropriate telephone contact occurred not ``at least 17 times'' (as the Committee Report and the Managers suggest, Committee Report at 8; House Br. at 11) but between 10 and 15 times over a 23-month period,\80\ ``occasional'' would surely seem not just a reasonable description but the correct one. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \79\ Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1997) p. 803; see also Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary (1988) p. 812 (``occurring from time to time; infrequent''); Chambers English Dictionary (1988 ed.) p. 992 (``occurring infrequently, irregularly, now and then''); The American Heritage Dictionary (2d Coll. ed.) (``occurring from time to time''); Webster's New World Dictionary (3d Coll. ed.) p. 937 (``of irregular occurrence; happening now and then; infrequent''). \80\ The OIC chart of contacts between Ms. Lewinsky and the President identifies ten phone conversations ``including phone sex'' and seven phone conversations ``possibly'' including phone sex. App. at 116-26. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, these squabbles are utterly immaterial. Even if the President and Ms. Lewinsky disagreed as to the precise number of such encounters, it is of no consequence whatsoever to anything, given his admission of their relationship. This is precisely the kind of disagreement that the law does not intend to capture as perjury. The date of the first intimate encounter is also totally immaterial. Having acknowledged the relationship, the President had no conceivable motive to misstate the date on which it began. The Managers assert that the President committed perjury when he testified about when the relationship began, but they offer no rationale for why he would have done so.\81\ The President had already made a painful admission. Any misstatement about when the intimate relationship began (if there was a misstatement) cannot justify a charge of perjury, let alone the removal of the President from office. As Chairman Hyde himself stated in reference to this latter allegation, ``It doesn't strike me as a terribly serious count.'' Remarks of Chairman Hyde at Perjury Hearing of December 1, 1998. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \81\ The Committee Report did not adopt the baseless surmise of the OIC Referral, i.e., that the President lied about the starting date of his relationship because Ms. Lewinsky was still an intern at the time, whereas she later became a paid employee. For good reason. The only support offered by the Referral for this conjecture is a comment Ms. Lewinsky attributes to the President in which he purportedly said that her pink ``intern pass'' ``might be a problem.'' Referral at 149-50. But even Ms. Lewinsky indicated that the President was not referring to her intern status, but rather was noting that, as an intern with a pink ``intern pass,'' she had only limited access to the West Wing of the White House. App. at 1567 (Lewinsky FBI 302 8/24/98). Moreover, Ms. Lewinsky had in fact become an employee by late 1995, so even under the OIC theory the President could have acknowledged such intimate contact in 1995. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (b) The Managers also assert that the President lied when, after admitting that he had an inappropriate sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, he maintained that he did not touch Ms. Lewinsky in a manner that met the definition used in the Jones deposition. See House Br. at 54. The President admits that he engaged in appropriate physical contact with Ms. Lewinsky, but has testified that he did not engage in activity that met the convoluted and truncated definition he was presented in the Jones deposition.\82--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \82\ At the deposition, the Jones attorneys presented a broad, three-part definition of the term ``sexual relations'' to be used by them in the questioning. Judge Wright ruled that two parts of the definition were ``too broad'' and eliminated them. Dep. at 22. The President, therefore, was presented with the following definition (as he understood it to have been amended by the Court): Definition of Sexual Relations-- For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in ``sexual relations'' when the person knowingly engages in or causes-- (1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (2) contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals and anus of another person; or (3) contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body. ``Contact'' means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is important to note that this Jones definition was not of the President's making. It was one provided to him by the Jones' lawyers for their questioning of him. Under that definition, oral sex performed by Ms. Lewinsky on the President would not constitute sexual relations, while touching certain areas of Ms. Lewinsky's body with the intent to arouse her would meet the definition. The President testified in the grand jury that believed that oral sex performed on him fell outside the Jones definition. App. at 544.\83\ As strange as this may sound, a totally reasonable reading of the definition supports that conclusion, as many commentators have agreed.\84--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \83\ The Managers erroneously suggest that the President's explanation of his understanding of the Jones deposition definition of ``sexual relations'' is a recent fabrication rather than an accurate account of his view at the time of the deposition. House Br. at 54-55. To support this contention, the Managers, among other meritless arguments, point to a document produced by the White House entitled ``January 24, 1998 Talking Points,'' stating that oral sex would constitute a sexual relationship for the President. Id. at 55. This document, however, was not created, reviewed or approved by the President and did not represent his views. It is irrelevant to the issue at hand for the additional reason that it does not speak by its own terms to the meaning of the contorted definition of ``sexual relations'' used in the Jones deposition. \84\ See, e.g., Perjury Hearing of December 1, 1998 (Statement of Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg at 2) (``That definition defined certain forms of sexual contact as sexual relations but, for reasons known only to the Jones lawyers, limited the definition to contact with any person for the purpose of gratification.''); MSNBC Internight, August 12, 1998 (Cynthia Alksne) (``[W]hen the definition finally was put before the president, it did not include the receipt of oral sex''); ``DeLay Urges a Wait For Starr's Report,'' The Washington Times (August 31, 1998) (``The definition of sexual relations, used by lawyers for Paula Jones when they questioned the president, was loosely worded and may not have included oral sex''); ``Legally Accurate,'' The National Law Journal (August 31, 1998) (``Given the narrowness of the court-approved definition in [the Jones] case, Mr. Clinton indeed may not have perjured himself back then if, say, he received oral sex but did not reciprocate sexually''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This claim comes down to an oath against an oath about immaterial details concerning an acknowledged wrongful relationship. 2. The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury about testimony he gave in the Jones case First, it is important to understand that the allegation of Article I that the President ``willfully provided false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning . . . prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in'' the Jones deposition is premised on a misunderstanding of the President's grand jury testimony. The President was not asked to, and he did not, reaffirm his entire Jones deposition testimony during his grand jury appearance. For example, contrary to popular myth and the undocumented assertion of the House Managers, House Br. at 2, the President was never even asked in the grand jury about his answer to the deposition question whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had been ``together alone in the Oval Office.'' Dep. at 52-53,\85\ and he therefore neither reaffirmed it nor even addressed it. In fact, in the grand jury he was asked only about a small handful of his answers in the deposition. As is demonstrated below, his explanation of these answers were not reaffirmations or in any respect evasive or misleading--they were completely truthful, and they do not support a perjury allegation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \85\ The only questions the OIC asked the President about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky did not reference the deposition at all. Instead, the OIC asked the President to elaborate on his acknowledgement in his prepared statement before the grand jury that he had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky, App. at 481, and to explain why he made a statement, ``I was never alone with her'' to Ms. Currie on January 18th. See, e.g., App. at 583. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The extent to which this allegation of the House Majority misses the mark is dramatically apparent when it is compared with the OIC's Referral. The OIC did not charge that the President's statements about his prior deposition testimony were perjurious (apart from the charge discussed above concerning the nature and details of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky).\86\ See OIC Ref. at 145. It would be remarkable to contemplate charges beyond those brought by the OIC, particularly in the context of a perjury claim where the OIC chose what to ask the President and itself conducted the grand jury session. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \86\ Specifically, the Referral alleges that the President lied when he testified (1) that ``he believed that oral sex was not covered by any of the terms and definitions for sexual activity used at the Jones deposition''; (2) that their physical contact was more limited than Ms. Lewinsky's testimony suggests; and (3) that their intimate relationship began in early 1996 and not late 1995. Id. at 148-49. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The House Managers point to a single statement made by President Clinton in the grand jury to justify their contention that every statement from his civil deposition is now fair game. House Br. at 60. Specifically, the House Managers rely on President Clinton's explanation in the grand jury of his state of mind during the Jones deposition: ``My goal in this deposition was to be truthful, but not particularly helpful . . . I was determined to walk through the mine field of this deposition without violating the law, and I believe I did.'' App. at 532. In addition to being a true statement of his belief as to his legal position, this single remark plainly was not intended as and was not a broad reaffirmation of the accuracy of all the statements the President made during the Jones deposition. Indeed, given that he told the grand jury that he had an intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky during which he was alone with her, no one who heard the grand jury testimony could have understood it to be the unequivocal reaffirmation that is alleged. The Managers charge that the President did not really mean it when he told the grand jury how he was trying to be literally truthful in the Jones deposition without providing information about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The President had endeavored to navigate the deposition without having to make embarrassing admissions about his inappropriate, albeit consensual, relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. And to do this, the President walked as close to the line between (a) truthful but evasive or non-responsive testimony and (b) false testimony as he could without crossing it. He sought, as he explained to the grand jury, to give answers that were literally accurate, even if, as a result, they were evasive and thus misleading. We repeat: what is at issue here is not the underlying statements made by the President in the deposition, but the President's explanations in the grand jury of his effort to walk a fine line. Anyone who reads or watches that deposition knows the President was in fact trying to do precisely what he has admitted--to give the lawyers grudging, unresponsive or even misleading answers without actually lying. However successful or unsuccessful he might have been, there is no evidence that controverts the fact that this was indeed the President's intention. An examination of the statements that the President actually did make in the grand jury about his deposition testimony further demonstrates the lack of merit in this article. In the grand jury, the President only was asked about three areas of his deposition testimony that were covered in the failed impeachment article alleging perjury in the civil deposition.\87\ The first topic was the nature of any intimate contact with Ms. Lewinsky and has already been addressed above. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \87\ The proposed article of impeachment alleging perjury in the civil deposition, like the two that are before the Senate, did not identity any specific instances of false testimony, but we have made our comparison with the Committee Report's elaboration of the deposition perjury article as it undoubtedly represents the largest universe of alleged perjurious statements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The second topic was the President's testimony about his knowledge of gifts he exchanged with Ms. Lewinsky. In his grand jury testimony, the President had the following exchange with the OIC: Q: When you testified in the Paula Jones case, this was only two and a half weeks after you had given her these six gifts, you were asked, at page 75 in your deposition, lines 2 through 5, ``Well, have you ever given any gifts to Monica Lewinsky?'' And you answered, ``I don't recall.'' And you were correct. You pointed out that you actually asked them, for prompting, ``Do you know what they were?'' A: I think what I meant there was I don't recall what they were, not that I don't recall whether I had given them. And then if you see, they did give me these specifics, and I gave them quite a good explanation here. I remembered very clearly what the facts were about The Bla